Commons Sitting of 15 April 1878

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Gold and Silver Hall Marking, appointed; Parliamentary and Municipal Elections (Hours of Polling), Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson discharged, Sir Matthew White Ridley added.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Burial Law Amendment [154].
Ordered—First Reading—Tramways Orders Confirmation (Nos. 1 and 2) * [151 and 152]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation * [153]; County Representative Councils (Ireland) * [155].
Second Reading—Adulteration of Seeds Act (1869) Amendment [139].
Select Committee—County Courts Jurisdiction (No. 2) * [102], nominated.
Committee—Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Education) (re-comm.) [130], deferred.
Committee—Report—Customs and Inland Revenue * [146]; Public Works Loans * [138].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  TRAMWAYS (USE OF MECHANICAL POWER) BILLS.
  MR. RAIKES MR. RAIKES moved the following Resolution:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills, that they have power to deal with all Tramway Bills of the present Session, whether opposed or unopposed, which have been referred to them, notwithstanding that the Promoters may be desirous to withdraw from any such Bills the Clauses whereby it was proposed to authorize the use of steam or other mechanical power:—That the Dublin Southern District Tramways Bill be re-committed to the said Committee."
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL, as Chairman of the Committee to which the Tramways Bills had been referred, wished to remind the House that the Committee was appointed under very anomalous circumstances, and had very anomalous duties to discharge. To it was referred a great number of Bills which involved the application of steam to tramways. The Committee were also called upon to settle some rules and regulations which were hereafter to govern the application of steam and other mechanical power to tramways in the event of such applications being continued. A case came before the Committee in the course of their sitting—namely, the South
  1276
  Dublin Tramway Company's Bill, which they regarded as a sort of crucial case, seeing that it involved the application of steam to the tramways sought to be constructed. The case was argued before the Committee for two days, and, as was only natural, great stress was laid upon the application of steam to two of the tramways in the southern district of the city of Dublin. The opponents of the Bill were a Railway Company, and they were expressly admitted to have a locus standi before the Committee; because tramways worked by steam power were a novel invention, and would place the undertaking in the light of a railway. It was, therefore, regarded as one railway competing against another; and it was upon that ground, and that ground only, that the opposing Railway Company were allowed to have a locus standi. The Railway Company appeared before the Committee in opposition to the Bill; but, on the third day of the inquiry, the promoters suddenly withdrew that part of the Bill which involved the application of steam power to the tramways proposed to be constructed. They stated that they preferred to stand only on that part of the Bill which gave them power to construct an ordinary tramway. The Instruction to the Committee was of a very special and definite kind—namely, that they were to take into consideration Bills which involved the application of steam or other mechanical power to tramways; and, inasmuch as the steam clauses were withdrawn, they thought that the whole reason of their being had ceased, so far as the Dublin Bill was concerned; and they, therefore, declined to go on with the case, inasmuch as there was involved the question of a horse tramway only. The opponents against the Bill applied for costs; but the Committee declined to grant them, inasmuch as there had been no unreasonable or vexatious conduct on the part of the promoters of the measure. He gathered now from his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, that some inconvenience had arisen from the fact that a great portion of the case of the promoters which involved horse tramways only came before the Committee, and some evidence was taken upon that part of the scheme under guise of the application for the use of steam power. He had only to remark upon this state of matters, that if horse

  1277
  tramways had been, in the first instance, applied for, the locus standi of the Dublin and Wicklow Company would never have been admitted, and the Company would not have been able to appear before the Committee. But, inasmuch as the Chairman of Ways and Means now stated that inconvenience was occasioned by so much of the ground having to be gone over again, of course, if it was the wish of the House to give the Committee fresh Instructions, the Committee would cheerfully acquiesce in any opinion the House might arrive at. They would be quite ready to hear the case entirely upon its merits; but he had thought it right to justify the action which the Committee had taken, in order that there might be no misconception in regard to the course which they had felt it their duty to pursue. As had been stated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, it was quite true that, although the case of the promoters was not concluded, it had been before the Committee for two days and a-half before that part of the Bill which authorized the use of steam power was withdrawn.
  MR. O'CONOR, as a Member of the Committee, was surprised to see the Notice which had been placed upon the Paper by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Committee themselves had recommended that the Bill should be committed to an ordinary Private Bill Committee in the usual way, and they did so for this reason—that the moment the steam clauses were withdrawn from the Bill, the measure appeared before them in exactly, the same position as any other Tramway Bill would have done which did not contain steam clauses at all. It was scarcely necessary to remind the House that other Committees were appointed in a very different manner; and, under the circumstances, it seemed to the Committee very strange that the Bill, when divested of its steam clauses, should not be treated in exactly the same manner as an ordinary Tramway Bill, and referred to an ordinary Private Bill Committee. There had been no difference of opinion in the Committee upon the subject; and he should have known nothing whatever of the Motion that had just been made, if it had not been that he had casually glanced over the Paper that morning. He gathered, from the Notice given by the Chairman of
  1278
  Committees, that his object was to refer the Bill back to the Special Committee appointed in regard to Tramways. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel), had already alluded to a very important matter which came before the Committee—namely, the locus standi of the opponents of the Bill. They had not the least objection to entertain the Bill again, providing the question of locus standi was, in the first instance, arranged by the Court of Referees, and the Committee were simply called upon to deal with the merits of the case. If it were intended to take any other course, he was afraid the Committee was not at all suited to go into the questions which were involved in the consideration of locus standi, and to settle whether certain persons were entitled to be heard against the Bill or not. The whole opposition to the Bill, so far, had been a railway opposition; and, had it not been for the steam clauses, the Railway Company, under the ordinary rules, would have had no locus standi. As those clauses had now been struck out of the Bill, that opposition was in an entirely altered position; and it was certainly strange to call upon a Committee of this nature to decide questions, which, as a general rule, were submitted to the Court of Referees. He ought to remind the House, that the Committee was a Committee consisting of nine Members, who were appointed as a hybrid Committee generally was appointed—without being bound down by the ordinary rules in regard to the Bills which were brought before them. One of these rules was that no person interested in a Bill, or whose constituents were interested in it, should be a Member of the Committee. Now, this South Dublin Bill was in a peculiar position. The opponents of the Bill were the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company, and the Corporation of Dublin also opposed, not upon the Preamble, but upon the clauses, and yet one of the Members of the Committee was the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Brooks). That hon. Gentleman was also a member of the Corporation of Dublin, and was, therefore, interested in the clauses which were likely to be submitted to the Committee. In another sense he was also interested, because both his constituents and himself

