^* said, the Amendment he wished to move provided that where any property passing on the death of the deceased was situated in a foreign country, and the Commissioners were satisfied that by reason of such death any duty was payable in that foreign country in respect of that property, they should make an allowance of the amount of that duty from the value of the property. His object was to prevent what he thought would be admitted to be an injustice. The point did not arise in connection with property situated in the colonies, because, by a clause already inserted in the Bill by the Government, property there situated was more favourably treated, and a Death Duty paid in the colony was deducted from the Death Duty payable in this country. He understood the Leader of the House was willing to accept the Amendment, and would not, therefore, further detain hon. Members.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 42, at end, insert—

"Where any property passing on the death of the deceased is situate in a foreign country, and the Commissioners are satisfied that by reason of such death any duty is payable in that foreign country in respect of that property, they shall make an allowance of the amount of that duty from the value of the property."—( Sir M. Hicks-Beach .)

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

said, that as he entirely agreed with the principle of the right hon. Baronet's Amendment he would accept it. Of course, it had never been the intention of the Revenue authorities to levy the Death Duties in respect of property situated abroad which was liable to duty in the country where it was situated. They intended to charge the Death Duties on the "net" value of the estate, and any taxation paid upon a part of it situated abroad would be deducted from the amount of duty to be paid here.

said, it seemed to him the conclusion they must come to as regarded property both in the colonies and In foreign countries was that it would ultimately bring nothing into the Exchequer, for it was certain that in those cases a duty would be put on so as to get rid of the liability of payment in this country. All this friction and irritation in foreign places and in the colonies seemed most useless and undesirable. It was obvious the Exchequer would get nothing.

was understood to say he supposed the hon. Member thought he understood the administration of the Inland Revenue better than those responsible for it. He was not of that opinion.

I really think that remark most uncalled for. I said nothing about the Inland Revenue. All I did was to point out how this Amendment would work.

Question put, and agreed to.

said that, in the absence of the hon. Member for the Horsham Division of Sussex, he had to move an Amendment, which they had drawn up in consultation, to provide that in the case of any agricultural property where no part of the principal value was due to the expectation of an increased income from such property the principal value should not exceed 25 times the annual value as assessed under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts,

"in the event of the property ceasing to be used and occupied as agricultural property."

He thought that this alteration would merely carry out the intentions of the Government. Their desire in making this provision in the interests of agricultural land was to exclude from its operation land which had a value as building land. Unless the Amendment were introduced it appeared to him that agricultural property also would be excluded, for this reason: that there was no property in the Kingdom of which part of the principal value was not due to the expectation of increased income from it.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 7, after the word "property," to insert the words "ceasing to be used and occupied as agricultural property."—( Mr. Grant Lawson .)

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

said, the Government had carefully considered the form that the clause should take, and the Leader of the Opposition had agreed to it as it at present stood in the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member would not attempt to disturb it by pressing his Amendment, which, under the circumstances, it was impossible for the Government to agree to.

said, that if his memory was correct, the Leader of the Opposition had stated that in agricultural property be included practically all kinds of real property other than land used for the purposes of building or had a prospective building value. He therefore thought the Amendment was a distinctly important one to those interested in agricultural property.

said, he did not think there was, in reality, any difference of opinion between them. He was inclined to think that the wording of the clause as it stood, if equitably interpreted in its broad sense by the Inland Revenue and by Courts of Law, would not give rise to any of those technical difficulties which his hon. and learned Friend no doubt considered as likely to arise unless the clause were amended in the manner he proposed, Some difficulty, it was true, might arise as to the exact meaning of the words "agricultural property," but he understood that the term would be defined by a clause they would have to consider later on. The Government, in accepting the Amendment, had endeavoured to meet the natural and legitimate fears of the owners of agricultural property that they would be assessed on some fanciful multiplication of rent derived from property, and he hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

said, that as he was far from desirous of upsetting any agreement, he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, although he still held that his words would more clearly express the intentions of the Government.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the object of the next Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, and which he had been requested to propose, was to secure that certain deductions already allowed on the Income Tax assessments would be allowed in the future as well as those allowed under the Succession Duty.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 9, after the word "have," to insert the words "been allowed in that assessment, and also such other deductions as have."—( Mr. Hanbury .)

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

said, the clause as framed clearly indicated that those deductions would be allowed.

^* said, he, too, thought it was perfectly clear that, first the Income Tax and then the Succession Duty deductions were to be allowed, and then 5 per cent.

That is so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

said, the clause stated that the principal value should be as assessed, and that in calculating the principal value of any property the Commissioners were to allow such deductions as were allowed under the Income Tax Acts and under the Succession Duty Act of 1853, and in addition were to make a deduction for expenses of management not exceeding 5 per cent, of the annual value so assessed. He wished to move as an Amendment that 10 per cent, instead of 5 per cent, should be allowed for the expenses of management. He did not think that 5 per cent. was enough. He was aware that when the question was raised in the Committee stage, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Solicitor General gave them a historical and interesting explanation of the tenure of land in order to show what were the grounds upon which this percentage of 5 per cent. had been fixed. He (Sir R. Temple) did not deny that the Government might have good authority for inserting this percentage, but what he submitted was that however good that authority might be, it was not possible under existing circumstances to manage any estate for 5 per cent. He was speaking in the presence of many hon. Gentlemen who owned property, and he appealed to them whether it was possible that any estate could be managed at such a rate. If the owner lived on the place and did a good deal or all of the work for himself, he did not say that 5 per cent, would not cover it. In that event, no doubt a £1,000 estate could be managed for £50. But in the existing state of English society they did not expect to find the owners living on estates and managing for themselves, and the consequence was that there were law charges and incidental charges and payments to agents to be provided for, and he was certain that a man who had an estate yielding £1,000 a year net rental would be very lucky if he could get it managed at a less cost than £100 a year, and equally certain that no man with a net rental of £2,000 a year could have it managed for £100 a year. He ventured to put these matters as practical facts to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his consideration. It was no use for the Government to give them sharp answers or rough answers. They tried to put their points in a moderate manner, and they were entitled to have them considered.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 12, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "ten."—( Sir R. Temple .)

Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Bill."

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment. He agreed that there might be cases in which 5 per cent. did not represent the outgoings for management. This 5 per cent., however, was a concession made by the Government. He thought he might point out, and that he was right in saying, that the 5 per cent. deduction was made in respect of the amount payable for Income Tax and not upon the net rent of the property.

said, the real fact was, that this allowance had never been made before. In settling this clause with hon. Members opposite, the proposal of 5 per cent, was accepted, and it was considered, in the circumstances, to be adequate.

agreed that this was a new allowance so far as individuals were concerned, though it was allowed in the Act of 1885 in the case of Corporations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Clause 7, page 6, line 16, leave out "on," and insert "in respect of."

Clause 7, page 6, Line 18, leave out "on," and insert "in respect of."

Clause 7, page 6, Line 21, leave out from "date of the," to "and," in line 22, and insert "death of the deceased."

Clause 7, page 6, Line 21, leave out "on," and insert "in respect of."

Clause 7, page 6, Line 23, leave out "upon," and insert "in respect of."

Clause 7, page 6, Line 26, leave out "originally," and insert "previously."

Clause 7, page 6, Line 28, leave out "the interest of a deceased person in any property," and insert "an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased."

^* moved, in Clause 7, page 6, lines 24 and 25, leave out "at that time," and insert "when it falls into possession." The right hon. Gentleman said he had placed the Amendment upon the Paper with a view of eliciting what the clause meant. Its wording seemed to him to be very doubtful.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words "at that time," and insert the words "when it falls into possession."—( Sir M. Hicks-Beach .)

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

said, the Government meant to convey the meaning "when it falls into possession," and would accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

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

Question put, and agreed to.

^* moved, in Clause 7, page 6, leave out lines 34 to 36. He said, this was purely a drafting Amendment. The clause related to the mode in which the value of the property was to be calculated, and the subsection he proposed to omit had been put into the middle of a clause to which it had no reference.

Amendment proposed, to leave out lines 34 to 36.—( Sir M . Hicks-Beach .)

