said, that in rising to move the Motion that stood in his name, he feared he must apologise to the House if he should detain hon. Members for some little time. They knew that he was not given to the undue occupation of time, or to the obstruction of Bills, much less a Bill of this kind. This measure, as a fact, had never been discussed on the Second Reading. No doubt it was a Private Bill, but at the same time all its provisions were of vital interest to the public. The compromise which had been arrived at between the Thames Conservancy Board and the London County Council made it all the more necessary, according to his view, that there should be this fresh discussion. He had no hesitation in saying that the outcome of the compromise was of a mischievous character. Under the arrangement arrived at four new members were to be added to an already redundant and excessive Board, all of whom would probably be politicians opposed one to the other. He was aware of the great susceptibility of the House as to interference with the judgment of a Committee on a Private Bill, and he was willing to say that he shared that susceptibility himself to the fullest extent, because he knew that opposition of this kind was sometimes brought forward for the purpose of wrecking Bills. There was no intention of the kind on his part. On the contrary, he did not desire that the Bill should be ended but mended. While he had the very highest respect for the labours of the Committee, he must say that he did not attach any particular sacredness to their decision, nor did he think it sacrilegious to question the wisdom and outcome of their judgment in some respects. He had heard hon. Gentlemen congratulating each other with regard to the compromise that had been come to, and he must confess that he was unable to understand how they came to be so well satisfied. He thought he ought to explain in a word or two the reason why this Motion was not brought forward at an earlier stage. The reason was a simple one indeed. They had hoped up to the eleventh hour, when the Bill was before the Committee, to be able to convince the Committee that it would be of the greatest possible advantage to the interests of all the parties concerned if there was a line of demarcation drawn as between the interests of the upper and the lower river. He would say nothing with regard to the judgment of the Committee in having refused the adoption of an idea of that kind. The Thames Conservancy Board opposed every proposal that was made in the shipping interest, and nothing could be done in that direction. That House, however, was at liberty to adopt a much wider view than a Private Bill Committee would be likely to do if it could be shown, as he submitted it could be shown, that the administration of the Port of London could be more successfully conducted by a controlling body other than that provided by the Bill. They had to look to the body that would develop and improve and make more efficient the facilities of the Port, and in this connection they had to consider whether the present Conservancy Board had done justice to the requirements of the Port. He would not offer any extreme criticism on this head, but would simply say that, according to the public opinion of the City, the Board had not kept themselves up to the level of the requirements of the day; that they were not sufficiently energetic; that they had not marched with the times, and were in possession of very little share of the public confidence. Hon. Members knew that within the last 20 years there had been a great revolution in the shipping industry. Despite this the facilities of London as a port had remained stationary. It was his duty to show upon a previous occasion that the mouth of the river at the Nore was constantly silting up, as a comparison of the charts would demonstrate. He brought the matter before the House, and as the entrance to the river at the Nore was beyond the ancient jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy, he proposed an Instruction to the Committee upon the subject, which was adopted. But the fact was, that in the portion of the river and Port of London which had always been under the jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy Board the channel was utterly inadequate to the existing wants, and that at the present moment there was nothing like sufficient anchorage for large vessels. A vessel leaving the London Docks in winter, and being caught two or three miles down in a fog, had to push on at all risks and take all chances. Only those who happened to be the underwriters of these vessels and those who were charged with the safety of numerous lives and an immense amount of property could appreciate the tremendous anxiety felt with regard to the navigation of the river. He had shown, further, that such was the state of the river that if a vessel coming from Gravesend were delayed from entering the dock at a given moment no anchorage could be found for her in the vicinity of the docks, but she must steam down to Gravesend and anchor until she could come up upon another tide. They asked when the clause was inserted in the Bill, in consequence of his Instruction, that the investigation which was to he made in regard to this matter by the Board of Trade should not be confined to the entrance of the river at the Nore, but extended up the river as far as the Royal Albert Docks. The Conservancy Board, however, objected as usual, and in accordance with what he considered to be their usual obstructive policy. The radical defect of the Conservancy Board was that it was too large, and too mixed, and too heterogeneous. They had a body concerned with the affairs of the Upper Thames, and another body interested in down-river affairs and the administration of the Port of London, and these two bodies had not only no necessary connection, but were, in fact, without anything like a community of interests. They were joined under an unfortunate Act of Parliament which was passed in defiance of the wishes of the Conservancy Board. With regard to the existing Conservancy Board of 30 members, he thought it was safe to say that not more than half-a-dozen of them possessed any practical knowledge whatever of the requirements of shipping and commerce in the Port of London. If that was so with regard to the present Board, what would be the state of affairs under the Board constituted by this Bill? That Board must, of course, be larger, more mixed, and less homogeneous than the Board which it replaced, and, as he thought, all the less competent to fulfil the duties of the Port Trust of the great River Thames. The new committee consisted of 37 members, and only of these would be representative of the shipowners, notwithstanding the fact that the shipping interest contributed exactly a half of the annual revenue of the, Thames Conservancy. The main feature of the new constitution of the committee was that it brought into the committee something like nine County Council members from all parts of the provinces, and these were the gentlemen who, under this Bill, were to have under their control the shipping and commerce of the Port of London. He said that these delegates, however competent and eminent they might be in their own way, and however well able to look after such matters as fishing, pollution, or pleasure traffic in the upper part of the river, must be profoundly ignorant of maritime affairs; and to set up a body thus constituted as the Governing Body of the Port of London was an absurdity and anachronism in the eyes of every practical man. His contention was that the future constitution of the Conservancy Board would render that body more Unsatisfactory still, and it was the desire of the shipowners, by means of the Motion which he now brought before the House, to convert an unmanageable and unpractical into a manageable and practical body by the creation of two statutory committees—one whose business it would be to look after the upper waters of the river and the other whose special duty would he the conservation and improvement of the Port of London—a duty for which it would be directly and entirely responsible. In this proposal he was following the traditions which applied to all other great rivers of the United Kingdom. There was no other river dealt with as the Thames was dealt with under this Bill. What were the difficulties in the way of creating these two statutory committees? He took it that the up-river authorities had no desire that their revenue should be meddled with by authorities connected with the Port of London. Their revenue and expenditure ought to be maintained separately. He was quite sure that those connected with the lower river and the Port of London had no desire that their revenue and expenditure should be mixed up with that of the up river. At the present moment they contended that they were not receiving fair treatment from the Thames Conservancy, and that their revenue ought to be used for the improvement of the Port of London. It appeared that only a fourth of the revenue derived from the shipowners was expended in improving and dredging the river. This was a comparatively simple matter. If the House sanctioned the proposal he ventured to say that clauses could be drawn within an hour which would ensure these separate jurisdictions and authorities, and place upon both committees separate duties and responsibilities, while at the same time they could both meet under the common name of the Thames Conservancy for common interests outside the particular scope of their separate duties. If this Bill remained in its present form, notwithstanding the compromise which was come to on Tuesday last, it would never be a final settlement, and the Conservancy would linger on to a doomed existence until some more efficient instrument could be found to discharge its duties. He did not pretend to know what was in the minds of the Thames Conservancy Board, but he repeated that he was sure this so-called settlement would never be a final one. So far as be was concerned, he did not oppose the existence of the Thames Conservancy Board. What he wanted to do was to give it a more definite authority and enable it adequately to fulfil the great task which devolved upon it. He begged to move—

"That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee, and that it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill for establishing distinct statutory committees of the Conservancy Board to manage the upper river and the lower river (including the port and harbour), to define the limits within which the jurisdiction of such committees should respectively extend, and to provide for allocating to purposes of the lower river, port, and harbour the income arising therefrom."