  1279
  had been waging a perpetual war against the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway for some time past. He was sorry that his hon. Friend was not present in the House at that moment; because he knew that his hon. Friend would feel deeply, indeed, that the measure in which he had taken such great interest should be brought before the House in his absence. Under all the circumstances, he (Mr. O'Conor) contended that it was not right to send back the South Dublin Bill to a Committee constituted as the present one was. He thought the Chairman of Ways and Means had been guilty of undue haste in putting his Notice upon the Paper; and, if the House would support him, he would move that the consideration of the question be adjourned until a future day. He thought the adjournment should be until after the Recess, and that would inflict no harm upon anyone, because no further Business could be done until the House re-assembled. In the meantime, it might be a matter for consideration whether the Committee, constituted as it was at present, was competent to entertain the questions involved by this Bill. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINseconded the Amendment. It seemed to him that the only case made out for the Resolution, was this—that, in the case of a particular Bill, the power sought for of working the tramway by steam had been withdrawn; because the promoters, for reasons of their own, had expunged the clauses which would have given them steam powers. For this reason, as he understood it, the House was called upon to pass a general Resolution to compel the Committee to hear any other cases which might come before them, and to prevent the Committee from exercising the discretion fairly given to them by the House. The Resolution was somewhat oddly drawn, and he wished to know from the Chairman of Ways and Means, if there were any precedent for the language he had used in it? The Resolution said—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills, that they have power to deal with all Tramway Bills of the present Session, whether opposed or unopposed, which have been referred to them, notwithstanding that the Promoters may be desirous to withdraw from any such Bills the
  1280
  Clauses whereby it was proposed to authorize the use of steam or other mechanical power."
  He regarded that as an addition of a very general nature, and the terms used were certainly very odd. He took it to mean this—that if the promoters of a tramway intended to use steam power, and if they thought fit to say they preferred horse power, that they were then to come before this Committee in order to see whether they should not be compelled to use steam power. That seemed to him to be a strange manner of dealing with a Private Bill, and delegating a power to somebody which had never been given before. He certainly thought the matter ought to be more carefully considered. He was one of those who believed that steam ought to be substituted for horse power wherever it was possible; but the present was not the way of bringing about such a consummation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. O'Conor.)
  MR. RAIKESapologized to the House for not having brought the question more fully before it in the first instance. The hon. Member opposite was, however, labouring under a very erroneous impression. He (Mr. Raikes) had not brought this question forward as a matter of surprise; but he had been in communication with the Chairman of the Committee and other hon. Members who were interested in the subject, and it was not until he had ascertained their views upon the subject, that he had ventured to put the Notice on the Paper. The Motion itself might be open to the criticism which the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had passed upon it with regard to its wording; but, at the same time, he thought its real purport was sufficiently clear. The proposal was that the Committee should be instructed and have power to deal with all—mechanical power—Tramway Bills, opposed or unopposed, that might be referred to them; and it was to guard against the costs which would be incurred in cases where, after an inquiry had been held and the case in support of a measure had been before the Committee by the examination of a number of witnesses, the special clauses of the Bill were withdrawn. It certainly would somewhat resemble a farce to require a case, such as the one before them, to be

  1281
  gone into again by the parties. The Committee had already heard all, or nearly all, the evidence that it was necessary for them to hear, and were in a position to decide what their judgment ought to be. He put it as a matter of convenience. The House must feel sensible of the great inconvenience to which the promoters and opponents of an Irish Bill would be put if they were required to come to London again to make out their case. It would certainly be regarded as a great hardship to require all the witnesses who had been already examined to be brought forward again and the evidence commenced afresh. He thought the most convenient course would be to acquiesce in the proposal which he had considered it his duty to make. He quite admitted the anomalous position occupied by the Committee over which his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel) had consented to preside. The House must be very much indebted to him and to the Committee for having undertaken a duty which was a very embarrassing one; because they had not only to settle particular Bills, but to discuss and settle a general principle; and, in settling that general principle, the functions conferred upon them were unquestionably all of a very unusual and very large character. He (Mr. Raikes) now proposed that the House should ask the Committee to construe their powers in the most liberal sense, and he had been anxious to secure that object by moving this as a special Instruction to the Committee. Another point had been referred to, and that was with regard to the position of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) who was a Member of the Committee. He was glad to see the hon. Member was now in his place. He must say that the hon. Member was justified in joining the Committee, in the first instance, notwithstanding that the interests of his constituents were affected by this one particular Bill; because the application of mechanical power to tramways was so general an interest, that it was important to have a Member upon the Committee representing Ireland, and representing, also, a large constituency in Ireland. The hon. Member would probably remain upon the Committee; but he (Mr. Raikes) felt quite sure that the hon. Member would do nothing whatever
  1282
  to prejudice the rights of any of the parties concerned. The name of the hon. Member had been placed upon the Committee by the House, and not by the Committee of Selection; and he hoped the House, after this explanation had been given, would be content to acquiesce in the Motion submitted to them, and which his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee had accepted, allowing this Instruction to be given to the Committee, so that they might be enabled to conclude their investigation.
  MR. O'CONORasked the Chairman of Ways and Means, if it were intended that the Committee were to consider the question of locus standi or not?
  MR. RAIKESreplied, certainly. The Reference was drawn in such terms as to exempt this particular Committee from being in any way bound by the ordinary rules regarding locus standi, and they were perfectly free to admit the locus standi of parties who would not have been able to appear before an ordinary Private Bill Committee. But it would be for the Committee themselves to consider whether they would hear the parties further, if they were of opinion that their locus standi had ceased to exist in reality.
  MR. M. BROOKSsaid, after the explanation which had been made by the Chairman of Ways and Means, he would remain upon the Committee with the leave of his Colleagues; but he was quite prepared to give an undertaking that he would take no part in the consideration of any local Bill that might affect his constituents. He owned that it was his intention, if the Bill were referred back to the Committee, to retire from that Committee; but, if he believed he could be of any service to the Committee, he was quite ready to adopt the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and to remain upon the Committee, abstaining from taking any action where local questions arose.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELhoped that the hon. Member (Mr. O'Conor) would be satisfied with the explanation which had been made, and would not press his Amendment for the adjournment of the discussion.
  MR. O'CONORsaid, he had no wish to press his Motion, and would, therefore, with the leave of the House, withdraw it.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Tramway (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills, that they have power to deal with all Tramway Bills of the present Session, whether opposed or unopposed, which have been referred to them, notwithstanding that the Promoters may be desirous to withdraw from any such Bills the Clauses whereby it was proposed to authorize the use of steam or other mechanical power:—And that the Dublin Southern District Tramways Bill be re-committed to the said Committee.

QUESTIONS.

  NAVAL STATIONS IN THE PACIFIC— ESQUIMALT HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering present and future eventualities in the North Pacific, and the extension of coast line and territory by Russia in that part of the world since the Crimean War, the Government propose to recommend that the harbour of Esquimalt be fortified and made a Naval and Military Station?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The only answer I can give the hon. Member is, that the attention of Her Majesty's Government is directed to the importance of the harbour of Esquimalt. I do not think I ought to say anything further at present.