Question proposed, "That lines 34 to 36 stand part of the Bill."

said, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right. He thought the words would appear more properly in Clause 15.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. R. T. Reid, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 6, line 34, leave out "upon," and insert "in respect of."

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 2, after the word "necessary," to insert the words—

"(8)Where the Commissioners require a valuation to be made by a person named by them, the reasonable costs of such valuation shall be defrayed by the Commissioners.

(9)"Property passing on any death shall not be aggregated more than once, nor shall Estate Duty in respect thereof be more than once levied on the same death."—( Mr. R. T. Reid .)

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

moved, as an Amendment to the Solicitor General's proposed Amendment (Clause 7, page 7, line 2), leave out "reasonable." The hon. Gentleman asked who was going to pay the costs supposing that they were not reasonable, and who was going to fight the valuers on the question of what was and what was not reasonable. He thought it was obviously desirable to leave out the word "reasonable." The Commissioners would have it in their own power to fix a scale of valuation, and Somerset House would not pay more than the reasonable cost, and if they left out "reasonable," the cost would fall upon the valuer who made the unreasonable charge, and not upon the person accountable.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the word "reasonable."—( Mr . Grant Lawson .)

Question proposed, "That the word 'reasonable' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

said, he thought it would be very unreasonable to leave out "reasonable." There existed in the public mind a disposition to fleece the Government if they could, and there might be a toleration of excessive sums which the Commissioners would have to pay.

observed that the Inland Revenue authorities designated the person who was to be employed, and if they did not want to be charged unreasonably he should recommend that they should not employ an unreasonable person. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was difficult to find persons who were not unreasonable, and he was afraid that. Government officers, even if they happened to be in Parliament, did not always escape the charge of being unreasonable in their demands on their fellow-subjects. It seemed to him that if the Inland Revenue authorities called the tune they ought to be prepared to pay the piper. This was a case where the unfortunate individual who was going to be saddled with unreasonable costs had no voice whatever in the selection of the valuer. Those who selected the valuer were aware, or ought to be aware, that the person selected was one who might make unreasonable charges, but they escaped their responsibility by turning round on the person on whom they forced the services of this unreasonable being, and said that he would have to pay the balance of cost which they saw fit to disallow. If a person of this kind did make an unreasonable charge, he would have to enforce his charge in a Court of Law, and did he understand the Government to contend that if the charge had been substantiated in a Court of Law they would wish to repudiate it? He took it if the cost were reasonable they would have to pay it. The proposal was open to the great objection, among others, that it had a tendency to drive these cases into a Court of Law. He thought if the Inland Revenue authorities were to be able to turn round and constitute themselves judges of whether a charge was reasonable or not it would be a very bad thing. These words in the Bill constituted an iniquity, and enabled the Government to force the services of a person on the unfortunate owner of property.

submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was no reason why it was reasonable to insist upon the word "reasonable," because, although the right hon. Gentleman suggested that there were valuers who might make unreasonable charges, it was entirely within the power of the Commissioners themselves in the case provided for by this sub-section to avoid employing any such valuer, or if they did employ him they could make a contract in advance that his charges should be reasonable or for a specified amount. It would be perfectly right and just if the other party interested were to name the vainer, or he were to be named by any indifferent process, as by arbitration, that this provision should be made that the charges should not be unreasonable or if they were they should not be paid by the Commissioners. But in this case the Commissioners were making their own bargain; and if they chose to make an unreasonable bargain, it was not right that the margin of unreasonableness over reasonableness should be paid by somebody else than themselves. The Commissioners had the power of protecting themselves against unreasonable charges, and if so, and if they did not exercise that power, the penalty should not be put by them upon some other person.

^* said, that Sub-section 7 clearly enabled the Commissioners to employ a valuer, and if an unreasonable charge was made, in that case they would have to pay it or abide the consequences, or the valuer would have to forego it. He did not think, on the other hand, that the insertion of the word "reasonable" was material, because it was implied by law that no unreasonable payment could be sustained, and in the absence of a specific contract only a reasonable charge could be recovered.

suggested, that the difficulty might be met if his hon. Friend's Amendment were accepted, and then the sub-section made to read thus:—

"Where the Commissioners require a valuation to be made by a person, named by them, the cost of such valuation shall be arranged by the Commissioners, and shall be defrayed by them."

If these, or equivalent, words were accepted, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman against the Amendment would fall to the ground. He agreed that the Government should be protected, and the words he had suggested would give the Government the power to protect themselves—to make what arrangement they pleased. If they made the arrangement and selected the valuer it was only just they should pay the whole cost that the valuer charged.

said, that the Commissioners could not insist upon a particular valuer. A valuation might be brought in to them which had been made by a well-known valuer, and they would accept it. It was the case that people did charge more to the Government than they did to other persons, and as a business matter it was advisable to have this provision as to the valuation.

Question put, and agreed to.

said, he quite agreed with Sub-section (9) which provided that

"property passing on any death shall not be aggregated more than once, nor shall Estate Duty in respect thereof be more than once levied on the same death."

He should like to draw the attention of the House to the position in which they were—that it was necessary to put such a provision in. They were considering the question of Death Duties, and the Bill was so framed that they were obliged to lay down the proposal in the clause that property should not be aggregated more than once, as if by any possible means or fairness it ought ever to be aggregated more than once—and that Estate Duty should be charged once. It was obvious that the Bill was so complicated and badly drawn that it was really necessary to put in this provision. Under no conceivable means could property passing on death be aggregated more than once, or Estate Duty be required more than once, and although he agreed that the clause was necessary on account of the complicated and imperfect manner in which the Bill had been drawn and carried out, he thought this clause alone should stamp the measure for what it was really worth in the mode in which it had been carried out.

remarked that the clause had evidently been inspired by the person who originally conceived the Bill, but it was not quite in accordance with the results achieved by the Bill. He found there would be no fewer than 15 aggregations possible under the Bill, and segregations and segregations of segregations. What was provided here was that the same property should not be more than once in the same aggregation. But there would be no fewer than 15 aggregations in the Bill, whilst the original purpose was to make one aggregation of all the property of the person who died. He thought that was rather a remarkable result.

Amendment ( Mr. R. T. Reid ) agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 9, after the word "Majesty," to insert the words

"and for the purpose of payment of sums under one hundred pounds requiring representation."—( Mr. R. T. Reid .)

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

said, this was practically the same Amendment as the one he had himself put down, and he thanked the Solicitor General for making this proposal. His (Mr. Hanbury's) Amendment had for its object merely the preserving of existing exemptions, but he thought the Government might have gone a little further. This Bill purposed to redress anomalies. However, with this exemption in the Bill, they should still be retaining a peculiar anomaly, and it was this: That this exemption would only apply to the case of civil servants in the office of the Admiralty. Civil servants in the same position in the War Office and in similar Departments would not come under this exemption. Up to the year 1889 there was an Act in force which exempted all civil servants from all arrears of pensions up to the amount of £100. For some reason or other the whole of that Bill was abrogated, he thought by the Superannuation Act of 1889, and the result was that these exemptions were maintained in the case of the civil servants in the Admiralty, whilst they were entirely swept away in the case of all other civil servants. He appealed to the Government now that they were maintaining these exemptions in the case of civil servants in the Admiralty, to deal practically with all civil servants who were really on the same footing. The principle was exactly the same. If it was fair that arrears of pay and pension up to £100 in the case of the civil servants in the Admiralty should be exempted from the Estate Duty, surely it was fair that exactly the same exemption should be extended to civil servants in other Departments.

said, the Government proposed to preserve the existing exemptions, but the hon. Member for Preston suggested that they should revise the exemptions which were made so lately as 1889. He did not think that was reasonable. The object of the Amendment which the hon. Member put down, like that of the Government, was to maintain existing exemptions, and beyond this it was not reasonable to ask them to Go.

Question put, and agreed to,

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 10, after the word "Act," to insert the words—

"Sections 12 to 14 of The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict., c. 7), and Section 47 of the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict., c. 66), shall apply as if Estate Duty were therein mentioned as well as Succession Duty, and as if an account were not settled within the meaning of any of the above sections until the duty payable on such account has been paid"—( Mr . R . T . Reid .)