, in seconding the Motion, said he was satisfied that the attempt to manage the Thames from the Nore up to its source by one body was a practical impossibility. It was a great mistake that the management of the river was not separated into two parts. The Port of London should be under a special commission. He believed it was the case that the lower part of the Thames was being seriously neglected. Therefore, he approved of the idea of referring the Bill back in order that the able Committee might suggest some means by which both parties and interests might be satisfied. His hon. Friend, who was a very great authority on shipping matters, had laid very clearly before the House the enormous extent of the interests involved in the conservancy of the Thames, and had also shown that it was impossible for members from Berkshire and similar counties to understand the requirements of the Port of London. He seconded the Motion in the hope that the Committee would be able to find a solution of the question that would be satisfactory to both parties.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee."—( Sir T. Sutherland .)

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

^* said, the Mover of the Motion had stated that it was not properly discussed on, the Second Reading; but the reason was that it had not occurred to the shipowners until long after the Second Reading had taken place to move in the matter as they had done in the last few days. The ship- owners presented a Petition against the Bill on the 27th of March, but the question of appointing statutory committees was in no way referred to in it. As a matter of fact, the shipowners did not move in the matter until the Bill had been in Committee for 14 or 15 days, and a very large part of it had been threshed out. He could not help thinking that if these after-thoughts were to be acted upon in such a way as practically to suspend the Rules of the House, a most dangerous precedent would have been introduced. If, after a Bill had been threshed out for 28 days, and after every Member of the Committee had been unanimously in favour of it, the Committee were to have a new proposal of this kind introduced, it would be the end of all Private Bill legislation in the House of Commons. The hon. Member had gone so far as to say that the Thames Conservators bad never done any justice to shipowners with reference to the lower part of the river. Was the hon. Member aware that since the shipowners addressed a letter to the Thames Conservancy Board in 1887 the Board had spent no less than £79,000 in dredging the lower part of the river? In regard to the charge that the Conservators had not done their duty generally, had the hon. Member read the evidence given to the various Committees on the subject? Lord Farrer, when giving evidence as a member of the London County Council before Sir Matthew White Ridley's Committee, said, "I think the Conservators have done their very best," and he also stated that, from his knowledge of the Thames Conservators, he was satisfied that they had done everything in their power. Mr. Binnie, who was a great authority, stated that he was surprised that the Conservators had been able to do so much.

What is the date of this evidence?

The hon. Member will find it on pages 48 and 49 of the Committee's Report.

Well, Lord Farrer has expressed the strongest view in favour of dividing the Thames Conservancy into two Boards.

^* said, that Lord Farrer had, at all events, given the evidence he had quoted. The late Deputy Chairman of the London County Council, Mr. Alfred Haggis, who was not at all prejudiced in favour of the Conservancy, stated that the London County Council had no grievance against the Conservancy, and that he could not lay a finger on a single thing in which the Conservancy were not doing their duty. He (Sir F. Dixon-Hartland) could honestly say that there was no body of men who had better done their duty under difficult circumstances than the Thames Conservancy, and he believed that what they were doing was very much appreciated by all classes of the citizens. The hon. Member had said there were not half-a-dozen members of the Board who were at all acquainted with shipping matters. Had the Deputy-Master of the Trinity House no knowledge of shipping matters; had the Admiralty, who had two representatives on the Board, no such knowledge; had the Board of Trade, who had two representatives, none; had the shipowners, the owners of steam-tugs, the dockowners, and wharfingers no knowledge of shipping? As to the remark that nine representatives of the County Councils of the upper river had been added, it was evident that the hon. Member did not know what he was talking about. Those County Councils had four representatives before, and only five representatives were added so as to keep the balance between them and London. He should like to know what London would be like if there were no upper river? It was of the utmost importance that the upper river should be properly protected in the interests of the Port of London. He quite admitted that there were Harbour Boards on the Mersey, the Clyde, the Tyne, the Humber, and the Ribble; and if these cases were looked into, it would be found that they were not at all analogous to that of London. The point for the House to consider was that if the Bill were sent back again to the Committee, it would be killed by effluxion of time, as it would be impossible for it to get through all its stages before the end of the Session. The Bill contained 308 clauses, and he believed that a very large number of these clauses would have to be altered if the proposed Instruction were agreed to. The Bill would go through if this Instruction were refused, and it would certainly be killed if the Instruction were agreed to. He appealed to the House not to virtually throw out on its Third Reading a Bill which had been brought in by order of the House, which had been most carefully threshed out by the Committee, and which, if carried, would go a long way towards consolidating all the questions relating to the Thames. If the hon. Member had a question to raise there was nothing to prevent him bringing in a Bill in another Session in accordance with his view; but it certainly was not fair, at this stage of the Bill, to attempt to override the Standing Orders.

^* said, he had not the slightest hesitation in voting against decisions of Committees whenever he thought Committees had arrived at wrong decisions. He was not in any sense awestruck by the sacredness of the decisions of Committees; nor did he attach any great weight to the argument they so often heard that the Committee was a strong Committee. He had noticed that whenever any question about a Committee was raised, that Committee was always a strong one. He did not allow the imposing spectacle they had on a previous occasion of all the strong men on this strong Committee rising to impress him too much. It had been said that there was only one opinion in the Committee with regard to this Bill. He had no doubt that was the case, and he had not endeavoured to investigate whose opinion it was. He bad looked at the Bill, which contained a very large number of clauses, and had satisfied himself that if the proposed Instruction were carried, the proposed Bill would be killed. Under these circumstances, if the provisions of the Bill were of any value the House ought not to pass the Instruction. The hon. Member had said that the Bill added to the Conservancy Board a certain number of politicians on one side or the other, and that politicians would not be of the slightest use on the Board. Yet the hon. Member came to a House composed of politicians, and asked them to override the decision of the Committee which had heard all the circumstances of the case. He (Mr. Dodd) had no prejudice against politicians, but he thought that those who had heard the evidence and considered all the circumstances were more likely to be right than were the general body of Members. The hon. Member proposed to instruct the Committee to insert provisions in the Bill for establishing distinct statutory committees of the Conservancy Board to manage the upper and lower river. This might be right or wrong; but it would certainly require a great deal of consideration, and the House was not now in a position to give it that consideration. The decision with reference to the other part—the financial part—of the Instruction must depend upon a mass of details which the House had not in its possession and which the Committee could not have except after a considerable lapse of time, and practically long after the present Session had been concluded. If the matter were left alone the Bill would go through, and something would be done which would be of use, at any rate, for some period. He honestly thought that the Committee were absolutely right in their decision, and he hoped the House would not accept the Instruction.