POST OFFICE—THE INDIAN MAILS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Postmaster General, What progress has been made towards inviting Tenders for Contracts to carry the Mails on the termination of that now being performed by the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company; when the advertisements may be expected; and, whether endeavour will be made to secure the more rapid transit asked by the Bombay community?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, that the whole question of the arrangements to be made for the conveyance of the Indian and other mails on the termination of the contract of the Peninsular and Oriental Company was now tinder the consideration of the Treasury.

SPAIN—THE CUBAN INSURRECTION

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Cuban insurgents, in their negotiations with the Spanish Government, made terms for the negroes as well as for themselves; whether Her Majesty's Government have made or intend to make any representations to Spain, now that the pacification of Cuba has been effected, with a view of accelerating the progress of emancipation in the Island; whether the scheme for importing Chinese labourers, referred to by Consul General Cowper, is likely to be carried out; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will call the attention of the British Minister in China to the fact, so that official information as to the nature of the emigration may be reported to the Foreign Office?
  MR. BOURKE: We understand, that under Article 3 of the capitulation, "slaves and coolies at present serving in the insurgent ranks are to be set at liberty." According to the last account which has reached the Government, the pacification of Cuba had not been proclaimed officially. As soon as the pacification of the Island has been effected, Her Majesty's Government will not fail to press this matter upon the consideration of the Spanish Government, reminding them of the promises they have made on the subject. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to say whether it is likely that the scheme for importing Chinese labourers will be carried out. The suggestion of the hon. Baronet, that the attention of the British Minister in China should be turned to the subject, was anticipated some time ago.

  THE IRISH FISHERIES—MACKEREL FISHING AT KINSALE.—QUESTION.
  MR. COLLINSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to alleged depredations by French fishermen engaged in the mackerel fishery at Kinsale, who are accused of picking up and appropriating nets which do not belong to them; and, whether, for the protection of the large amount of property employed in the Kinsale fishery, he will apply to the

  1285
  Admiralty for a Gunboat and Revenue Cruiser to be stationed at Kinsale during the months from March to June inclusive, with orders to prevent the continuance of such unlawful proceedings?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, one of Her Majesty's cruisers was ordered to Kinsale at the beginning of March, and it has been in the neighbourhood since the 23rd ultimo.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. CLARE READasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What decision Her Majesty's Government have come to with reference to the progress of the County Government Bill after Easter; and, whether it will take precedence of other Government Bills now before the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the first Business after Easter would be Supply. It would be necessary to get some Votes in Supply. But, with that exception, there was no Bill to which he should give precedence over the County Government Bill. It was the one which Government would desire to promote and press forward as rapidly as possible.

METROPOLIS—WATER SUPPLY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether the Water Supply of London should continue to be in the hands of private Companies; and, if not, to what public body it should be entrusted, and on what terms the rights of the existing private Companies should be acquired?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Hackney. The present Metropolis Water Act was submitted to a careful inquiry by a Select Committee not many years since, and the subject, in connection with the extinction of fires in the Metropolis, passed under notice of another Select Committee last year. Under these circumstances, and in the absence
  1286
  of any case brought forward to justify such a proceeding, the Government, as at present advised, are not prepared to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether the water supply of London should continue to be in the hands of private Companies. With regard to the second part of the Question, to what public body it should be intrusted, and on what terms the rights of the existing private Companies should be acquired, he had to say that there were ample materials at the disposal of the Government to form an opinion when the time arrived for proposing legislation upon it.

ARMY—QUARTERMASTERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLEasked the Financial Secretary of State for War, If he will be so good as to state what the beneficial appointments are for which quartermasters of the Army, on the expiration of their military service, are eligible?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: In answer to the hon. Member for Ennis, I have to say that Army Quartermasters are eligible to be appointed to Quartermasterships in the Militia; 145 of these home appointments have been created, and Quartermasters of the Line will be chiefly appointed to fill them.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE WAR EXPEN DITURE.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can be so good as to inform the House who is paying for the military operations now going on in South Africa?
  COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, it had been arranged that the Governor of the Colony should issue his warrant monthly for the Colonial military expenditure. In point of fact, that admitted formally the liability of the Colony; but there was no doubt that the matter would have to be arranged with the Colony. As a matter of fact, the advances would be made good out of the Imperial fund.

  INDIA—TRADE BETWEEN INDIA AND CHINA.—QUESTION.
  MR. GRANTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If any

  1287
  decision has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government as to the exploration of a route between Rangoon and Western China, in order to promote trade between India and China, particulars of which have been furnished to the India Office by various Chambers of Commerce?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: My noble Friend, now the Vice President of the Council (Lord George Hamilton) answered a similar Question last year. Since that time, the circumstances have not materially changed, and the same reasons exist as existed then for deferring the completion of the survey of this particular route.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— THE VALUATION BILL—LEGIS LATION.—QUESTION.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked what course Her Majesty's Government intended to take with regard to the Valuation Bill?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that the Valuation Bill had been brought in at the same time with the other two Bills, and clauses had been prepared to adapt it to the provisions of the County Government Bill. He did not think there was any hurry to print those clauses until greater progress had been made with the County Government Bill. Those clauses, however, were quite ready.

IRELAND—APPOINTMENT OF A CORONER FOR WESTMEATH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STACPOOLE (for Mr. P. J. SMYTH)asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether any steps are being taken to remedy the inconvenience felt in Westmeath from the delay in filling the office of second coroner for that county?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON), in reply, said, that he believed the Government had no power in the matter; but he had not yet received the information for which he had asked.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—ELECTION OF A PRINCE OF BULGARIA.

  NOTICE OF QUESTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFgave Notice that he would ask the Chancellor
  1288
  of the Exchequer, Whether there was any truth in the report, published in "The Standard" of to-day, that the Russians were preparing for the election, at Philippopolis of a Prince of Bulgaria?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have heard nothing of the kind.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: It is a Notice for to-morrow.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg pardon.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS— CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. CHAPLINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he could inform the House when the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill may be expected to come down to that House from the House of Lords, and whether the Government would be able to give it precedence over other Government Business as soon as it does so?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he understood that the Bill stood for Committee in the House of Lords on the 16th of May, and it would probably come down to this House soon afterwards. The Government would proceed with it as speedily as possible consistently with the other Business which would have to be transacted. The Bill, having been introduced in the House of Lords, and fully considered there, it would not be necessary to proceed with it in preference to Bills which had to be elaborated in that House before being sent to the House of Lords.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could arrange for the evidence taken by the House of Lords' Committee on the Bill to be furnished to Members by the time the Bill came down?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad no doubt it could be done, and would ascertain what was the proper course to take.