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

proposed as an Amendment to the Solicitor General's proposed Amendment, line 4, to leave out all after "duty." He said the words he proposed should be omitted were these—

"And as if an account were not settled within the meaning of any of the above sections until the duty payable on such account has been paid."

He might be in error, but he could not help thinking that there must be some mistake here. Clause 14 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, provided that—

"No person shall under a testamentary document admitted to probate or…. administration be liable to the payment of any Legacy Duty or Succession Duty, or duty hereinbefore imposed by this part of the Act, after the expiration of six years from the date of the settlement of the account in respect of which the duty is payable, where such account was in all respects a full and true account, and contained all the facts material to be known by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the ascertaining the rate and amount of duty, and no trustee, executor, or administrator, shall, after the expiration of such six years, be liable to such duty if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the account rendered was correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief."

He was under the impression that the intention of the Solicitor General's Amendment was to make that provision apply also to the case of Estate Duty under this Act. It seemed to him to be a fair provision; but the Solicitor General proposed, after making this section, amongst others, apply, to add the words—

"And as if an account were not settled within the meaning of any of the above sections until the duty payable on such account has been paid."

If the duty had been paid he could not see what was the use of giving these six years or anything of the kind. The true meaning of it was that if a man did his duty and put in a full and proper account which was settled and agreed upon by the Commissioners, then, after six years, he had not to be liable. He begged, therefore, to move his Amendment to omit all the words after the word "duty."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the word "duty," in line 4, to the end thereof.—( Mr. Byrne .)

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

said, he would explain the reason for his Amendment. The 14th section to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was operative to extinguish debts after the expiration of six years from the date of the settlement of the account in respect of which the duty was payable. That was to say, when the account was settled, then from that date the six years run, and if it was not paid in that six years it could not be required at all. The Government proposed to except the limitation of six years. They could not take a period of six years from the date of the settlement of the account. They had got to deal with cases in which the money was not payable until eight years after the account was settled, because it might be paid by instalments extending over eight years; and unless they inserted the words he had proposed, the Statute of Limitations extinguishing the debt would actually come into operation before the last two years' instalments were due.

asked if the expression, "and as if an account were not settled within the meaning of any of the above sections until the duty payable on such account has been paid," was meant solely to refer to the 8 per cent, to be paid by instalments? It was difficult to see how the language did mean that. Of course, he must accept the Solicitor's General's version, but the words seemed extremely obscure.

^* suggested that the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Essex might be met if they added at the end of the Solicitor General's Amendment the words "Until the time for payment of the duty on such account has arrived," in place of the concluding words.

said, that he would, on this understanding, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment amended, by leaving out from the word "the," in line 5, to the end thereof, and adding the words "time for the payment of the duty on such account has arrived," instead thereof.

Words, as amended, inserted.

moved, in page 7, line 10, at end, insert—

"Provided that such exemption shall extend to the property of officers and non-commissioned officers which shall not exceed in amount £2,000."

The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to provide that the exemption which now attached to the property of what were called common seamen, marines, or soldiers, who were slain or died in the service of Her Majesty should be enlarged so as to include property of officers and non-commissioned officers not exceeding in amount £2,000. He would urge upon the Government that this was intended to include a class of officers who were particularly deserving of consideration. They had of late years rightly encouraged the habit of promoting from the ranks and giving commissions to men who had risen from the ranks. These men, as a rule, had served their time in the non-commissioned ranks, and these were the men who had taken advantage of the opportunities given for saving, and had accumulated a small property of their own. Suppose that a private soldier who had accumulated some such sum as he had suggested behaved with extreme gallantry, for which he was promoted and in the next action was killed, the very fact of having received promotion brought that property under the scope of the newly-imposed Estate Duty, and it was to meet such cases that he ventured to suggest this Amendment. He had placed the amount exceedingly low; and if the Government thought it should be further reduced, it was for them to suggest to what figure it should be so reduced. There were soldiers bearing the rank of officers who had not very much money to spare, and to whose successors the escaping of this duty would be a matter of considerable importance. Of course it would be impossible to draw a distinction between one class of officers and another class, and to say that the exemption should be granted only to officers who had been promoted from the ranks. His Amendment would, therefore, include ordinary commissioned officers; and he thought it was only fair and just that the successors of an officer killed in action, whose property was worth only £2,000, should have the exemption proposed in the Amendment. He appealed to the generous instincts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept the Amendment, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he did so he would have made a concession which would be very acceptable throughout the country, and certainly in the Service.

^* : I do not think this Amendment is in Order. The principle was decided in Committee when an Amendment proposing that the property of officers in the Army and Navy up to £5,000 should be exempt from the duty was rejected.

The other Amendment was complicated by the introduction of another class.

The other Amendment covered all officers in the Army and Navy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes now to limit the exemption to officers in the Army; but the principle is the same.

On the Motion of Mr. R. T. Reid, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 7, line 15, leave out "on," and insert "in respect of."

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 15, to leave out from the word "property," to the word "but," in line 17, and insert the words "passing to him as executor of the deceased."—( Mr . Byrne .)

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

said, he did not think his hon. and learned Friend quite appreciated the result of the Amendment. Under the Amendment an executor would be accountable for Estate Duty on personal property passing to him as executor of the deceased, but for no more—that was to say, only for personal property within the United Kingdom, because foreign property did not pass to him at all. A good deal of the duty could be avoided under such an Amendment, and therefore the Government could not accept it.

said, that as the matter had been discussed before he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words "assets of which he has control," and insert the words "the assets to which he is entitled as executor."—( Mr . R . T . Reid .)

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

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

^* said, the words which the Solicitor General proposed to leave out were the only words which saved the executor from having to pay duty to an amount beyond the assets he had got in his hands. For instance, a man might have a power of appointment over £1,000,000, and have £10,000 besides; but as the executor only got the £10,000, he would, under the words which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to leave out, only have to pay duty to the extent of £10,000, whereas if the words "the assets to which he is entitled as executor" were inserted, the executor might have to pay duty on assets which he had not got in his hands and had no control over.

said, the words he proposed to substitute would give the same protection to the executor as the words in the clause, but he was prepared to leave the clause as it stood.

The words have been moved out of the clause.

Then I am sorry the point was not raised before.

You might insert the words "the assets actually received by him."

It must be obvious that those words will not do. For instance, an executor might refuse to receive things which he was bound to receive. An executor is always accountable in law not only in respect to what he has received in fact, but what he is entitled to receive and might have received if he choosed. I will move the insertion of these words "the assets which he has received as executor, or might, but for his own neglect or default, have received."

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 20, to leave out the word "thereon," and insert the words "in respect of such property."—( MR. T. Reid .)

Question, "That the word 'thereon' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

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

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 22, to leave out from the word "property," to the word "every," in line 23, and insert the words "for the time being under his control."—( Sir R . Webster .)

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

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 24, to leave out from the word "person," to the word "and," in line 25, and insert the words "to whom any property passes on such death."—( Sir R . Webster .)

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

moved to omit from the clause the words—

"and every person in whom the same is vested in possession by alienation or other derivative title."

If those words were allowed to stand a person who obtained property by purchase would be accountable for Estate Duty on the death of the former owner of the property.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 25, to leave out from the word "vested," to the word "shall," in line 27.—( Sir R . Webster .)

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

admitted that no person who was a bonâ fide purchaser of the property for a valuable consideration should be held accountable for the Estate Duty, and therefore there was standing on the Paper in his name an Amendment to be added to the end of Clause 8, providing that

"Nothing in this section shall render liable to duty a bonâ fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice."

Under those words a person who took the property in good faith, for a valuable consideration and without notice of any unsatisfied charge on the property, would be protected; but a man who did not take in good faith, who paid nothing for it, and who knew that there was an unsatisfied charge on the property, ought surely to be made to pay the Estate Duty.

Question put, and agreed to.

proposed to insert in page 7, at the end of line 30, after the word "property" the words—

"Provided that nothing in this section contained shall render a person accountable for duty who acts merely as the agent or bailiff for another person in the management of the property."