^* said, that when the hon. Member (Sir T. Sutherland) brought this subject before the House recently he (Sir A. Rollit) felt it his duty to vote for the Instruction, and he very much regretted that he was unable to support the hon. Member on the present occasion. He certainly did not agree with the statement that had been made that the hon. Member knew nothing about that matter. On the contrary, he did not think there was in the House a man more capable of representing the great shipping interests of the country and of pointing out the importance of making the access to the Port of London as good as possible. When he heard it said that there was no analogy between London and other ports—

said, What I said was that there was no analogy between the Acts which governed those ports and that which governed the Port of London.

said that the difference between London and other ports was that, whilst in other ports, both in this country and abroad, the authorities were doing their best to improve the means of access, in London the port was being neglected. Such obstacles as the hon. Baronet had referred to were utterly at variance with the interests of the nation. He quite sympathised with what the hon. Member for Greenock had said about having so many representatives of the Upper Thames on the Board. If the Conservancy Board of the Humber had amongst them the representatives of the small tributaries of the Ouse and the Trent, he could quite conceive that it would not be advantageous to the shipping interests of the Humber. The House, however, had to bear in mind that it had ordered this Bill to be brought in, and that if it were not passed the settlement of the question would go into other hands. Though he quite accepted what the hon. Member had said, to the effect that his object was not to wreck the Bill, he was very much afraid that the carrying of his Instruction would have that effect. The Bill would accomplish a great deal, although it did not give adequate representation to the shipping interest. The £79,000 which it was said had been spent for a series of years over the improvement of the lower river was utterly incomparable with what was being done in one year or half a year in the Mersey and other estuaries and rivers for the purpose of removing obstacles to the navigation. Anyone who knew how Hamburg and Antwerp had diverted traffic that used to come to English ports might also know how much was being done to give better access to those important ports, as in straightening the River Schelde by cutting off arms of the river and the like. He believed that at a very early period the Government must appoint a Commission or a Committee to take this matter in hand, and see that the interests of the great Port of London were properly safeguarded. Much had been said about the Committee, and he thought the House ought as a general rule to respect the decisions of Committees. He would point out, however, in reference to the constitution of the Committee on this Bill that all its Members were more or less representatives of inland interests. That they gave the greatest attention to the subject, and brought great ability to bear on it was unquestionable, but he did not see on the Committee the name of a representative of any great port or of anyone having special knowledge of conservancy matters. In part the Committee carried out the wishes of the hon. Member by increasing the area of the duties of the Conservancy. Though they had not seen their way to fulfil all reasonable requirements yet to destroy the Bill would be unjust to the Conservancy, and would not ultimately, perhaps, be in the interest of the object the hon. Member had in view. He hoped the hon. Member would bring this matter before the House until the just interests of London, from a commercial and shipping point of view, were attended to, and in that effort—though not on this occasion and at the late stage of this Bill—he (Sir A. Rollit) would be able to support him.

As a Member of the Committee, I desire to say a few words on this Motion. I confess I am a little surprised that the hon. Member should have selected this opportunity for bringing forward such a Motion. I can only suppose that it is entirely an after-thought, because I noticed in his speech when he moved the Instruction to the Committee, which was intended to confer on the Conservancy Board enormously larger powers than any they have hitherto had, there never was a single word in his speech or even a suggestion that there should be statutory committees at all. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire, who seconded the Motion, occupies quite a unique position, because, although I cannot say he was a Member of the Committee, I cannot say that he was not a Member of the Committee. As a matter of fact, he was a Member of the Committee for one portion of the Bill, though he was not a Member when this portion of the Bill was dealt with. We all, I am sure, regret the loss of his services, and particularly the cause which kept him away. But I am a little surprised, under these conditions and in his position, that he should have found fault with the Committee for not having adopted statutory committees, because the question was before the Committee and was discussed at great length; therefore, the hon. Member who is supporting the Motion, I think I am justified in saying, is condemning the Committee—

I was not aware that this question had arisen before the Committee, or that evidence was taken on it.

The House must forgive the hon. Member for having seconded the Motion under such condi- tions. It will, no doubt, attach the weight that ought to be attached to his objection. I am not going to discuss the question on its merits. All I would say is that the question was brought before the Committee, evidence was given, and after most careful attention to that evidence the Committee were unanimously of opinion that it was not necessary or desirable to appoint these statutory committees. I hope the House will support the decision of the Committee. But I should like to point out this fact: The hon. Baronet, I should have thought, had not read the Bill, and certainly not the evidence, because I should contend that the particular objects he desires to attain can be obtained and are obtained by the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member never said one single word to show us what is the particular virtue of a statutory committee. What is the position with regard to the Board? The Board not only has the power, but by its practice hitherto has managed the lower navigation by a separate committee and has managed the upper navigation by a separate committee.

Very badly.

That may be the hon. Member's opinion, but there was not a witness who came forward who charged the Conservancy with neglect of its duty. And I would point out that there were two Members representing directly the shipowners on the Conservancy Board, yet not a word of evidence was given before the Committee to show that these Members had any complaint to make of their colleagues neglecting their duty. Therefore the Board, as constituted under the Bill, may, if it so determines, at the first meeting appoint a separate committee for the lower navigation and a separate committee for the upper navigation; and I would point out that there is an absolute majority on the Board representing the interests of what my hon. Friend would call the lower navigation. Therefore, under no circumstances, unless by their express wish and determination, can there be any other management of the river than by separate committees. I think my hon. Friend will see that his object can be obtained by the Bill if the members of the Board so determine.

Money derived from the lower navigation will be spent on the upper navigation.

There again the hon. Member is in error. What he says shows—as I suspected—that he has never read the evidence. Not only has the Board power to appoint separate committees, but the Bill as it came to the Committee proposed the amalgamation of the funds of the upper and lower navigation. The Committee rejected that, and have separated in the Bill the funds of the lower and upper navigation. Therefore, under the Bill nothing can be spent on the upper navigation which is drawn from the lower navigation. The things are to be kept distinct.

What about administration expenses?

The proportions are defined by the Bill. The hon. Member may take it from me that in future the funds derived from the lower navigation will be expended on the lower navigation.

Will not the lower navigation be laid under contribution for the expenses of the upper river?

Whatever expenses are required for the upper river will be found by the revenue of the upper river.

Is that provided in the Bill?

The hon. Member will find it is clearly defined by the Bill how the funds, both from the upper river. and the lower river, are to be expended. In the past there have been a certain portion of the central administrative expenses which have been more largely drawn from the lower navigation than from the upper. We have given to the Conservancy Board under this Bill an additional income, which is allocated to the upper portion of the river—

Do I understand that the Bill lays down that I the revenue of the upper river is to be expended on the upper river, and time revenue of the lower river expended on the lower river, and the expenses of administration shared?

The hon. Member will find that everything he states is carried out by the Bill. It has been said that the limit within which the jurisdiction should extend should be defined. Well, we have defined it. The accounts have been so kept in the past that practically no financial question arises, and I cannot but think that everything my hon. Friend desires by his Resolution can be accomplished by the Bill as it stands, and that the Resolution is absolutely unnecessary. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw it and allow the Bill to be read a third time.

said, no one would dispute the authority of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock in matters relating to navigation, and if Members were now sitting on the Second Reading of the Bill or upon au inquiry into the question of the best administration of the whole of the River Thames, including the Port of London, there would be a great deal of force in the Resolution. He did not now enter into the merits, because it appeared to him this is not the moment for doing so; but he put it to the hon. Member whether it was possible for him at this stage to convince the House that there was so much validity in his ease as to render it desirable to lose the Bill? That was what it practically came to. His hon. Friend asked the House to pass judgment upon a most difficult proposal, which would require elaborate inquiry. It had already been inquired into and reported against by a Select Committee, who had very carefully investigated the whole question during the 28 days they had devoted to the subject. The Bill, everyone admitted, was a most valuable one. The differences were settled on Tuesday last, and the settlement received the sanction of the House. The Bill would be wrecked by the carrying of the Resolution, for there would be much time required by the consideration of the proposals of the hon. Member, and the measure would go so late to the House of Lords and would probably meet with such opposition that it would probably not pass this Session, and all the time and money that had been expended upon it would be lost. He put it to his hon. Friend whether he would not be satisfied with the progress he had made. He would remind him that out of 37 members 24 would directly or indirectly represent the interests of London. That was a very substantial representation for London. He hoped the settlement which had been arrived at would not be disturbed, and that his hon. Friend would be satisfied and withdraw his Motion.