ARMY RESERVE FORCES.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  THE TREASURER OF THE HOUSE-HOLD (Lord HENRY THYNNE)reported

  1289
  Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
  I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
  I feel assured that I can always rely with confidence upon your hearty support of all measures which I may consider necessary for the preservation of the honour of My Crown, and for the security of My Empire.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 146.]
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."— (Mr. Raikes.)
  MR. HOPWOOD MR. HOPWOOD rose to move—
  "That it is inexpedient to employ the police as prosecutors for the recovery of Excise penalties."
  The proper duties of the police, he contended, were the preservation of peace and the detection of crime. To employ them in prosecuting for Excise penalties would render a large body of the police necessary, and would divert their attention to more attractive and profitable duties, since a part of the penalties were to go to the police superannuation fund. Besides, they would be exposed to great temptation, for it was evident those who ran the risk of being heavily fined could afford to buy off prosecution. He thought it right to protest against the proposed course at its inception, lest it might be drawn into a precedent. With the great body of the well-ordered community the police force should be popular; but he did not think that making them collectors of the Revenue would, in any degree, conduce to that result. On the contrary, he considered that such employment might prove a probable element of unpopularity. On the ground, therefore, that it would be an interference with the Excise, and that it would be adding the possibility of corruption to the many temptations to which the police were already exposed, he begged to submit the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to employ the police as prosecutors for the recovery of Excise penalties,"— (Mr. Hopwood,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, ''That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, one of the grounds on which this Resolution had been proposed was that a local body ought not to be mixed up with Imperial purposes; but the police had been already employed for purposes similar to that referred to by the hon. and learned Member. They had been employed in reference to what were called hawker's licences, and also in reference to chimney-sweeps' licences, gun licences, &c. They had been employed as Inspectors of weights and measures, and for other purposes of that kind. If the collection of the dog tax entirely rested on its application to Imperial purposes, there might be something in what the hon. and learned Member had said; but, for the last year or two, it had been brought to the knowledge of the Government that the localities requested a further and better collection of the tax. In the last Office he had the honour to fill, so many complaints came before him, that the matter was eventually referred to the Inspectors of Constabulary to report on the expediency of employing the local police in the manner proposed, when those Inspectors unanimously assented to the proposal, stating that, after careful inquiry at their annual inspections, they were led to believe the proposed mode of collection would be so beneficial that no objection would be felt. The application of a part of the penalty to the police superannuation fund would not, he believed, induce them to act harshly, because the individual policeman would not be benefited by it. The complaint at present made was, that under the existing system it was impossible to ascertain whether the proper number of licences had been taken out in any district. If the tax were intrusted to the police, however, it would be properly collected, which it could not be now. The House would see that the objections urged by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport had not the weight he

  1291
  claimed for them, and that the alteration in the mode of collection which the Bill proposed would effect an important object.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he looked with great suspicion on these dog laws and gun taxes. They appeared to him to be, to a great extent, Game Laws in disguise. He quite admitted that it was very desirable that dogs should be strictly registered, and if the tax were not made too heavy there could be no objection to a greater degree of strictness being exercised in the matter of registration; but, looking to the animus which was entertained against dogs that did a little poaching on their own account, he thought it would be desirable to avoid employing the police to collect the tax.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, the police were not the proper parties to be called in to collect this tax. Their employment in this duty would tend to their increase. There were too many at present, and they were a very heavy charge on the Civil Service Estimates. He had noticed that since the Government had undertaken part of the charge for the police, magistrates had ceased to be so careful about the number of police employed. He thought the present proposal would tend to make the police generally unpopular.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that, having assented to the increase of the dog tax, the Committee could not refrain from assenting to this powerful mode of insuring its collection. If there were considerable evasion when the tax was 5s., it was to be expected it would be greater still when the tax was raised. It was bad policy to impose a tax that they could not collect efficiently; and, therefore, they had no choice but to consent to allow the police to be employed in the way proposed.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that although the police did not actually collect the tax in Ireland, yet, no doubt, the body had great control over the matter. Of course, the way in which the tax was collected in Ireland was very different from the method imposed by the Bill before them. He believed that some modification might be effected in the arrangement proposed. The police might be instructed to look more closely after the dog licences, with the view of instituting prosecutions where necessary. In
  1292
  his opinion, the dog tax altogether was a highly objectionable tax, whatever way they might view it. A great deal of odium must be involved in its collection; and it appeared to him very doubtful if the advantage to be derived from its imposition would be at all equivalent to the odium which attached to the collection of it. He thought that the Government might fairly consider whether they could not adopt a suggestion similar to that which he had thrown out.
  MR. WOODDsaid, that the police did not collect the tax at all. They would give information to the Inland Revenue that a certain person did keep a dog, and he would have to show that he had a licence from the Inland Revenue. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had fallen into an error on that subject.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preamble postponed.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.

PART I.

  Customs.
  Clause 2 (Import duties on tea) agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Duties and drawback on tobacco).
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out to hon. Members who had put on the Paper Notices of Amendments involving an increased charge on the people that their Amendments were irregular.
  MR. RITCHIE, who had given Notice of an Amendment, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "4d." and insert "6d.," said, it would serve his purpose equally well if he moved to reduce the duty on unmanufactured tobacco by 2d. in the pound; but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would render it unnecessary to make any proposal of that kind by acceding to the exceedingly moderate suggestion which he had to make. The cigar manufacturers in this country alleged that they laboured under an immense disadvantage as compared

  1293
  with the German manufacturer of cigars imported into this country. He did not wish to enter in any detail into this matter; but it must, he thought, be obvious, that in several respects the English manufacturers lay under a considerable disadvantage. In the first place, they were practically shut out from purchasing a kind of tobacco that would answer their purpose remarkably well, in consequence of the degree of moisture it contained when imported, upon which they would have to pay duty. Again, they were practically excluded from exporting their cigars, and had to trust almost entirely to the market which they found in this country for the sale of them. Such, however, was not the case with the foreign manufacturers. There were many other disadvantages under which the English manufacturers lay—such, for instance, as the cost of commission, interest on money, and the various charges for clearance. Well, all these different disadvantages, under which the manufacturers of cigars in this country were labouring, operated greatly to their disadvantage, and so allowed the foreigner to send here what their own manufacturers ought to be able to supply. Further, it was alleged that the basis upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in 1863, calculated the differential duty, was a fallacious one. At that time, it was estimated that 69 lbs. of cigars could be got out of 100 lbs. of tobacco; but, so far from that being the case, he was informed that, on an average, only something like 52 lbs. or 53 lbs. of cigars could be obtained. It had been represented to him that the effect of all these things had tended almost to drive the manufacture of some kinds of cigars out of this country; and the manufacturers considered that, when it was proposed to alter the duty, they had some ground for asking that these matters should be taken into consideration. They said that they ought to be placed on the same footing as foreign manufacturers, and that something like 8d. or 9d. more should be put upon cigars. He did not go the length of pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do anything of that kind; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the matter, and see whether the statements of the English
  1294
  manufacturers were not well founded. But he did say that, in altering the duty, care ought to be taken not to increase the disadvantages under which their cigar manufacturers at present lay. He would point out how it was that the increased duty of 4d. upon manufactured tobacco and cigars would increase the disadvantages under which their traders lay. The duty upon unmanufactured tobacco was 3s. 2d., and on cigars 5s., being a difference of 1s. 10 d. If they now increased the duty by 4d. on unmanufactured tobacco and 4d. on cigars, the existing ratio between the two would be disturbed, and the English manufacturer of cigars would be placed at a further disadvantage of from 1¾d. to 2d. per lb. He entered into minute calculations, showing how this result was attained, and expressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see his way to adding at least 2d. more to the duty on cigars. He desired that the English manufacturer should be on an equality with the importer, not that he should have exceptional advantages. The Tower Hamlets had suffered considerably from the alteration of the sugar duties, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to prevent a similar misfortune in the case of the tobacco manufacturers. He moved, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "4d." and insert "6d."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I assume this is an Amendment, formally moved for the sake of raising discussion on a question of considerable importance. I promised to look into this matter again. I have done so; and I have been led to the conclusion that the proposal I have made is a right one, and that there is no occasion to disturb it. The basis on which I have proceeded is the same as that on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) proceeded in the year 1863. At that time the right hon. Gentleman gave very careful attention to this subject, and brought his proposal forward—not as a part of his Budget, but as a separate proposal for the re-arrangement of the tobacco duties. The re-arrangement of these duties was the subject of prolonged discussion in the House, and also of careful inquiries made by the Government of the day in different parts of the country. The result was,