As the clause stood, every person in whom the management of the property was vested would be accountable for the Estate Duty. An agent was a person in whom the management of the property was vested; and unless the Amendment were accepted, the agent, whom it could not be the intention of the Government to hold liable, might be held liable for Estate Duty under the clause. He regretted he had been unable to put the Amendment on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, at the end of line 30, after the word "property," to insert the words—

"Provided that nothing in this section contained shall render a person accountable for duty who acts merely as the agent or bailiff for another person in the management of the property."—( Mr. Butcher .)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.

said, the Amendment was really necessary in order to protect bankers and other persons, such as agents who managed properties without having any beneficiary interest in them, from being held liable for the Estate Duty.

^* called attention to the fact that in the preceding clause 5 per cent, of the annual value of the estate was allowed to be deducted for the expenses of management, and therefore the word "management" in the present clause might be interpreted in the way which the Amendment was intended to prevent.

said, it was a pity the Amendment was not put on the Paper, because it was difficult to decide the point without having the opportunity of seeing the words. The words of the clause as they stood were taken from the Act of 1853, and it was clear they were not intended to make accountable people who were merely bailiffs or agents for other persons; but as he understood the Amendment, he had no objection to its being accepted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 31, after the word "duty," to insert the words—

"shall be a debtor to the Crown for the amount of unpaid duty upon which he is accountable, and also every such person."—( Mr. R. T. Reid .)

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

said, this was a beautiful instance of the muddle to which the Bill had been brought. Could any human being understand what the clause meant if those words were inserted? The clause with the addition of the words would run—

"Every person accountable for Estate Duty, shall be a debtor to the Crown for the amount of unpaid duty for which he is accountable, and also every person whom the Commissioners believe," &c.

should deliver a statement to the Commissioners. He presumed that what was meant was that every person referred to in the clause should deliver the statement.

Yes.

said, the phraseology of the clause was very ambiguous.

moved, as an Amendment to the Solicitor General's Amendment, to insert, after the word "accountable" in the said Amendment, the words—

"But any proceedings against him to recover such unpaid duty shall be subject to the provisions and limitations of The Debtors' Act, 1869."

The proposition of the Solicitor General raised a serious question, and one to which, affecting as it did the liberty of the subject, he invited the consideration of hon. Members on all sides of the House, to which he submitted that if the Solicitor General's important Amendment, introduced for the first time at this ate stage of the Bill were passed, his (Sir A. Rollit's) own Amendment must inevitably be added to the former. The combined effect of Clause 8 of the Bill and the Solicitor General's Amendment would be to make accountable and liable to pay Estate Duty not only the executor, in respect of personalty (and the lot of an executor would be a hard one in the future), but also any person to whom the property passed beneficially in possession—any trustee, guardian, or committee, and even any assignee by way of purchase or otherwise. All these persons would not only be liable, under severe penalties, to account; but if there were any failure either to account or to pay, they would forfeit, at the election of the Commissioners, £100, or double the duties for which they were accountable under the Bill. Moreover, under the Solicitor General's Amendment, if enacted—and it was singular that, if it was necessary at all, such an important enacting clause should have been omitted by the draftsman from the original Bill—each and all of the above accountable persons would become a Crown debtor for the penalties or duties, including the double duties, and might be placed in the same unfortunate position as he had known Crown debtors to occupy under the Customs laws in respect of treble duties for breach of those laws, which might amount to many thousands or even many hundred thousands of pounds, such was the rigour of the old Revenue laws to which it was now proposed to assimilate the law as to Estate Duty. Thus, while by the Bill the Crown had the security of a first charge, as a Crown debt, with powers to appoint a receiver and to sell the estate, while it had the most ample remedy in rem against the estate itself, the Solicitor General's Amendment now proposed to give a direct remedy in personam, and the executor and all the others he had named would be liable both to account and to pay as Crown debtors, whether their estate was realizable or not, whether or not they had the means of payment, and even if they had made an innocent mistake in the valuation of the property for duty or by having distributed the estate without having, however inadvertently, made full provision for the payment of the duties. Now, he had no sympathy whatever with non-payment of Revenue, or with evasion, or even avoidance of payment, for payment was a duty to the State; but, after all, these duties were only debts, just like other debts—he saw no real distinction between a Crown and a civil debt—and if the nonpayment amounted, under any circumstances, to a crime, the Crown had its remedy through the Criminal Law and by judicial trial and judgment. What he objected to was that what was a civil wrong should be treated, exceptionally as to the Crown, as a crime, and that the most summary and arbitrary powers should be given to the Crown which were properly denied to any subject; that, in short, the Crown should be able to take not only its pound of flesh but the whole body of its debtor, and to imprison him without any judicial investigation of his means or of the circumstances, and not merely for a specified but for an absolutely unlimited time. Such laws were relics of barbarism; they were not even deterrent owing to the uncertainty of their operation, and they were even more severe than the Criminal laws, which now nearly always proportioned the punishment to the offence, and even under the Statutes against personal injuries or against crimes against property a maximum term of imprisonment was always fixed by the law. A Crown debtor might thus be in a worse position than a felon or a misdemeanant, subject as he was to the possibility of lifelong imprisonment in default of payment, and there had been many cases of such hardships under the Revenue laws, which were by far the most severe of all Statutes. What, then, would be the practical effect of the. Solicitor General's Amendment? Let them compare the cases of a civil and a Crown debtor. For the former the Debtors' Act, 1869, abolished perpetual imprisonment for debt, and even in the excepted cases of certain penalties under summary jurisdiction orders, as for rates, or fiduciary malfeasance by a trustee, limited imprisonment to one year. In all other cases the creditor must prove to a Judge that his debtor had, or had had since the judgment, the means of payment and even then imprisonment for such a contempt of Court was limited to six weeks, while payment could be ordered to be made by instalments, and the imprisonment was not to be a satisfaction of the debt. Surely this was sufficient in the case of a Crown debtor, as it was right and just in civil cases, and his own Amendment proposed to give all these powers as against the Crown debtor. Even fines and penalties recoverable under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts were by the Act of 1879 similarly limited in the sanctions by which they were enforceable, since means to pay must be proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrates, and imprisonment for default was limited to three months. Thus the whole tendency of modern, civil, and even criminal legislation was at variance with the Solicitor General's Amendment and with the perpetual imprisonment which might involve even for innocent Crown debtors, while under his (Sir A. Rollit's) Amendment ample provisions would exist to enforce payment of Crown, like civil, debts. And if the Solicitor General's Amendment were passed without the addition proposed by himself, what might be the unfortunate position of a Crown debtor for the duties, though their liability was limited to the assets which had been realised? It had been decided, and it needed a decision for the purpose, that as the Crown was not expressly named in the Debtors' Act, 1869, the Crown was not bound by the limitations of imprisonment specified in that Statute. So, then, by the Crown Debts Act, 1865, the Attorney General had only to go as representing the Crown into the Exchequer, and, by the most summary process, the Crown could in 14 days, and without, necessarily, any preliminary proceedings or pleadings, recover judgment for these largely-increased duties, or double duties, or other penalties. Then, unlike the ease of any other civil debtor, without any proof of means or possibility of payment whatever, and without any further hearing or judicial process, the Crown could at once issue an old and obsolete writ, take the body of its debtor, and keep him without the possibility of release except on full payment, or by the mercy, or as he would rather term it, by the caprice of the Crown. All this, if, indeed, it were necessary at all, having regard to other parts of the Clause 8, was an anachronism utterly at variance with the tendency of the times and of the law against imprisonment for debt and against interminable imprisonment, and ought not to have given to it any additional sanction or countenance by Parliament. He, therefore, proposed his Amendment to limit imprisonments, and enforce the condition precedent of proof of means of payment, and so to mitigate the rigour of these Revenue laws. In exceptional cases of fiduciary fraud the case would be met by the exceptions in the Debtor's Act, which permitted longer, but still limited, imprisonment, and, in the absence of such aggravating circumstances, the Crown ought to have, like any subject, no more than the ample protection accorded by the ordinary law and the powers conferred by the Bill, which itself incorporated the existing Crown Debt Law upon the subject. He, therefore, moved his Amendment, and should persist in it so long as the Solicitor General's Amendment to his own Bill was before the House.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "accountable," to insert the words—

"But any proceedings against him to recover such unpaid duty shall be subject to the provisions and limitations of The Debtors' Act, 1869."—( Sir A. Rollit .)