said, he supported the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock, and though he was loth to take up the time of the House, yet he thought hon. Members would admit that the County of Essex, which had a river border of some 60 miles, from the Lea marshes to Shoeburyness, had a right to be heard on this subject. His constituents had suffered a good deal through the want of proper care of the river by the Conservancy. The Member for Uxbridge had said that £79,000 had been spent on the river; all he could say was, speaking from his own personal experience, that they had got very little change for their money. In the lower reaches of the Thames the river was silting up, and their fishing grounds were being destroyed. What the County of Essex asked was to be let alone, and that they should have a free hand to manage their own affairs. The Essex County Council was unanimously in favour of the policy indicated by the Member for Greenock. He did not know what line the London County Council were going to take with regard to the management of the lower reaches of the Thames; but he was bound to say that though he did not as a rule support the Loudon County Council, they had done more than any other body to improve the condition of those parts of the river under their control. He could not understood why his constituents should not be allowed to manage their own part of the river, and he should therefore support the Motion, which he considered would be in the interests of the fishing community and the Port of London.

said, that after the views expressed on both sides of the House, especially by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he thought he would best consult the wishes of the House by asking leave to withdraw his Motion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

(Queen's Consent, and Prince of Wales' Consent, given.)

Bill read the third time, passed.

rose to move, in page 4, line 3, after "death," insert—

"If any property settled by a parent upon a son or (laughter and the issue of such son or (laughter reverts on the death of the deceased (whether by operation of law or otherwise) to the settlor, Estate Duty shall not be payable on such death in respect of such property."

He said, this matter was discussed shortly on the Committee stage, and on the 7th June last the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to say he would consider the matter. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had yet had an opportunity of doing so. Suppose property was settled by a father upon a son or daughter, and the issue of the marriage, and it should happen that the son or daughter died during the lifetime of the parent who settled the property without leaving any issue, the property would revert to the settlor. Under these circumstances, it did not seem fair or reasonable that duty should be payable, inasmuch as the same life would be in being as at the time when the settlement was made, and duty would be payable on his death. In the Succession Duty Act where the predecessor and successor were the same person an exemption was accorded in a similar case to this. If the settlement had really failed altogether, and the property reverted to the settlor, it was only reasonable that in that case no duty should be payable until the settlor died. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, after the word "death," to insert the words—

"If any property settled by a parent upon a son or daughter and the issue of such son or daughter reverts on the death of the deceased (whether by operation of law or otherwise) to the settlor, Estate Duty shall not be payable on such death in respect of such property."—( Mr. Byrne. )

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

^* was understood to say that in the case put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, where the predecessor and successor were one and the same person, he did not pay the duty, but they did not consider that the Estate Duty they now proposed to levy was in any way analogous to this case of the Succession Duty. The Meaning and intention of the Act was to make this duty analogous in its main features to the Probate duty.

said, the Amendment was only a very small instalment of the justice which had been promised in this matter on two occasions during the passage of the Bill. On the 5th of June his right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol proposed an Amendment to the effect that from Clause 2 should be excluded "property which reverts to any person under disposition made by himself." The Solicitor General then stated that the point referred to would be met by Sub-section 3 of Clause 6, and the right hon. Member for West Bristol said that on that understanding he would withdraw his Amendment. There must be some mistake in the report, for Sub-section 3, Clause 6, did not apply to the case at all, but so the matter was reported in Hansard . On another occasion, June 15, the hon. Member for North St. Pancras moved to exclude from the Estate Duty any property upon which duty would not be payable under Section 12 of the Succession Duty Act, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if the matter were allowed to stand over it would be carefully considered. On that understanding the Amendment was withdrawn. What his hon. and learned Friend now proposed was only a small section of the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol on June 5th. His hon. and learned Friend only proposed that in the case where the predecessor was the parent and the successor was the child duty should not be payable, whereas the proposal of his right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol was much wider, covering as it did all eases in which property reverted to any person under disposition made by himself. If the Solicitor General had said that point would be met, perhaps he would now explain where it would be met.

said, the report in Hansard was obviously incorrect, for it represented him as having said that the point would be met by Subsection 3 of Clause 6, which had no earthly bearing on the subject at all. He certainly never gave a promise that the point would be dealt with. He might have promised that the subject would be considered; and it was considered, like a great number of other points, but the Government did not see their way to accede to the proposal.

said, he had a distinct recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer having promised that the Amendment which he moved, raising exactly the same point, would be carefully considered. It was understood at the time that that promise meant that the subject was to be brought up again on Report, and that some explanation would he given if the Government were not prepared to make the change suggested. Under the circumstances, he thought some fuller explanation should be given by the Government.

said, he felt quite certain that the Solicitor General would have redeemed any promise he might have given. He was bound to say that he was not entirely clear as to what passed on the occasion referred to, as he had not an opportunity of consulting Hansard with regard to it; but his impression was that he then raised the general question as to whether duty should or should not be payable in all cases where property settled by a person returned to that person again. His argument was that duty ought not to be paid under such circumstances. He tried to enforce his argument by taking the case of property which on a marriage was settled by the husband on the wife, and possibly also by the wife on the husband, and which property reverted by death to the husband or the wife, as the case might be; and the Solicitor General, agreeing with the point, dealt with it in a sub-section which was now in the Bill. He could not say that the hon. and learned Gentleman made a promise to deal with every case in which property reverted to a person under disposition made by himself; but he would like to point out that precisely the same argument which justified the insertion of a sub-section in the Bill dealing with the case of a husband and wife justified the adoption of the Amendment now before the House with regard to the case of a parent and child, and was entirely opposed to the argument of the Attorney General that they should in this matter adhere to the line of the Probate Duty, and should not go beyond it.

said that, in connection with the alleged promise of the Solicitor General, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman in thinking that incorrect extracts from the Debates should not be taken as sufficient proof of the promise. But so far as his perusal of the extracts from Hansard went, they certainly bore out what his hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk had said, though he had no doubt the quotation was erroneous, for otherwise the Solicitor General would have acted upon it. On the occasion referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol drew attention to what was practically the same point that was now under consideration, but said he did not wish to press his Amendment if the Solicitor General would give him an assurance that the point would be dealt with in some other way, as it was a point that should not be left in doubt. Then the Solicitor General was reported to have said—"The point the right hon. Gentleman referred to would be met in Sub-section 3 of Clause 6." That was obviously a mistake, because that part of the Bill did not deal with the subject. But he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk had made a good point, which was that the Solicitor General was misunderstood not only on the floor of the House, but in the Reporters' Gallery, as having intimated that the point would be dealt with.

said, he had now read the report in Hansard . He was sure that anyone who read it and understood the legal point involved would see that it was incorrect, and that the reporter had of his own sweet will put down what he had got on his notes and left out the rest. The report ran—

"Sir M. Hicks-Beach said, he had handed in an Amendment to the Amendment to add at the end, but exclusive of property which reverts to any person under disposition made by himself.' He had asked the Solicitor General a question as to the effect of the Bill on Marriage Settlements—where property through the death of one of the parties to the marriage settlement came to the other party. He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that in such a case no Estate Duty would be payable. The hon. and learned Gentleman in proof of that had referred to his Amendment to Clause 6. But that Amendment had no refer- ence to the case he (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) was now putting. He did not wish to press his Amendment if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give him an assurance that the point would be dealt with in some other way. It should not be left in doubt."

He (the Solicitor General) was then reported to have said—

"The point the right hon. Gentleman referred to would certainly be met in Sub-section 3 of Clause 6."