  1295
  that a certain difference was established between the rate of charge on the unmanufactured tobacco and that on cigars. My right hon. Friend arrived at the conclusions, which he embodied in the law, by a calculation of this character. He took into consideration the different classes of cigars. He ascertained that, in some cases, so many pounds of cigars might be made out of 100 lbs. of leaf tobacco, while, in other cases, a very different quantity could be made. He took into view the extreme cases on both sides, and came to the conclusion that the difference he proposed to establish in the rate of duty would cover the most unfavourable case. Of course, in the cases where a larger quantity of cigars could be made out of the same quantity of leaf than that which the rate was established to cover, an advantage was obtained; or, if you like to call it so, a slightly protective duty was thus levied in favour of the British manufacturer. Even in the case of the smallest number which could be produced from the 100 lbs. of leaf, there was a slight advantage to the British producer. The foundation of the calculation was this. The right hon. Gentleman took a certain quantity of tobacco, as being capable of being made into cigars. Of the residue, he estimated how much was stalk which could be converted into snuff, and he deducted the marketable value of that snuff. He also took into account a quantity of moisture and inorganic matter, and he arrived, I think, at the conclusion that the inorganic matter was about 18 per cent of the whole. Now, I believe, upon the whole, his calculations have been found to be just. There has been really no complaint made during the 15 years or more that have elapsed since that time; and, in fact, the position of the manufacturers has been improved, because the value of the stalk which is converted into snuff is higher now than it was at the time when my right hon. Friend made his calculations. It was then 2s. 4d., and it is now taken at 2s. 8d. The increased duty, of course, will make it still more. Now, we come to the alteration which it is proposed to make by the present Bill. The points you have to look to seem to be these three. There is, perhaps, an increase of duty on the inorganic matter found in the leaf. The proposed 4d. per lb. is charged on
  1296
  that excess of unremunerative matter, which is calculated as 2 per cent of the whole weight, upon which the duty is paid; but which cannot, as alleged, be reckoned in the drawback. Therefore, the difference which the proposed increase of duty will make is 2 per cent, or one-fiftieth of 4d. on every 100 lbs. of tobacco. Then, the duty on the leaf, as compared with the duty on the cigar, is increased by one-fifth of a penny. That comes to 1s. 8d. per 100 lbs. Thirdly, there is the increase on the interest lost on the larger outlay, which the manufacturer incurs by having to pay duty, and being out of his money for a certain time. This, it is calculated, comes to 1s. 9d. per 100 lbs. Therefore, upon 100 lbs., you have three disadvantages by the increased duty—a loss of 1s. 9d. increased interest, a loss of 1s. 8d. for the one-fifth of a penny duty, and one-twelfth of a penny the increased disadvantage in respect of the inorganic matter. This makes a total addition of 3s. 5d. and one-twelfth of a penny on 100 lbs., or about two-fifths of a penny per 1b. Therefore, the effect of the increase of the cigar duty by 2d. would be, on the most favourable calculation, to deprive the manufacturer of that fractional amount of protection; but even this will be made up in another way. Then, taking into account that the value of the stalks is taken at 2s. 4d., but is really now 2s. 8d., or, with the additional duty, 3s.—we see that the position of the manufacturer is this much better than the right hon. Member for Greenwich intended, in 1863, that it should be. Under these circumstances, I do not think we should disturb the calculation. It was made to cover the extreme case, and I believe the extreme case is met by the duty as it now stands. If you do anything more than is necessary to meet it, you will be giving considerable protection to those below the extreme case. The cigar manufacturers, undoubtedly, point out that there has been a considerable increase in the importation of foreign cigars since the alteration in 1863; but the alteration was expressly made to allow these cigars to come in. Before that date, they were excluded by what was practically a prohibitive duty, on all but the highest and most valuable qualities. A considerable number of cigars, therefore, come into the country now that would not have come in before; but I have no

  1297
  reason to think home manufacturers are unfairly treated. The importation of unmanufactured tobacco has also increased since 1863. Under all the circumstances, I think it would be undesirable to make the alteration that I am asked to make.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, there should be no doubt in the mind of the home manufacturer as to the position he held, and that position ought to be as good as that of the foreigner who sent cigars into the country. The increase in the duties ought to be proportionate.
  MR. GORSThoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would continue to give his attention to this subject, notwithstanding the speech he had just made. The question was one of great importance. It was a question of the survival or the extinction of a manufacture. The persons engaged in the cigar manufacture had two distinct complaints. First, they said the existing state of things was not fair; secondly, they said that the change contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make matters worse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer produced a number of plausible figures—no doubt, supplied by the Taxing Department of the country—which appeared to show that the English manufacturer was on an equal footing with the foreign manufacturer. But, in a case like this, it must be clear to the Committee that there were numerous conditions of manufacture which could not be made matter of calculation. The German manufacturer commenced operations on a comparatively worthless material; but the English manufacturer's raw material was made, by taxation, of an artificially high value, and if, in dealing with this valuable material, there was any waste or loss through accident, the loss of the manufacturer was serious. He was astonished to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the stalks had now become more valuable than in 1863. He was told that this was not the case, and the reason given why it was not the case seemed plausible. In 1863, the stalk was manufactured into snuff; but, since 1863, the manufacture of cigars had increased, and that of snuff diminished. Therefore, it was said, there were now more stalks to be made into snuff, and less demand for the snuff when it was made. The Committee would be astonished to hear how the drawback was
  1298
  paid on the refuse—"offal," he thought, it was technically called. The manufacturer had to grind what he did not use in his manufacture into powder, and before he could realize the drawback, he had to export the powder, which he (Mr. Gorst), was told was perfectly worthless. A large quantity of this powder was now lying at Jersey and Bremen, and was perfectly unsaleable. Now, while it was unsaleable at Jersey it, of course, became worth 3s. 6d. a-lb., if it could be re-imported into England, and this was an obvious temptation to smugglers. It was hardly credible that the manufacturer should not be allowed to destroy this powder, instead of having to export it. The whole question between Members of the House who agreed with him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, whether the difference in the rates of duty imposed on manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco was a constant difference? The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed an expression to escape him, which seemed to confirm the view that it was a ratio rather than a constant difference. He stated that a certain ratio was fixed in 1873, although he immediately corrected himself, and said a certain difference was maintained. All he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do was to stick to the ratio—to keep the ratio the same, while altering the duty. There was no difference of opinion as to the desirability of placing the home and foreign manufacturer on an equal footing, and it was a matter of calculation how that equality was to be maintained. If there were two views of that question of calculation, the English manufacturer and the English workman should be heard on the subject as well as the taxing authorities.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would be the last man to advocate protection of home industry against foreign competition; but since maintaining, on a previous discussion, that to raise the duty on manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco by the same amount would put the British manufacturer in a worse position with regard to his foreign competitors than he now occupied, he had had the opportunity of consulting people engaged in the trade. Having carefully tested the accuracy of the facts they laid before him, and having also given his careful attention to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that evening,