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would place the collection of the tax under this Bill on a different footing from that of any other tax in the country. That is a very serious proposal, and I do not think it is one that will be supported by any responsible person. The power that the Crown now asks for is exercised by all Municipal and Local Authorities where default is made in payment of debts due to them. That the fears of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the possible cruel operation of the Amendment are unfounded is proved by the fact that our gaols are not at the present time overcrowded by those who are unable to pay the debts they owe to the various Municipal and Local Authorities or to the Inland Revenue Department. Of course, if it be desired to abolish the system that universally prevails with regard to public debts—whether debts to the Local Authorities, or debts to the State authorities—a proposal to effect that reform in the law might be brought forward on a fitting occasion, but I submit that this is not the proper time for discussing the question. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment is a member of the Municipal Corporations Association. I am sure that if he represented the views of the Association on this question he would be one of the principal opponents of this change.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would differentiate between this duty and other Inland Revenue or municipal taxes.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me. I desired also to say that the power of the Crown is never enforced in the case of the non-payment of Crown debts unless the debtor is guilty of malversation or has the money to pay the debt and refuses to pay. Surely no one will suggest that the Amendment of the Solicitor General should not apply in those cases.

admitted that the last observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a different aspect on the whole question. Malversation was, of course, a different thing. But ho was about to say that while the right hon. Gentleman objected to the differentiation of this tax from other Crown and municipal taxes, he should recollect that this tax was a very peculiar one, and was, in its nature and incidence, entirely different from every other tax. Debtors under this Bill would stand upon a totally different footing from other Crown debtors. In most other cases the individual who had to pay the tax was the real defaulter. He had contracted a personal liability himself. But in this case the person who had to pay the tax was the executor who had not, personally, incurred any debt at all, and who derived no benefit from the subject-matter out of which the tax was paid. An executor who did not pay the tax might be absolutely unable to raise the money upon the estate for the purpose of discharging the duty. It would be most cruel and most unjust to send such a man to prison because he was unable to pay the duty. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Crown would not enforce imprisonment in such a case, but under the Government Amendment the Crown would have the right to enforce it, and the debtor would be at the mere mercy of the Crown. He did not think that it would redound to the benefit of the community if the obligations of executors were made more onerous than they were at present. He himself had occasionally had to act as the executor of some of his old friends, but if the Government Amendment was persisted in he should never become an executor again if he could help it. The result of the Government Amendment being accepted would be that only reckless persons who did not care what happened would accept the position of executors. He confessed that it was new to him to hear that the Municipal Bodies had the power to imprison their debtors in perpetuity. In the case of ordinary debtors they could not be imprisoned unless proof were given that they were able to pay, but in the case of Crown debtors under this Bill no proof of ability to pay was required as a preliminary to imprisonment. He hoped that the House would not place executors under this Bill in the arbitrary power of the Crown. If the Crown had the right to enforce payment of a Crown debt by imprisonment everyone must desire that so absolute a power should be removed from the Statute Book.

It will depend on the answer to a question whether I will support the Government or the Amendment. But I say at once it would not be wise at this stage of a Bill of this kind to make a new departure with regard to the rights of the Crown in respect to this duty and all other taxes of the Crown, and on general grounds I should be inclined to support the Government if this clause places the Estate Duty on the same footing as the existing Death Duties. Would the executor be liable to these pains and penalties in respect to Probate Duty at present?

Yes.

If so, I wish to know why it is necessary to introduce these words at all? It would seem from their introduction that some now principle is being applied to the Estate Duty that is not now applied to Probate Duty.

There is no difference; and therefore this duty is exactly on the same footing as the Probate Duty now.

My hon. Friends who are learned in the law will be able to argue that point better than I can. But it seems to be that there is only one hypothesis on which the words can be necessary, and that is that penalties are to be enforced, not only against the person who is the debtor, but also against the person who is accountable. That seems to me to be a very novel proceeding, and one that ought to be resisted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued the case as if it were simply putting the debt on the same footing as other debts.

That is so.

Then are these words in the Acts relating to the Probate Duty and the Legacy Duty, and will they be applied to the Income Tax? I want the House to have full information on the subject. My inclination would be not to discriminate between these duties; bat I am not prepared to vote for a clause which would make a person who is only accountable liable for penalties which have hitherto been only enforced where there is an actual debtor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the penalties would only be enforced in cases of actual default, when the person had the money in hand to pay the debt to the Crown; but that is not clear from the Amendment of the Solicitor General, and the Government ought to throw further light on the matter.

^* said, the proposed Amendment of the words submitted by the Government would make, in the case of this particular duty, au exception which did not exist in the case of any other tax or rate. It was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, what was meant by "accountable." The words were taken practically from the Succession Duty Act. Every man who was accountable was liable to pay, and if those who were accountable did not pay they were debtors to the Crown. He did not know how it came about that it was proposed to introduce these words, but he supposed they were moved on account of some question which arose in Committee; and, as he understood the case, if the Amendment of the Government were not accepted the Estate Duty would be treated differently from every other tax which was payable to the Crown.

said, that if the Amendment of the Government must be insisted upon there was very grave reason why the House should accept the Amendment upon it. The clause made an executor accountable for all personal property in this country or in any other country, or whether it came to his hands or not; and, although it was said he should not be liable for any duty in excess of the assets of which he had control, it went on to make him a debtor to the Crown in respect of all for which he was accountable. He did not see what harm could be done by the Government giving up their Amendment if the duty when due was a debt to the Crown.

said, there was no need to waste pity on an executor, who was liable only in respect of assets which had come into his hands. Therefore, the executor could only be a debtor in respect to that of which he had real control. With regard to the general principle of Crown Duties, he agreed that the whole procedure was antiquated; but he did not think that in dealing with this one particular tax in the Bill they would be acting wisely or discreetly in altering the procedure. The proper course would be to consider the whole question of the procedure of duties and taxes and alter it in accordance with modern ideas. He could not understand why the Government wished to introduce these words, as he who owed a tax was a Crown debtor under other Acts of Parliament. But perhaps the reason for introducing them was that this Bill provided a special procedure for recovery, and authorised the High Court to appoint a receiver and order a sale. The words introduced by the Government gave warning to a person of the penalties to which he might be liable. He was not prepared to vote that persons coming under the scope of this Act were to be placed on a different footing to other persons, and he should support the Government.

said, the right hon. Member for St. George's had raised a point, to which the hon. and learned Member had called attention—namely, the fact that in this Bill a person might be accountable for property which did not come into his hand, and it would be very unfair, therefore, that he should be liable to any penalties in respect to that property. He also called attention to the latter part of the clause which stated that au executor or person accountable should not be liable for anything which did not come into his hands, He (Sir W. Harcourt) thought that this point could be met if they substituted the word "liable" for "accountable," and then the liability would be just the same as that of any other Crown debtor. In answer to the right hon. Member for St. George's, he had to say that he had asked and had been told that these words, "debtor to Her Majesty," were used in the Succession Duty Acts, and other Acts of a similar character, and, therefore, in retaining these words they should be maintaining the general rule. He was sure that if the question went to a Division the right hon. Member for. St. George's would not support a proposal to place this tax on a different footing to other taxes, and imperil the means of raising the Revenue of the country. He hoped the substitution of the word "liable" for "accountable" in the Amendment of the Government would be held to meet the case.

^* : How would that read? Would it not read this way: "Every person accountable for Estate Duty shall be a debtor to the Crown for the amount of duty for which he is liable"?

said, what was meant was this: The hon. and learned Member had pointed out that a person might be accountable for more than he was liable for under this clause. That was to say, he might have to account for moneys that ultimately would not come into his hands, and what the Government desired was that he should be debtor only for that which came into his hands, and for which he was declared to be liable. He thought the alteration he had suggested in the Amendment of the Government would meet the case.

was afraid the Amendment proposed by his right hon. Friend would not meet the real difficulties which underlay this clause. To say that they would avoid the difficulty by changing the word "accountable" into "liable" was to suppose the words had the same meaning and produced different results. A man who was accountable was liable in the first instance.