He could not have said that, because Sub-section 3 of Clause 6 had no connection with the point. He could only say that if he had a shadow of doubt about the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, he would have done what he could to enforce the proposal on his colleagues. But all they could promise at the time was that they would give the Amendment consideration. They had done so, and they were sorry they could not accept the Amendment.

said, they quite accepted what was stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was perfectly clear that no promise was given that the matter should be dealt with; but the hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted that a promise was given that the matter should be fully considered, and he stated that it had been considered. But unfortunately the House had not been told the reasons which had induced the Government to reject the Amendment. No one would have thought from the perfunctory speech of the learned Attorney General that the matter had been carefully considered, because in that speech the only objection urged against the Amendment was that it ran counter to the general principle of the Bill. But that objection must have been known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General when the promise was given that the point would be carefully considered. Pledges had been given to the House that the matter would be fully considered. The House was entitled to have the result of that consideration fully stated; and some attempt should be made by the-Government to convince the Opposition that they, were in the wrong. The general question was whether in the cases referred to in the Amendment Estate Duty should be again paid. His hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment had made out a case that it should not be paid, and nothing that had fallen from the Government Benches militated in the slightest degree against that case.

pointed out that his hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras had stated to the House that when he brought forward practically the same case in Committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that he would deal with the matter on Report. He regretted the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present in the House. Of course, they could not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be always in attendance, but it was rather unfortunate that he was not present at that moment to explain the promise which he was understood to have made to deal with this question on Report. If something was not done in the matter a man would be called upon to pay Estate Duty on what was really his own property. That would be carrying the intention of the Government to an extraordinary extreme, and one that could not be justified.

said, they had again a reappearance of the musty old argument that this Estate Duty was the analogue of the Probate Duty. It was nothing of the kind; and whatever the Attorney General might say, it was plain from Amendments put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and statements made by the right hon. Gentleman over and over again that he did not think it was anything of the kind. If that was the only serious argument against the Amendment then there was no argument at all against it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 177; Noes 223.—(Division List, No. 170.)

said, that since the last discussion he had been convinced that the pledge the Solicitor General had given did not refer to the subject of which he had spoken.

moved, in page 4, line 3, after the word "death," to insert the words—

"If, upon the death of any person, Estate Duty, or Estate Duty and Settlement Estate Duty, become payable in respect of any settled property, the commissioners may allow such duty or duties, or any part thereof, to be paid (with interest at three per cent. from the time when such duty or duties shall become due) at such time or times during the continuance of the settlement and in such manner as they shall from time to time direct."

Everybody who had had anything to do with the administration of estates knew that occasionally it was not only burdensome in the ordinary sense of the word, but extraordinarily burdensome to pay Death Duty—when the money had to be raised at exorbitant rates of interest. The object of the Amendment was to enable the Commissioners, if they thought a proper case had been made out for it, to postpone during the continuance of the settlement the payment of the duty for such time or times as they thought reasonable. It was left entirely at their discretion. Members must be familiar with cases where the necessity for raising money to pay Death Duties had so impoverished the beneficiary that he had been practically without income for years. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue could tell if they were asked many stories of the hardships involved through making it obligatory to pay duty at a certain specified time or times. Under the Amendment when payment was postponed interest would be charged, so that there would be no loss to the Revenue.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, after the word "death," to insert the words—

"If, upon the death of any person, Estate Duty, or Estate Duty and Settlement Estate Duty, become payable in respect of any settled property, the Commissioners may allow such duty or duties, or any part thereof, to be paid (with interest at three per cent. from the time when such duty or duties shall become due) at such time or times during the continuance of the settlement and in such manner as they shall from time to time direct."—( Mr. Byrne .)

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

said, the House would observe that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to allow a discretion to the Commissioners to postpone the payment of the Estate Duty without giving them any guide as to the circumstances under which they ought to exercise that discretion. The result would be that they would be bombarded with applications for permission to post- pone payment. The hon. Gentleman had forgotten Clause 8, Sub-section 7, which seemed quite adequate for the purpose the hon. Member had in his mind. The sub-section said—

"Where the Commissioners are satisfied that the Estate Duty on any property cannot be raised at once, they may allow payment to be postponed for such period, to such extent, and on payment of such interest not exceeding four per cent., or any higher interest yielded by the property, and on such terms, as the Commissioners think fit."

These were words which, if his memory served him right, were inserted in Committee. He was afraid the Government could not go further in the way of concession than they had already gone.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General made two objections to the Amendment. The first was not a very serious one. The hon. and learned Gentleman said there was no guide given to the Commissioners—no rule laid down for them to follow. Surely it would be impossible within the limits of an Amendment to lay down rules for the guidance of the Commissioners. The difficulties that would beset the persons who would have to pay these duties might proceed from very different causes. Sub-section 7 of Clause 8 did not meet the point the Amendment was framed to deal with, for the reason that that sub-section made it a condition that the Commissioners should be satisfied that the Estate Duty could not be raised. That was not the position his hon. and learned Friend took up, and that was not the precise sort of difficulty the hon. Member desired to meet. No doubt, in many cases, it would be possible to raise the duty at the moment, but only at very considerable sacrifice on the part of the unfortunate owner of the property. In the case of real estate, under the existing great agricultural depression, and in view of the burdens that were already weighing heavily upon land, hon. Members would have no difficulty in believing that in order to pay the new Death Duty landowners would frequently have to resort to second mortgages. There were circumstances under which the raising of second mortgages would be almost an impossibility, and, if they were possible, only to be effected at great expense. Those were the cases the hon. and learned Member wished to meet by his Amendment. It had been said repeatedly by the Government themselves that a great deal might be left to the discretion and common-sense of the Commissioners in the administration of this Act. Undoubtedly, however perfect they might seek to make the measure, a great deal would depend upon the way the Commissioners administered it. If they were competent to deal with the complicated and difficult questions they would find submitted to their decision in the Bill, surely they would be competent to exercise a discretion in the matter dealt with in the Amendment. All the hon. and learned Member desired in proposing the Amendment, and all hon. Gentlemen desired in supporting it, was that there were cases of special difficulty, and money could only be raised by casting on unfortunate owners for the time being an unfair burden. The law should not be of a cast-iron character. They desired that the Commissioners should have a discretionary power, and should be able not to remit, but to postpone payment until such a time as there might have been a recovery in the market or an improvement in local circumstances which would enable the landowner to pay. There were cases where properties had large charges on them which were not permanent in their character, but which would terminate at a given period. It might be that a successor coming in would find it almost impossible, or at any rate very difficult, to find the duty in a lump sum or in an annual payment, and still there might be a prospect of improvement in the property which would enable him to pay the money in a year or two. The hon. and learned Member proposed an Amendment to meet these particular cases. They were not likely to be very numerous. He did not think the Government themselves would desire to inflict hardship on the poorer class of owners of property, and yet they would do that if they did not accept this Amendment or something of the kind.

said, that in throwing over the discretion of the Inland Revenue Commissioners and suggesting that they could not be relied upon unless they were fettered by Clause 8, surely, the Government had forgotten Clause 12, which gave the Commissioners, absolutely unfettered discretion in. far more, complicated circumstances and sets of conditions. In that clause there was no restriction on their power at all. Undoubtedly his (Mr. Bowles's) belief was that this Bill would not work at all. It would destroy a nicely-balanced and cleverly-adjusted engine of taxation. He hoped he might prove to be wrong, but certainly if it did work it would be solely and exclusively by virtue of the powers given to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and largely by Clause 12, which would leave their discretion unfettered. This clause left the discretion unfettered, but limited the period of time during which that discretion would be exercisable. The duty must be paid—early or late—during the continuance of the strike, and that seemed to him to be a most reasonable provision. If the Amendment were not accepted, it would have to be incorporated in the Amending Act which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would certainly have to bring in next year if he still occupied his present position on the Treasury Bench. It would be found that the Commissioners would require to have this power. The Amendment was a reasonable one. It would not affect the strong box of the Exchequer. There would not be a halfpenny lost by it; on the contrary, he believed that a great deal of extra duty would be got through it.