  1299
  he was bound to say he did not think the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made out his case. Without going into complicated details, the Committee could look at the matter from the simple point of view already taken by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He would assume that, in 1863, by the scale of duties then framed, the home and foreign manufacturers were put on a position of equality. If that were so, to raise the duty on unmanufactured tobacco by 4d., and to raise it only 4d. on imported cigars, must place the home manufacturers, protanto, in an unfavourable position. It appeared to him to be beyond the possibility of dispute, that what should be done was to adjust the duties according to their ratio, and that what should not be done was to add the same amount to each duty. The duty was formerly on unmanufactured tobacco 3s. 2d., and on manufactured tobacco 5s. It would now be on unmanufactured tobacco 3s. 6d. Making here a rule-of-three sum, the Committee would see that as 3s. 2d. was to 5s., so was 3s. 6d.—not to 5s. 4d., as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make the duty on manufactured tobacco, but to about 5s. 5¼d., or 5s. 5½d., the amount which he intended in all arithmetical accuracy to be the amount by which the duty on imported cigars ought to be raised. The difference between 5s. 4d. and 5s. 5½d. might seem small; but he was told by those engaged in the trade that the competition between the English manufacturer and the foreign manufacturer was so keen, and that the balance between them was so nicely adjusted, that even a difference in duty of 1d. or 1½d. would make a considerable difference to the trade. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer wold re-consider the subject.
  MR. RITCHIEwished to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted from the calculation he had given the Committee an element of great importance. He spoke about the additional duty which would be paid on 2 per cent of refuse; but he omitted to take account of the moisture which added to the weight of the unmanufactured tobacco. In 1863, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) stated that he had heard of cases in which there was 24 or 25 per cent of moisture, though no case had been
  1300
  strictly verified. He said, however, that there would be 14 lbs. of refuse and moisture in 100 lbs. of tobacco. If it were borne in mind that the additional duty was payable on something between 14 and 25 lbs. of refuse and moisture, which disappeared in the manufacture of cigars, it would be seen that a considerable addition must be made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's calculation of the disadvantages under which the home manufacturer laboured. He believed, moreover, that the statement that the stalk was now worth 4d. per lb. more was an erroneous one.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, assuming that the home manufacturer had been fairly dealt with in the scale laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) in 1863, maintained that there was no coin in circulation so small as to represent the disadvantages under which the English manufacturer would labour if the proposals of the Government were carried into operation. He did not see why foreign cigars should not be sold for 4d. per lb. more than they now were, or why there should be a greater additional duty levied upon them. He maintained that 1s. 10 d. represented as well now as it did in 1863 a sufficient difference between the duty on tobacco and that on cigars to recoup the English manufacturer for waste on the manufacture of the duty-paid article. Probably, there would be a slightly increased amount of capital involved in the tobacco manufacturing trade than formerly. That was, however, so infinitesimal, that, under all the circumstances, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not yield to the seductive proposal made him for increasing the duty on foreign cigars.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the case was simply this—that a certain amount of duty was put upon a certain amount of raw and unmanufactured tobacco, out of which a certain smaller quantity of cigars could be made; and, therefore, the duty on home manufactured cigars was higher than the duty on tobacco, whether imported in a manufactured state or not. Recognizing these facts, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) made the duty on the raw material bear to that on the manufactured article the proportion of 3s. 2d. to 5s. If that was admitted to be a correct calculation, the

  1301
  same proportion ought to be maintained in any alteration. Therefore, in raising 3s. 2d. to 3s. 6d. a proportional increase ought to be put on the 5s., and not the same increase as was made on the 3s. 2d. If the increased duty on the manufactured article were calculated on the ratio that it bore to the raw material, the increase ought to be more than 6d. per lb.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not admit, with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), or with the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), that the question was simply one of ratio. It was a mixed question of ratio and other considerations. If they were largely increasing the duty, there was no doubt they would have to increase the difference. But, in a small addition to the duty like this, they had to consider the proportion of the refuse that was saleable. They should further bear in mind the increase in the value of portions of the refuse. He believed that since 1863, when the scheme was settled, the price of the stalk refuse had very much increased, and this fully made up for any slight variation of duty arising from the present increase.
  MR. J. HOLMSsaid, that they ought, in justice, to maintain the relative positions between the duties on raw and manufactured tobacco at what they formerly were. If that were done, the increase of the duty on the manufactured article would be something like 6d. per lb.; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make that duty, it would satisfy all parties. He would further say that in manufacturing cigars there was a much larger amount of rubbish to be allowed for than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had calculated.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be this—that the proportion between the duties on the raw material and the manufactured article, established by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), was correct; but that since then the value of the stalk, for certain purposes, had increased, and, consequently, the ratio had become unduly favourable to the home manufacturer. By the alteration which he was now making, of adding 4d. per lb to each duty, he said he was bringing the ratio to what it
  1302
  was in 1863. If the addition to the duty were only temporary and to meet an emergency, then the right hon. Gentleman, when he took off the 4d. which he now imposed upon the raw material, ought to take off something more than 4d. from the manufactured article, in order to preserve what he declared to be the right ratio.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the tobacco manufacturer, besides having to allow for refuse, had also to reckon upon a certain amount of moisture and sand in the tobacco. There was one statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, if true, completely met the argument he had brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman said that the value of the stalk had increased so much as to make up for the additional disadvantage every manufacturer was under for not getting a portion of the drawback upon the tobacco which he rejected. Upon the best information which he could obtain, he could state that the value of the stalks had not increased. Whether that was a fact or no the Committee must decide; but he was assured, upon the most positive information, that the value of the stalks had not increased. If the tax were to be increased upon the raw material, it was a question of fair play also to increase the tax in the same proportion upon the manufactured article.
  MR. SAMUDAobserved, that the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not putting a proportionally increased duty on imported cigars was a weak one. He said that the present increase of 4d. all round would go far to restore the home manufacturer to the same proportion of duty which he paid when the scheme was settled in 1863. But no one would have thought of interfering with the home manufacturer had this increase in the tobacco tax not been proposed; and, therefore, the home manufacturer ought not now to be placed in a worse position than he would otherwise have been in.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKdid not think it wise or politic or just to put the same amount of duty upon an expensive article like cigars, as upon commoner kinds of tobacco filled with refuse and sand.
  MR. RITCHIEwas satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, and would not press his Amendment. With one exception, all the Gentlemen who had spoken had expressed themselves in