That is not so. He is declared to be accountable for the whole, but liable only for that which conies into his hands.

said, that no doubt under the Succession Duty Act it was expressly provided that Succession Duty should be a Crown debt from the successor—that was the person who got the property or benefit in respect of which the duty was charged. That was, of course, very much more limited than what was proposed here. He thought the Member for Islington was well justified in calling attention to the general principle, and he was astonished at the line of reasoning which was adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first instance, when he said that they were proposing to take away from the Crown the remedy which every Municipal Corporation had, and the hon. Member for Islington, who was President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, would, if he were successful in this instance, find himself in awkward relations with his friends in the Association out of doors, who would say, "You have given up the remedy which we possessed." He found in the Debtors' Act of 1869, which abolished imprisonment for debt, that there was excepted from the debts in respect of which that abolition was enacted

"default in payment of any sum recoverable summarily before a Justice of the Peace or Justices of the Peace."

Therefore, they had not abolished imprisonment for debt in respect of rates. But there was added this proviso—

"Provided that no person shall be imprisoned in any case excepted from the operation of this section for a longer period than 12 months."

So that, in fact, the remedy that a Municipal Corporation or any other Public Body had was, at the outside, the imprisonment of a defaulter for 12 months; and inasmuch as it rested with the discretion of a Magistrate, that was never heard of and would never be exercised. It was impossible to sustain the argument that in endeavouring to limit the Crown remedy here they were doing something which would put the Municipal Corporations in the position of depriving them and other Local Bodies of powers they enjoyed now. There was nothing in that argument, and therefore they had to fall back upon the supposed necessity of giving the Crown, for the purpose of enforcing its rights, this power, which involved the possible consequences of perpetual imprisonment. Was it right that this discretionary power should be allowed to be vested in the Executive Government for the time being? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the power would never be exercised. That was the plea of all tyrants. Only give them the power and it would never be exercised. Constitutional reformers were not inclined to give them the power, and he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Islington would insist on the Amendment.

thought that on the merits of the question every Member of the House, unless lie occupied a seat on the Treasury Bench, would agree that the Government had no case whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would not be right to exceptionally deprive the Government in the case of these duties of the powers they possessed in regard to other duties. He was the last person when a tax had to be levied to deprive the Government of adequate means of levying it. But the very first words of this clause said that every power now possessed by the. Crown for the recovery of any duty leviable by or with reference to death was given for the levying and recovery of these very duties; therefore, every power now desired to be possessed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was already possessed by the first words of this clause. If it be absolutely necessary to press this Amendment of the Government it must be because the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to have further exceptional powers. He thought he could understand why the right hon. Gentleman wanted exceptional powers, because he wished to get the Crown debt out of the person accountable but not liable for it. But the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that he was willing to replace "accountable" by the word "liable," and therefore that cut away the last vestige of foundation for this Amendment. He could not understand the necessity for the Amendment of the Solicitor General. He thought it referred to those who were accountable, but not liable. The first words of the clause they were upon said—

"The existing law and practice relating to any of the duties now leviable on or with reference to death shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and so far as the same are applicable, apply for the purposes of the collection, recovery, and repayment of Estate Duty."

That covered the whole case; that was all the Chancellor of the Exchequer professed to want, and the power was given under the existing law for the recovery of Death Duties. The right hon. Gentleman had the power he desired, and he would ask him to recognise that fact, and direct the Solicitor General to withdraw his Amendment.

said, if the hon. Member was right in his contention that the power asked for was already given them this discussion was superfluous. But he thought the Amendment was necessary in order to make it clear that the power was given.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that the first words of the clause did not carry out what the Amendment was designed to effect. The clause only referred to beneficiaries, and did not affect executors at all; therefore these words were required to affect executors who were accountable for duty. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward the case of ratepayers. In the case of ratepayers, as in that of beneficiaries under a will, they were going to get something, and ought, therefore, to be made to pay. But in this case it was the executor and other persons who were going to get no benefit who were to be brought under this penalty. As to rates, everybody knew that where rates were not paid the defaulters were proceeded against by summons, and made to pay by small instalments, or were sent to prison for a very short term. The Amendment of the Government entirely changed the law. Under the Succession Duty the Government had not got these powers, and therefore this Amendment was brought forward at the eleventh hour, when they had no opportunity of reconsidering it.

was sorry that this storm had arisen over a modest Amendment of his which simply applied to the Estate Duty the law applicable lo the Probate, Legacy, and Succession Duties. Succession Duty was made a debt to the Crown by the 16th and 17th Vict., chap. 51, sect. 45. Legacy Duty was made a debt to the Crown by the 36th of George III., chapter 52, section 6, whilst the section which applied this law to the Probate Duty stated—

"If any person who ought to have obtained probate or letters of administration, or delivered a further affidavit, or exhibited an inventory, or who is required to deliver such account as aforesaid, shall neglect to do so within the period prescribed by law for the purpose, he shall be liable to pay to Her Majesty…the amount chargeable, and the same shall be a debt due from him to the Crown, and be recoverable by any way or means now enforced for the recovery of the Probate Duty and the Legacy Duty."

The person who had to pay the Probate Duty was the executor. He did not think it would be urged that this duty should stand in an isolated position different from other duties and other debts due to the Crown. By the Amendment he was simply endeavouring to make it clear that the remedies which by inevitable custom were applicable for the Death Duties should be applicable to this duty.

could not understand why the Government might not be content with the words in Clause 44 of the Succession Act, because that clause said—

"The following persons besides the successor shall be personally accountable to Her Majesty for duty payable in respect to any succession, but to the extent only of the property or funds actually received."

The clause then proceeded to state who those persons were who would be accountable. It was not merely a trustee, but trustee, guardian, committee, tutor, and so on. That would have served the purpose of the Government, and would have saved the House this controversy. The clause he had quoted seemed to contain everything contained by the Amendment, and he would suggest that even now it was not too late to adopt it in place of the Amendment.

said, those who had listened to the Debate must have felt themselves rather confused between the different issues raised. There were two issues—one was that raised in the clear and able speech of the hon. and learned Member for Essex, and the other raised by the Mover of the Amendment now under discussion. The hon. Member for Essex pointed out that under the preceding part of the clause a person might be accountable for duty for which he was not liable, and it might or might not be proper to imprison him for a duty for which he was liable, but it was not proper to imprison him for a duty for which he was not liable. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to substitute the word "liable" for "accountable." They should perhaps have understood this matter better if the Attorney General had not got up at an earlier part of the discussion and explained that "accountable" was exactly the same as "liable," and that in tact there was no distinction whatever to be drawn between the two. It was an unfortunate preface to an Amendment by his own chief to substitute the word "liable" for the word "accountable." But he passed by that, which, after all, was a subsidiary point, and he came to the main issue raised by his hon. Friend below the Gangway, and that was whether they should or should not continue in this new Act the antiquated system which had, nominally at all events, prevailed with regard to all their system of levying taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a slip when he told them that this method was still in operation with regard to the debts of Municipalities. That was not the case, because they had reformed that section of their law. The whole system of their law relating to local taxation had been reformed, and it was time they began to carry some reform with regard to Imperial taxation. It might be true, as the Member for Lynn Regis had pointed out, that they had already unconsciously adopted the system in the earlier part of the clause. At all events, he should avail himself of the opportunity of being able to record his vote against any repetition in this Statute of a system, or any continuation of a system, which ought long ago to have been discarded. His right hon. Friend had pointed out a certain inconvenience in not having one system applicable to all existing modes of taxation. There were worse things, after all, than anomalies, and it was better they should now lay down the principle that in a future Act, involving taxation of the community, the more humane and equally efficient method, confined to the recovery of municipal and local debts, should be applied also to the, collection and recovery of Imperial debts. He did not know why the Government assumed that these barbaric powers were necessary in order to enable recovery. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they would never be put in force, but why, then, put them on the Statute Book? He had always felt that these excessive powers, with the whole of the rest of this antiquated paraphernalia of legal authority, ought to be swept away, and every scrap of it destroyed, and he hailed with satisfaction the advantage of recording his vote against it in the Division Lobby.