said, he would make a suggestion to his hon. and learned Friend who had moved the Amendment. After what the Solicitor General had said as to Sub-section 7 of Clause 8, it would be better to raise the real point of difference on that sub-section rather than here. That sub-section was in one respect wider than the proposal of his hon. Friend, as it applied to more than settled property—to all property. The Solicitor General had, very properly, urged that the discretion of the Commissioners should be limited. This might be done, and still the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool might be covered.

said, he would follow the course indicated by his right hon. Friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the Amendment he was about to move was not upon the Paper, but the Solicitor General was aware of its purport. It would be in the recollection of the House that in Committee on the 7th June, at the time the pledge was given by the Solicitor General to which allusion had been made, the subject-matter of this Amendment was deferred to the Report stage. His Amendment dealt with the case where a husband settled upon his wife a sum of money during her life, and over which he had no control. Money was often settled in this way in cases of what was known as "pin money." It would be a hardship that on the death of the wife to whom the money had been given-it might be under marriage settlement—the husband should have to pay Estate Duty on receiving back his own money. This Amendment was different to all the other proposals made in the course of the discussions on the Bill. It could not be said, as was argued in the case of the last Amendment but one, that this was a disposition in place of a disposition by will. Nor could it be settled by the favourite analogy of the Probate Duty, because in a case of this kind no Probate Duty would be payable. If the Estate Duty was on the analogy of the Probate Duty, this particular case ought to be exempted. He had adopted in his Amendment language which would absolutely avoid all collusion between husband and wife at the expense of the Exchequer. The words he proposed were these:—

"If any property settled by a husband upon a wife where possession and enjoyment of the property was bonâ fide assumed by the wife immediately upon the execution of the settlement, and thenceforward retained to the entire exclusion of the husband or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise, reverts on the death of the wife (whether by operation of law or otherwise) to the settlor, Estate Duty shall not be payable on such death in respect of such property."

It was obvious that the Amendment would not operate unless the husband was free from control of the property, and from any contract which would enable him fraudulently to evade duty, nor would there be any power on his part to obtain custody of the funds pending the death of the wife. For these reasons he thought the Attorney General would do well to favourably consider the Amendment. It was entirely in keeping with the principle which had been laid down on several occasions. It would be politic on the part of the Government to snake a concession in this case of the husband and wife, for there was the strongest possible feeling out of doors as to the injustice of the policy of the provisions of the Bill in relation to husband and wife. He felt sure that when the Amending Act, of which the hon. Member for King's Lynn had spoken, was brought in, the relations between husband and wife would be one of the grounds on which it would be proposed. This was a point which, apparently, appealed to everyone but the Law Advisers of the Crown.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, after the word "death," to insert the words—

"If any property settled by a husband upon a wife where possession and enjoyment of the property was bonâ fide assumed by the wife immediately upon the execution of the settlement, and thenceforward retained to the entire exclusion of the husband or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise, reverts on the death of the wife (whether by operation of law or otherwise) to the settlor, Estate Duty shall not be payable on such death in respect of such property."—( Mr. Brodrick .)

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

was understood to say, the Government had refused to accept a similar Amendment as to money settled on children, and it would not be logical to accept a proposal as to money settled on the wife. They were now asked to open up once more the question as between husband and wife. Personally, he should be glad to do anything that could be done, but the question was purely one of finance, from which sentiment was shut out.

said, he would call attention to what happened on the 7th Jane on an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) on the 7th June. The Amendment was to exempt property which would have been free from Succession Duty under the 12th section of "The Succession Duty Act, 1853." The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) said on that occasion—

"This was not really Death Duty. Take the case of a father in his lifetime making a settlement upon a son for life of so much money; the son died, and the property came back to the father. There had been no instance there of Death Duty ordinarily leviable, and it had never been treated as succession."

That was analogous to the case under consideration. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was understood to say—

"Lord Stowell, with the object of avoiding Death Duties, made a settlement on his son. The son died intestate, and the father was his heir. The same property thus paid Death Duty on the death of the son and again on the death of the father. The Amendment could not be accepted at once; but, if the matter were allowed to stand over, it should be carefully considered.

The hon. Member for St. Pancras then said—

"On this assurance he was willing to withdraw the Amendment, reserving to himself the right to again bring forward the question on the Report stage if the right hon. Gentleman took an adverse view of it."

In face of this, he (Mr. Byrne) should like to ask if this matter had been considered since, and if the Government had come deliberately to the conclusion, after what took place before, that this was not one of the cases which ought to be exempted exactly as it was exempted from Succession Duty? Apart from precedent or anything which had been said before, he could not help thinking that there were some cases which appealed to one's ordinary sense of justice, and these were amongst them. The State had no right to expect more than the duty on one life. Ordinarily the lives of husband and wife would be regarded as one. They would be approximately of the same age. There were exceptions, no doubt; but on an average they would be of the same age, and if the Government got one duty it was all it had a right to expect.

said, he had thought that the Solicitor General would reply to the appeal of his hon. and learned Friend. This appeared to be another of those cases in which the Government, to get out of an awkward position, promised in Committee to favourably consider the matter if the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment. He should like to be informed whether they had considered the question at all, and, if so, upon what grounds they had come to an unfavourable conclusion with regard to accepting the Amendment? The Attorney General had just told them that it was a question to be determined solely upon the principles of finance, and that, as the Amendment would cause a heavy loss to fall on the Revenue, it could not be accepted. Had the Inland Revenue made an estimate of the loss that would occur if this Amendment were accepted? That seemed to him to be a legitimate comment on the speech of the Attorney General. He would ask the Attorney General if he had the slightest idea of what difference it would really make to the Revenue? When the estimate of the gain by the change in the Death Duties was drawn up did the Inland Revenue take note of the gain which would accrue in the particular case dealt with in the Amendment? If the injustice and inequity of the Bill were removed in the method proposed, the effect on the general finance of the scheme would be but small. This was a case where the hardship would be real if the Bill were unamended, but in which hardship could be avoided without loss to the Revenue. He must repeat his protest in regard to the finance of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said that the Amendment would interfere with finance, but the House had never been told what was the real finance of the Bill. All they were told was that there was to be a million received during the present year, and that the receipts another year would probably be three or four millions—sometimes it was three, sometimes four. There seemed to be great uncertainty in the matter, therefore, to tell them seriously that an Amendment of this Lind should be resisted, because it would interfere with the finance of the Bill, was going too far. The Government did not know to a million what next year's finance would be. The House could not shut its eyes to the fact that the Government wanted to get as much money as it could through the Death Duties, but were ignorant of, and could form no estimate as to what would be the effect of this or that clause. They could not if they would form anything like a reliable estimate of the amount of revenue which would be secured under the Bill. They should, therefore, be ready to meet, he would not say hard cases, but hard classes of cases, seeing that they did not know how much money they would want or what the financial result of the Bill would be. The finances of this country were not in such a position that the Government were entitled to refuse equitable demands. No doubt under a certain condition of things it was imperative for the welfare of the country that the Revenue should extract every penny that it could from the taxpayers, but that was not the case now, and he thought, therefore, that the Amendment should be accepted.