  1303
  favour of some increase being made in the duty on cigars; and he, therefore, appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to re-consider his decision on the matter.
  MR. FAWCETTwould ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-consider this point before the Report, on two grounds. First, that Members on both sides of the House, with only one exception, had expressed themselves in favour of an alteration in his proposals; and, secondly, that the House ought to have some reasons for what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do. At all events, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not ask the House to express an opinion on this point. So far as he knew, there was no possible way by which the Committee could give a decision on such a question as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had raised. By voting for the Amendment, the House would virtually vote against the Budget proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and deprive him of the Revenue; therefore, a division on this particular issue could not be taken. He was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was desirous of doing what was fair; and, as the House could not express an opinion upon it in that debate, he thought it was not too much to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer again to consider the matter, and to see whether he could not make some alteration in the manner suggested.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that several hon. Members had, no doubt, been in communication with those interested in the manufacture of cigars, and had received from them a good deal of information which they had naturally used in the discussion. He did not think that it was surprising that the discussion should have been against the Government on either side of the House, for it was not likely that anyone would have taken an interest on the opposite side of the question. It was the consumer who was interested in no alteration being made in a direction which would give such a protection to the British manufacturer as would exclude foreign cigars. The importers of foreign cigars had communicated with him, and had remonstrated against any increase being made in the duty on cigars in this country. The matter lay in a small compass, for the increase of duty was so
  1304
  small, that if it were merely adjusted on foreign manufactured tobacco, irrespective of the price of the stalks, the increase would be infinitesimal. On the other hand, if the duty were substantially raised, it would be giving a protection to the British manufacturer. With respect to what had been said with regard to the increase in the price of stalks, he was informed that stalks were now 2s. 8d. or 2s. 9d. per pound, and if the increase of 4d. were made to the duty, the price would be 3s. to 3s. 1d.
  MR. RITCHIEobserved, the stalk referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was the dry stalk.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not undertake then to make any alteration in the proposals before the Committee, but he would consider the matter further before the next stage of the Bill was reached.
  MR. DODSONobserved, that the argument of the Government was, that the adjustment in 1863 had become unjust by reason of the increased value of the stalks. The whole force of their position lay in that alleged increase, and if it were proved, the argument was sound. After the discussion that had taken place, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make further inquiries, to ascertain if the value of the stalks really had increased.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 4 to 11, inclusive, agreed, to.
  Clause 12 (Provision as to deduction for depreciation of machinery or plant).
  MR. WHITWELL, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 39, after "tax," to leave out "it shall be lawful for," and, in line 40, after "purposes," to insert "shall," said, he wished to express the satisfaction which he and many others felt at the clause having been introduced into the Bill by the Government. It was right that an allowance should be made for the depreciation and repairs of machinery in the assessment of the Income Tax. But, by the Bill, such allowance was permissive only, and he thought it should be made compulsory. The object of his Amendment was to make it compulsory on the Commissioners, for general and special purposes, to allow a deduction before charging the Income Tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the alterations were not made, because he thought them unnecessary; but he had no objection to the words proposed being substituted in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Consequent Amendments agreed to.
  MR. CHADWICK, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 1, to leave out "to," and insert "and they shall," and, in the same line, to leave out "they may think," and insert "shall be," said, its effect would be that the General and Special Commissioners should first settle the deductions for depreciation, and then, anyone who had any reason to object, would have a right to go to the Court of Exchequer, and contest the amount of the allowance. As the words stood in the Bill, the General and Special Commissioners would have a right to say what was "just and reasonable," and he feared there would be no appeal from their decision; whereas his proposition was, that a "just and reasonable" allowance should be made, and would be decided ultimately by the Court of Exchequer. The Amendment ought to be acceded to by the Government, for it was right that a "just and reasonable" amount should be allowed in respect of those deductions. The matter was left entirely in the hands of the General and Special Commissioners by the terms of the Bill. Who were the General and Special Commissioners to whom such a large discretion was intrusted? The General Commissioners were persons appointed in every town in England, and the Special Commissioners were gentlemen at Somerset House. With some experience of both classes of Commissioners, he should be inclined to take the question to the Court of Exchequer in every case in which he differed from them. Should such a discretion be invested in the Commissioners, in one town certain allowances would be made; whereas, perhaps, in the next, an entirely different set of rules would prevail. On the other hand, if Parliament declared that the deduction should be a "just and reasonable" one, an uniform rule could be readily settled. In any case, they wanted to be assessed at the full amount of their real profits, and
  1306
  they wished to keep their capital intact at the end of the year. For the last 33 years they had suffered under an injustice in that respect, and he was personally much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for having, at length, honestly grappled with the question of depreciation in machinery and works, and he earnestly begged him to allow the Amendment. It would go to satisfy a numerous class of iron-masters, manufacturers, and coal-owners, by assuring them that a fair allowance would be made for depreciation, leaving their capital intact.
  MR. KNOWLESsaid, this was the first time depreciation in works and machinery had been recognized. He was very glad it had, and thought it would be wise to put it on as firm a basis as possible, by affirming that such a deduction should be allowed as was "just and reasonable," instead of leaving it a question entirely for the opinion of the Commissioners. He did not go quite so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick), in saying that he should not agree with anything that the Commissioners did; for he had found that they generally had a fair knowledge of depreciation in all classes of property. The amount of depreciation was a question of degree, some property depreciating very fast. The Local Commissioners, as a rule, had sufficient knowledge to enable them to deal justly with the matters coming before them. But still, he thought the substitution of the words "shall be just and reasonable," for "as they may think just and reasonable," would be advisable.
  MR. ASSHETONimagined that the Commissioners would be bound to make a due allowance for depreciation, whether the words used in the Bill or those proposed in the Amendment stood part of the clause. With regard to the principle of the Amendment they were discussing, he really saw no difference between it and the words of the Bill, for the Commissioners must allow what they considered just. It was a distinction without a difference, and they could admit the Amendment or leave it alone with the same result.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONapprehended that the distinction between the clause proposed and the Amendment was this. According to the Government scheme, the discretion of the Commissioners