^* said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had chosen the time to exhibit his dislike to what he called an antiquated system which was most calculated to be embarrassing to the Government. When the right hon. Gentleman was high in Office he must have known that this course was being pursued with regard to the collection of duties, and although some—and he was one of them—had been aware of it, and had felt that this system ought to be altered, yet they were not prepared to say that it should be done in a piecemeal fashion on this Bill, not out of love for an amendment of the law, but for the purpose of producing annoyance and complication on the Bill before the House. He yielded to nobody in his belief in, and in his practice of, ameliorating their laws in the sense of mercy, but he was not going to have a little cheap reputation by taking his stand on this occasion to proscribe at a time like this the particular state of the law which applied to the whole of the Crown debts. He had moved for a Return on this subject on March 24, 1893, and a reference to it might ease the troubled minds of hon. Members who had drawn harrowing pictures of numerous people wasting long years in prison at the suit of the Crown. That Return showed the number of persons detained in prison in England and Wales for non-payment of penalties or debts due to the Crown in Exchequer, Excise, or Customs suits, stating their names, addresses, and occupations, and giving particulars of their offences. At that time there were five prisoners only detained at Hull or York at the suit of the Crown for smuggling tobacco. Besides those cases, there was one instance of detention under warrant of the Commissioners of Income Tax for non-payment. This was not the time to urge reform in this matter, but there should be one Statute Law upon the subject. That object might be attained if he could induce hon. Members to join him in endeavouring to remedy some of these evils affecting the liberty of the subject on an appropriate occasion.

, rising to a point of Order, asked whether, if his hon. Friend pressed his Amendment, it would be possible for the Government to introduce the word "liable"?

^* said, the word "liable" could not be substituted for the word "accountable" unless the hon. Member for Islington agreed to withdraw his Amendment, or unless both Amendments were withdrawn and a new Amendment was substituted.

said, after the Speaker's ruling, he would suggest that the Government should be allowed to withdraw their Amendment altogether, with the view of reconsidering the matter. For the present he would propose to withdraw the Amendment.

^* agreed to adopt that course, with which he felt he ought to be satisfied.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

moved to insert a new sub-section providing that the Commissioners might certify the amount of valuation of a portion of an estate.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 9, after the word "arrear," to insert as a new sub-section—

"(7) The Commissioners on application from a person accountable for the duty on any property forming part of an estate shall, where they consider that it can conveniently be done, certify the amount of the valuation accepted by them for any class of property forming part of such estate."—( Mr. R. T. Reid .)

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

^* said, it would be desirable that the hon. and learned Gentleman should give the House some indication of what this proposal actually meant. There was some ambiguity about the phrase "any class of property," and he thought it would be better to say "any class or description of property."

agreed, that as estates accountable for duty might consist of various kinds of property it would be desirable that the value of each class of property should be stated. He presumed that some guiding principle must be followed by the Commissioners in dealing with properties and making these valuations. It was not proposed to impose an obligation upon the Commissioners in every case, but that in certain cases they might do so. Did the right hon. Gentleman suggest any other form of words?

hoped the language would be enlarged. He had looked in vain through The Debates to find it; but if his memory was correct, the Solicitor General had stated in Committee that he would provide for "classes of property." Where those words came from he could not pretend to say. The property might comprise agricultural land, leaseholds, and a variety of matters, which would have to be valued. If that was to be done only wherever it was convenient, why should not the words be made as wide instead of as narrow as possible?

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that the words were wide enough and practical enough if he would refer to them.

said, although the Solicitor General had endeavoured to obviate the difficulties which had been put to him, he had not completely met the case, the serious part of which would arise in regard to real estate. The duty would be a first charge, and without some certificate titles would be incomplete, so that people would not be able to sell real estate to which they were entitled when properties had to be broken up. Difficulty must arise where they could not show that they had paid their rateable proportion. The Commissioners were only to certify the amount of the valuation of portions where they were of opinion that that could be done, and it was desirable to enlarge their discretion.

said, the words might well be a little wider. They did not fully meet the case. This was not a contentious matter, and as a discretion was to be given to the Commissioners there need be no question as to enlarging the language. His original Amendment was in that form. Many different classes of property would have to be dealt with, and building property would require quite another kind of valuation to agricultural land. Mines, shipping, and many other descriptions of property would constitute different classes, while land would not. It was advisable that the words should be as wide as possible for the convenience of both Commissioners and beneficiaries.

moved, as an Amendment, to insert, after "class," the words "or description of property." When this question was being discussed in Committee, the Solicitor General invited them to postpone it to the Report stage. He pointed out on that occasion that there would be difficulty if words of that kind were not inserted. If the Commissioners were not to be allowed to value in classes and portions what would be the effect? Two valuations would have to be made: one as between Somerset House and the persons accountable, and the other as between those persons and to the various beneficiaries to whom the estate passed. If the duty were paid by trustees, surely it would be an economy that the valuation made for Somerset House purposes should settle the distribution of the property and also how much of the duty was to be payable by each of the beneficiaries. The Solicitor General himself had recognised in Clause 14 that it was desirable a valuation of this sort should be made, because he proposed to insert a provision with regard to duty recoverable from any person entitled being settled as between that person and the Commissioners. But if the Commissioners could not set out the value of each portion passing to beneficiaries, how were they to be bound by the valuation?

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "class," to insert the words "or description of property."—( Mr. Grant Lawson .)

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

thought that matter ought not to be made the subject of debate at present. Why were not these words sufficient for the purpose? It was surely unnecessary to discuss the matter further, as it was in the discretion of the Commissioners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Formal Amendments.

moved to amend Subsection 7 by the insertion of words providing that postponement of payment should be allowed where the Commissioners were satisfied that the duty on any property could not "without hardship" be raised at once. As the subsection stood the Government had provided that where the Commissioners were satisfied that the Estate or Settlement Duty could not be raised at once they might allow it to remain for a certain period at interest as they thought fit. It was quite certain that in some cases the money could not be raised without hardship, and he desired in order to meet such cases that these words should be inserted.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 11, after the word "cannot," to insert the words "without hardship."—( Mr. Byrne .)

Question proposed, "That the words 'without hardship' be there inserted."

said, he had no objection to reduce the apparent rigidity of the sub-section, but he thought the words "without excessive sacrifice" would be better than those proposed.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion seemed extremely reasonable, and he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved to insert hi the sub-section the words "without excessive exercise."

Amendment agreed to.

proposed to omit from the sub-section the words "providing for the payment of interest in cases where the Commissioners allowed the payment of duty to be postponed." He quite acknowledged that where the taxpayer was himself to blame, where the postponement of payment was owing to his own default, or to circumstances under his control, the charge should be enforced; but where it was not owing to his fault or to circumstances which he could have avoided, he ought not to be called upon to pay. Such a provision was in accordance neither with justice nor with common sense, and he wished to renew the protest he had already made against it. Although the words "without excessive sacrifice" had now been inserted, they would not materially alter the matter where there was an absolute impossibility to pay, and the Government were asking for that to which they had no sort of claim. He had had as much to do with taxation as perhaps any Members of that House; but he had never heard such a proposition until he came inside those walls, that where an unfortunate taxpayer was utterly unable to pay at once he should be charged interest. It would be most oppressive on Her Majesty's subjects, and he must appeal to both sides of the House, on their behalf, for mercy. He could not understand how any Liberal Members of the Legislature could support the Government in making such a demand.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 12, to leave out from the word "extent," to the end of Sub-section (7) of Clause 8.—( Sir R. Temple .)

Question proposed, "That the words 'and on payment of such interest,' stand part of the Bill."

said, he did not think it was possible for the Government to accept the Amendment. When they gave an indulgence to a man they did not let him off the debt. If no interest were charged they would be letting him off" the debt.

said, he thought the Amendment was aimed at the rate of interest charged.

Question put, and agreed to.

moved—

In Clause 8, page 8, line 13, leave out from "exceeding" to "and," in line 14, and insert "three per cent."