said, it was stated that a promise had been given that this subject should be considered, and he was asked if there had been any special estimate made of the diminution in the Revenue which this Amendment would bring about. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had never been charged with the duties of law officer of the Crown, or be would have known that a law officer had plenty to do without attempting to inform himself as to the financial condition of the country. He had, he thought, himself promised that this matter should be considered. He had brought it to the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and had also taken the opinion of those best able to advise the Government, and he might say that the reasons that had compelled them to refuse this and similar Amendments were many, and of a substantial character. He, however, could state that he had been told by a very competent authority that he had come to the conclusion that if this class of Amendment had been accepted by them the Revenue would have lost fully £3,000,000 a year, and every one of these Amendments, he was sorry to say, had been supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite. If an exemption were once granted in favour of one hardly-treated class of individuals, then where would these remissions cease? No doubt there were many hard cases. The case of a widow who had been left £1,200 or £1,300, with seven or eight children, was a hard one when she was called upon to pay duty—much harder than the case of a man with £60,000 who had to pay duty on his late wife's £1,000 a year pin money passing to him. With every desire to sympathise with hard cases, he could not help pointing out that the Amendment was not restricted to people of small means. No doubt it would only affect a small amount in the aggregate, but the Government felt bound to oppose it for the reasons he had stated.

said, he had listened with great astonishment to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, which astonishment was not at all diminished by the comparison he made between that speech and the speech of the hon. Gentleman's colleague, who opposed the Amendment earlier in the Debate. When the Attorney General was arguing the case he put it exclusively upon the financial loss to the country that would ensue upon the acceptance of the Amendment. Then the Solicitor General got up and said the Law Officers of the Crown could not look into the question of finance. They had too much to do to look into these questions of statistics. Had the Attorney General less to do than the Solicitor General? If not, how came it that the Attorney General had time to inquire into the matter, and to arrive at the conclusion that these cases, although rare, would involve a loss to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which that unfortunate pauper could ill sustain? He passed from that to the detailed argument of the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been asked whether, in accordance with the promise made on the previous stage of the discussions, the Government had favourably considered the Amendment. The reply was that the Amendment had been considered, but that the Government had been driven to the conclusion that it was not one they could accept. He could not help picturing to himself the council of war when the Law Officers, who confessed that they had no time to attend to financial questions, were discussing the principle of the present Amendment. The financial authorities had considered this Amendment as one of a series which, if they were all carried, would cost the Exchequer £3,000,000 of money, and in addition to that there were certain cases of poverty which might easily be imagined, and which would move hearts the most stony, but which would not be relieved by this Amendment, and perhaps could not be relieved by any other Amendment. In these circumstances, it had been argued that this Amendment must be rejected. Was ever such an argument laid before the House before? The House had to consider these Amendments on their merits and not as forming part of a series. If the House accepted this Amendment, was it thereby driven by the logic which the Attorney General had discarded to accept that other series of Amendments which in their cumulative effect would have a disastrous consequence to the Exchequer? No. This Amendment was one which the House could accept without taking account of the other Amendments proposed dealing with the succession of children and other analogous cases. Would anyone deny that the case of husband and wife was one which was marked off and divided from every other case of succession? Would anybody maintain for one moment that it stood in the same category? It did not, and no one had ever argued that it did. Was there a case more obvious in its justice than this? When a man gave his whole property to his wife, whose whole interests were bound up with his more intimately than that of any other relationship, even more than in the relationship of father and son, was it too much to ask that when the man received back his own property by the death of his wife he should not be asked to pay Estate Duty upon it? The hon. and learned Solicitor General had adverted to the case of a poor widow left with a comparatively small fortune and a very large family. The case of poor widows left with large families was undoubtedly a serious one, but it was not a hardship which could be remedied under the Bill. But simply because they would not undo the Bill extend eleemosynary aid to certain embarrassed persons were they to refuse equity and justice in a case like that raised by the Amendment under Debate? He would simply say, in conclusion, that absolutely no argument had been advanced by the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite dealing with the merits of this Amendment. He trusted the House would vote on this Amendment on its merits.

^* said, the hon. and learned Member for Walthamstow had put a very modest case before the House, because he had cited the case of a man who only bad one wife in his lifetime. But it was quite possible that a man might marry three or four times and settle property on each of his successive wives. Supposing the first wife had property apart from her husband, it would be aggregated with the sum which had been settled, and the husband might be called upon to pay a duty of 8 per cent. The second wife might be in exactly the same position, and in that way the husband might go on paying ad infinitum until he himself died, and then it might be found that all the property settled on his wives had been paid to this greedy Government and the officials at Somerset House in Estate Duty.

confessed that the case cited by his hon. Friend the Member for West Salford did not enlist his sympathy, because if a man chose to marry half-a-dozen wives in succession it was only fair, especially if they were all millionaires, that he should pay half-a-dozen duties. But his object in rising was to draw attention to the statement of the Solicitor General that the Government had favourably considered and accepted 80 per cent. of the Amendments moved from the Opposition side of the House. If that were true, it at once, in his opinion, disposed of the charge of obstruction levelled against the Opposition, especially if it were remembered in addition that the Government still had on the Paper five pages of their own Amendments. Since, however, the Government had entirely disregarded all rules of logic in the Bill and in their Amendments, he was bound to say that his sympathies were with the Government on this point, though he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had realised how many leaks had been opened up in the Bill, and what an enormous amount of rateable property the right hon. Gentleman had given up. It would be his duty to do his best to indicate those leaks and omissions on the Third Reading of the Bill, by which time the Government would have drawn the noose tight enough for them selves. If a man chose to divest himself of his property in order that his wife might spend it as "pin money," it was only fair that when the wife died, looking to the vast necessities of an almost pauper Chancellor of the Exchequer, the husband should be called upon to pay the duty on the re-transmission of the property. The husband ought, in his opinion, to have given his wife an allowance and should not have made a settlement upon her. Therefore, he was reluctantly compelled to differ from the hon. Members around, not on the ground of logic, but on the ground that the necessities of the Exchequer justified the Government in resisting the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 179; Noes 228.—(Division List, No. 171.)

then moved, after the word "paying" in the next line (line 4, Clause 5), to insert "any duty payable under this Act." He was not quite certain, after the learned Solicitor General's explanation, whether it was intended that the Settlement Estate Duty should stand, or who the person was by whom it was intended the further Estate Duty was to be payable. He had failed to understand whether any reduction was to be made in respect of further Estate, or Settlement Estate Duty.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 4, after the word "paying," to leave out to the word "upon," in line 5, and insert the words "any duty payable under this Act."—( Mr. Byrne .)

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

said, the ad valorem stamp was not only in reference to what might be called the further Estate Duty or settlement Estate Duty, but also upon the ordinary Estate Duty. That was the purpose and intention of the words objected to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There was no reason for deducting the ad valorem Stamp Duty from the amount of the duty chargeable, as in the case of all other property.

could not understand on what principle the Government refused to make a deduction of the ad valorem Stamp Duty. The hon. and learned Solicitor General had forgotten that there was a large class of eases where the further Estate Duty would not be payable when he said it would be deducted when there was the liability. For instance, if a man had settled his property upon his wife for life and then upon his children no settlement Estate Duty would be payable. In a case of that kind there was no conceivable reason why the ad valorem Stamp Duty should not be deducted. When this question was discussed in Committee he was under the impression that this deduction was to be made in all cases, and he had heard no reason brought forward why it should be payable.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendments were agreed to:—

Page 4, line 4, leave out "further," and insert "settlement."