He said the clause contemplated that there would be a difficulty in raising money, and that, therefore, there might be a question of delay or of some sacrifice. He could not understand why the Government should say that if there was this delay a higher rate of interest should be levied. He submitted that 3 per cent. was fair all round, and that it would be an unjust thing that where there was a particular piece of property bringing in 4 or 5 per cent, it should be made the excuse for extracting a higher rate of interest. The delay was only to be allowed in cases of hardship, and he submitted that it would be unjust to exact the higher rate in return for the indulgence.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 13, to leave out from the word "exceeding," to the word "and," in line 14, and insert the words "three per cent."—( Sir R . Webster .)

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

said, that 4 per cent. was the figure which had always been usual in such cases, and he saw no reason to alter it in the present instance. This was, in fact, a matter of administration which ought to be left to the department, which was not harsh and was not bound to ask 4 per cent. They might ask nothing at all, or they might ask something less than 4 per cent.

said, he thought it a rather dangerous practice to fix the rate of interest according to the profits of the property.

^* said, this clause contemplated eases of hardship, or where property could not be released without excessive sacrifice. The rate of interest was fixed according to the Statute of 1868, which named 4 per cent. as the proper rate of interest on Legacy Duty. But many things had happened since 1868. It was, for instance, a matter of common knowledge that, whereas trust investments formerly produced 4 per cent., it was nowadays extremely difficult to obtain 3 per cent, upon such investments. Was it not, he asked, fair that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be satisfied with the rate of interest obtainable by trustees? No doubt 4 per cent. was a reasonable rate to exact in 1868; but the Government might well be content with 3 per cent. now.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 114.—(Division List, No. 177.)

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 15, after the word "fit," to insert the words—

"And where the Commissioners have allowed payment of Estate Duty in respect of property passing to the executor as such to be postponed, probate or letters of administration shall be granted if the certificate to be given by the proper officer of the court, under section thirty of The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881. shows that the Commissioners have allowed such payment to be postponed."—( Mr. Byrne .)

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

said, he could not accept the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman provided that where time had been given probate should be granted. It was quite unnecessary to put that in. The object of the clause was that probate should be granted without money having to be paid out.

said, that all the Amendment proposed was that probate should be immediately granted, and it seemed to him to carry out what was the desire and intention of the Government themselves.

Question put, and negatived.

moved the omission of Sub-section 8:—"Interest on arrears of duty shall be paid as if they were arrears of Legacy Duty." He took exception to the levying of interest at all, but otherwise had no particular ground for pressing the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (8) of Clause 8.—( Sir R. Temple .)

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

moved to insert after "duty," in line 17—

"but no person shall, in the absence of fraud on his part, be liable to pay interest on more than six years' arrears of Estate Duty."

He said, this Amendment touched a question which had already been discussed at some length—namely, the oppressive rights which had been possessed by the Crown since bygone ages. It dealt with that right which was embodied in one of those legal maxims which lawyers often heard, but had not as much respect for as they used to have, to the effect that the Crown's rights were affected by no Statute of Limitations whatever. He referred to the maxim, Nullum tempus occurrit regi . He thought that this was a right of the Crown which it would be well to put an end to. He was quite aware that the Commissioners exercised a discretion as to whether they should enforce arrears of duty or not. It often happened that from one cause or another, generally accidental, Probate Duty was not paid for a considerable number of years, and that then a claim was made for the duty and for arrears of interest. It was unpleasant enough for a man who thought he had paid all the duty which he would ever be called on to pay to learn, some 30 years after an estate had come into his possession, that he had to pay a considerable additional sum; but to have to pay, perhaps, 20 or 30 years' interest in addition to that sum was not only unpleasant, but was not in accordance with one's sense of justice. The number of years which he proposed in his Amendment was founded on the analogy of a Statute passed as long ago as the reign of James I.; but if the Government desired to alter the number to any reasonable extent he should not object.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 17, after the word "duty," to insert the words—

"but no person shall, in the absence of fraud on his part, be liable to pay interest on more than six years' arrears of Estate Duty."—( Mr. Butcher .)

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

We must be careful for the protection of the Revenue not to carelessly break down the existing system. It must not be forgotten that this Estate Duty practically embraces the present Probate Duty and other duties, and we must therefore be careful, without being oppressive, not to limit the time too much. The hon. and learned Member is probably aware that in the practical working of the Probate Duty the operations extend over a long series of years, and he must observe that the fraud need not be on the part of the person liable for duty but might be on the part of the trustee. I am desirous, however, of meeting the hon. Member as far as I can, and I shall be willing to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Byrne) lower down on the Paper with some modifications.

said, the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to accept and that now be ore the House did not seem to be quite on the same lines, and it would perhaps be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman indicated what modifications he intended to propose. The fact that a trustee was fraudulent ought not to be made a ground for forcing the person who was liable for the duty to pay interest for a long period. He himself thought that six years was quite sufficient, and unless there was a good reason for increasing the period he thought there was fair ground for agreeing to the six years.

pointed out that under the Bill the Estate Duty itself could not be recovered within six years of the settlement, and if the duty could not be recovered neither could the interest.

said, the question now before the House related to interest on duty in arrear with regard to which special provision was made in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken about not breaking down the present system, but the Bill made a great inroad upon the present system, because it introduced graduation and aggregation. He might inform the House that he himself had, 25 years after the death of his grandfather, received a little estate which belonged to his grandfather. Of course, this estate might have lifted the general estate of his grandfather into another scale, and then everybody who benefited by the estate would be in arrear, and interest would be payable under this Bill as it stood on the extra amount of duty that ought to have been paid.

My hon. Friends are resting their support of this Amendment on two sets of arguments. One is the desire to place this debt on the same footing as debts from other people, and the other is the desire to meet any hardship that might arise out of the special character of the Estate Duty. I am bound to say that my conservative tendencies will not allow me entirely to change the whole method by which the debts of the Crown are obtained, and I shall therefore be unable to support this Amendment as far as it would place Crown debts on the same footing as other debts. As far as the question of interest is concerned, however, I think the proposal is well worth consideration. There have been cases in which the exaction of interest by the Crown has had a most cruel effect. In one case where Succession Duty became due 20 or 30 years after the death, and where the interest, I think at the rate of 5 per cent., was charged for that period, the claim was brought against people who were utterly ignorant of the fact that any Succession Duty was due at all. Only last year such a case cropped up, and I remember a case in which I represented the matter to the Inland Revenue Commissioners, and a remission was made in view of the extreme hardship that was involved. In that instance the interest, I believe, ran up to nearly hundreds of pounds. I should like to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is possible that this matter of interest can be put on a more satisfactory footing generally than that on which it stands at present, and what he believes to be the real power of the tnland Revenue Department. I hoped that I the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have been able himself to put down some Amendment with regard to the limitation of interest which would have satisfied my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I do not know whether it will be in his power either to insert some provision in this Bill, or to draw up Rules for the Inland Revenue Commissioners which would prevent hardships arising. I do not want to see persons, possibly owing to the negligence of their solicitors, exposed to the penalties which they now incur. I remember one case in which simple ruin stared a poor family in the face through the interest charged on the duty that had been payable some time before. I do not know that I can support the precise Amendment now before the House. Six years may be too short a period, though personally I think it is sufficient. It is perfectly natural that my hon. Friend should think that six years is a considerable time during which to exact interest where there has been no fraud or fault whatever on the part of the persons liable for the duty.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I am quite sure that he would not be likely to be responsible for anything that would seriously affect the Revenue. I think I can meet the right hon. Gentleman's wishes. He wishes, first of all, that there should be a clear indication given to the Commissioners to remit interest in cases where they should remit. We propose to give the Commissioners discretion in these cases. The form in which we should be willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Byrne) is as follows:—

"If after the expiration of 30 years from a death upon which Estate Duty became leviable any such duty remains unpaid, the Commissioners may, on the application of any persons accountable for such duty or interested in the property in respect of which duty is leviable, and on being satisfied that the non-payment did not arise from the wilful neglect or default of any person accountable for the duty, remit the payment of such duty or any part thereof or interest thereon."

^* said, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.