Page 4, line 7, after "settlement," add "in respect of that property."

moved to add a clause after line 7 in reference to estates settled by Act of Parliament or Royal Grant. He said there were a few estates in this country which had been so settled, either by Act of Parliament or Royal Grant, that the persons successively in in possession were not competent to dispose of them within the meaning of this Act. Consequently, unless some such clause as this were inserted, there might be ground for saying that these estates should escape payment of the duty, or that one payment should free them for ever from the Estate Duty, which, of course, was not the intention.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 7, after the word "settlement," to insert the words—

"where any lands or chattels are so settled, whether by Act of Parliament or Royal Grant, that none of the persons successively in possession thereof are capable of alienating the same, whether his interest is in law a tenancy for life or a tenancy in tail, the provisions of this Act with respect to settled property shall not apply, and the property passing on the death of any person in possession of the lands and chattels shall be the interest in the land and chattels of his successor, and such interest shall he valued, for the purpose of Estate Duty, in like manner as for the purpose of Succession Duty."—( Mr. R. T. Reid .)

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

said, the learned Solicitor General's explanation had rendered further information necessary as to how the interest of the successor was to be calculated—was it on his life interest or on the principal value? It was desirable that the House should be afforded some information as to the scheme upon which Her Majesty's Government proposed the tax should be levied. What was the intention, for instance, in the case of money left for the Public Service? Unless some explanation were given hon. Members would not understand where they were.

^* said, in dealing with the estates in question the Government had fallen back upon the Succession Duty Act, and each successive interest would be calculated upon the present rule, unaltered by this Act; in other words, it would be calculated in the same manner as Succession Duty.

asked whether it would be aggregated?

Certainly.

pointed out that this was clearly a case in which, contrary to all the protestations of the Government, duty was to be charged on the interest of the successor, the beneficiary, and not otherwise. In dealing with these hard cases they had had to fall back on that despised Statute, the Succession Duty Act. With these hard cases away went the analogue of the Probate Duty. Here was a case which the Government found themselves unable to deal with under the present Bill. He appealed to the Attorney General and Solicitor General whether, if the sub-section was to apply to perpetual settlements or perpetual pensions, it ought not, when the same state of circumstances arose, to apply to all settlements, and, therefore, he moved to add after "Royal Grant," "or otherwise." The same course should be followed where the circumstances justified it, irrespective of origin, whether the grant originated from Charles II. or any other Royal Sovereign who lavished grants, or whether it emanated from Parliament for public services such as the victory of Trafalgar. Whatever the circumstances under which the grant existed, the Government must fall back upon the Succession Duty Act. He anticipated that the Attorney General felt as he did upon this matter, and that he would accept the Amendment which he proposed—that in line 2, after the word "Royal grants," the words "or otherwise" should be inserted.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "grant," to insert the words "or otherwise."—( Mr Gibson Bowles .)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or otherwise' be there inserted."

^* said, that if there were any other possible cases which could be brought within the rule under similar circumstances of Parliamentary sanction there could be no objection to such cases coming under it. But the hon. Member had not mentioned any such cases, and he did not know how they could arise except under similarly special circumstances.

Question put, and negatived.

said, this Amendment raised a question of considerable importance. The Solicitor General had stated that the reason for introducing this clause was that the property referred to could not be sold or alienated; therefore, the Government inserted a clause to get the money in some other way. 'They had, therefore; got the fact that it was clear to the view of the Government that in the majority of eases the Estate Duty would have to be raised by the sale of the estate. What had happened was that the Government had brought in this Bill, and carried it through to the present point, and then had found out that there were some estates which were unsaleable. Consequently, they wanted to get the money by some other process.

said, the cases under consideration were of a special character. If the estates were not alienable no person was competent to dispose of them. They were so settled that no person could ever be competent to dispose of them, and only one Estate Duty could be got out of them. The estates were perpetual settlements, which were very different from ordinary settlements.

said, the fact was that these estates being perpetually settled there would be no practical possibility of raising the money to pay the Estate Duty, and consequently the Government said, "We shall lose our duties on these estates unless we find some other means of raising the money." They had been arguing that for the last three weeks, and saying that such must be the result of the measure. He was not going to say whether it was a good or a bad thing that estates should be sold in order to pay the duty, but they had, at all events, got an admission out of the Government.

said, he supposed that at present Succession Duty was payable in respect of persons succeeding to an estate. He saw no negative movement on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he took it that the interests of the successors were now subject to payment of Succession Duty. The Government said by their Bill that they could not impose Estate Duty on estates of this kind, but they did propose to more than double the Estate Duty at present payable. So that they must bear in mind that if this clause was passed a person who had a limited interest might have to pay Succession Duty where no Estate Duty could be charged upon the corpus of the property, at a rate of double the Succession Duty now payable. That had all to come out of the limited interest which was alienable. That appeared to him to be a most unfair proposition. The clause would bear very heavily and unfairly on those successors to the description of interests or property referred to who had no independent means of paying the heavy duty to be imposed.

said, they had heard time after time in the course of this Debate that if an estate should be so situated that it could not pay Succession Duty the Government could come down upon the estate itself. Assuming that Estate Duty was demanded, He wanted to know what steps would be taken by the Government in order to get the money. He appealed to some Member of the Government to enlighten him and other laymen on the question before the House. Was he to understand that when a man was so situated that He could not pay the duty the Government in the last resort were to come down upon him and compel him to sell his estate The Government, it seemed to him, had got the whole matter into a hopeless muddle, and it was impossible for a layman to understand how matters stood.

said, He understood the observations of the Attorney General as to the reasons why this procedure should be taken when Estate Duty could not be levied in the ordinary way, but the hon. and learned Gentleman said nothing about aggregation or graduation. At present he did not see how that system could be applied to this clause. Was he to understand that the life interest of the successor was to be valued under the Succession Act, and then aggregated to the property of the person who had just died? He should really like to have some simple statement made as to the manner in which it was proposed to carry out the clause.

said, he did not see any hardship or difficulty in the proposal submitted by the Solicitor General. He understood that the duty was not to be charged upon the capital value on an estate but upon the income. If there was no income there would be no duty payable, but if there was an income the owner had eight years in which to pay it. It was perfectly reasonable that the tax should be paid upon an income accruing from an estate the possessor could not sell, but which was as much the property of the successor as the corpus of property which might have been left him by will.

said, that everything that passed was aggregated for the purposes of the Estate Duty.

said, that for the purposes of aggregation the value of these lauds and chattels would be reckoned on the principle of the Succession Duty, which he presumed was the principle under which the Succession Duty was dealt with under the existing Act. There was one verbal criticism which had occurred to some of them. He thought it desirable that the clause should be so worded that it could be interpreted by the ordinary lay mind. The words "interest in lands and chattels to his successor" obviously meant the interest of his successor in lands and chattels. He would move after the word "interest" to insert "of his successor."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "interest," to insert the words "of his successor."—( Mr. J. Lowther .)

Question proposed, "That the words 'of his successor' be there inserted."

said, he agreed that the right hon. Gentleman's alteration was obviously desirable.

Question put, and agreed to.

asked that an answer should be given to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for North Shropshire.

said, he was always ready to gratify any hon. Member's reasonable curiosity if his question was couched in the ordinary terms. The hon. and gallant Member had thought fit to say that the Government were in a "hopeless muddle," and a question asked in that way he must decline to answer. As, however, the question had been repeated by another hon. Member he would reply. Unfortunate Dukes, like other people, were liable to be haled before the Courts of Justice, and when they were debtors to the Crown it would be found that there were effective means of making them pay up.