  1307
  would be final, and, being a discretion, no Court of Law could interfere with their decision; whereas, according to what the hon. Member for Macclesfield suggested, any aggrieved manufacturer would have a right, by reference to a Court of Law, to have the propriety of the deductions allowed by the Commissioners determined as matter of law. Until some rule or standard was fixed, they ought to be contented with the concession made by the Government, and should not imperil what they had got by asking for more. It was a great advantage for the manufacturer that the Commissioners would be obliged to allow, at any rate, what they thought fit, and the question was, whether the Commissioners could not safely be trusted with a discretion in the matter?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that if the General and Special Commissioners were to be allowed to exercise their judgment, without the manufacturer having any appeal, things would thus remain in a state of chaos. If the Amendment were made, any person dissatisfied could appeal to the Court of Exchequer, and have some definite rule laid down. He remembered the case of an appeal to the Commissioners, in which the question was put by them—"How much did you pass through your bankers in the course of a year?" On being told, they said—"Your returns do not show 5 per cent profit on this amount." Every mercantile man would know that profits were not to be arrived at in that way. In another case, the Commissioners Inquired into a large amount on the debit side of an account. It was explained to them that it was a loss through a Government contract, when the Commissioners replied—"that if people were foolish enough to enter into contracts with Government, and lose money on them, such a loss could not be set off." They further said that if a man were foolish enough not to insure his house and it was burnt down, the amount of loss would not be allowed him. He supported the Amendment, thinking that no more discretion than necessary should be placed in the hands of the Commissioners.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYventured to think that the clause as it now stood was much better than the Amendment proposed. Unless persons had
  1308
  some confidence in the discretion of the Commissioners, who generally gave a great deal of attention to the subject, the business of the country could not go on. It was better to trust to the discretion of the Commissioners than to go to a Court of Law. He was sure that in London, parties would rather abide by a decision of the Commissioners than appeal further.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that if books were properly kept, an allowance was made for depreciation before the profits were assessed. Now, they had a legal and effective declaration to the Commissioners that that was the proper system to pursue. The clause would be entirely unambiguous, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were, through the Inland Revenue Department, to issue Instructions to the Commissioners as to the allowances they were to make.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, if he had understood rightly the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), they amounted to this—that the clause as it stood would have the effect of placing entirely at the discretion of the Commissioners, the deduction to be allowed on machinery and works; and if the clause were altered in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield(Mr. Chadwick), it would lead to this—that if the Commissioners did not make a sufficient allowance for depreciation, it would be open to the manufacturer to appeal to a higher Court, in order to get the Commissioners' decision over-ruled. For his own part, he had such confidence in his hon. and learned Friend's knowledge of law, that he was prepared to accept it; and he looked upon that statement of the law as the strongest possible argument in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. He recognized most fully the evident disposition of the Commissioners to meet just claims on the part of the owners and occupiers, and he had the fullest confidence that they would deal in this matter in a fair and reasonable spirit. The effect of the Amendment was this—that if, through want of judgment or some other reason, a wrong decision was come to, then there was a chance of the decision being over-ruled. As he understood the Bill, it was proposed that, however mistaken the Commissioners might be, their decision must be accepted

  1309
  and there was no remedy. He thought that, under these circumstances, the right hon Gentleman would do well to consider favourably the proposed Amendment, and so put the clause in a shape which was likely to be satisfactory.
  MR. ISAACthought the clause should be a compulsory and not a permissive one; as it stood, it would leave the Commissioners a great many loopholes to creep out of. It was necessary to avoid driving owners of mills, &c., into the Law Courts. Personally, he preferred the expression "shall be," and he should vote for the Amendment if there should be a division.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, it was a very important Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to stand to the clause as it was. He could not put anything more to the purpose or more effective; it might be a hard clause, but he thought it perfectly necessary. It was a very reasonable and fair clause.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Commissioners differed as to whether when machinery was let they ought to allow for depreciations or not. It was exceedingly hard that a tenant, holding under a long lease for 20 or 30 years, should not have the same benefit as an owner. The Amendment sought to impose it as a duty on the Commissioners to make the same allowance, and he should certainly support it. That was the difficulty arising in the district with which he was connected.
  MR. GOSCHENthought the hon. Member had not quite apprehended the point. It was conceded that the Commissioners were in every case to make some allowance, and that was a very great concession. The question was whether the discretion was best confided to the Commissioners or to the Courts of Law. He presumed that the Government had been baffled in the attempt to find a principle to be introduced into the Bill. The depreciations would have to be practically worked out according to some tentative system; and the Commissioners must find their way to some equitable, universal, and uniform system. He did not think it wise to refer to the Courts—the owner would not accept their decisions, and the Courts would be laying down a system of taxation. On the whole, he certainly inclined to the clause as it stood, rather than have an immense amount of litigation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had very accurately appreciated the position of the Government in the matter. The hon. Member for Oldham had taken very great interest in the matter last year, and it was very much owing to his representations, and those of his hon. and learned Friend behind him that the matter had been considered. They did not attempt to clear the Income Tax or the Dog Tax from all anomalies; but it was possible to mitigate them. Last year, the hon. Member for Oldham had called attention to the matter, and an attempt had been made, but unsuccessfully, to meet the difficulties complained of. He had caused very particular inquiries to be made, by competent gentlemen, into the circumstances, and as to what could be done in the matter of allowances for depreciation; and, in the first place, he found that the principles adopted were extremely various. In the case of shipping property, depreciation was allowed for; and with railway-plant, and for much machinery used in private establishments, deductions were, more or less, made. In other cases there was none, because the Commissioners did not think themselves authorized by law to permit it. It still more clearly arose in the case of joint-stock companies, whose accounts were made up under the direction of auditors, who required that a certain sum should be set aside for the depreciation of machinery; yet, when the Income Tax was paid, the Commissioner was not justified in allowing that sum to be deducted. Those were anomalies which should be remedied, and he had attempted to lay down rules, it being found difficult or impossible to draw a satisfactory clause. In communication with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), the latter had entirely confirmed him in the view that it was better not to attempt to lay down cast-iron rules, but to leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners themselves, whereby far less injustice would be done than if such matters were made the subjects of appeal to Courts of Law. He could hardly conceive how the Courts could deal with many of those questions. They had given power to the Commissioners to make the allowance, and made it a direction to them that they

  1311
  should. He thought hon. Gentlemen would do well to rest content, and see how it worked.
  MR. CHADWICKfelt disposed to withdraw his Amendment; but they wanted to avoid disputes in the future. They were perfectly willing to abide by a judicial decision; but it would be very difficult if conflicting decisions occurred in various districts. He denied that there was great difficulty in deciding what was a fair, proper, and reasonable scale of depreciation. For many years he had, as professional auditor, assisted to determine the depreciations of 60 large manufacturing and mining concerns. The words "shall be what is just and reasonable" would be sufficient.
  MR. DODSONsaid, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick) had given a very good reason why they should vote with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the support of the law as it stood. He had said there was no difficulty in settling those questions. Did the House think that any Judge on the Bench, however learned, was capable of deciding those questions? It was an experimental clause; he hoped the hon. Member would not divide the House.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, that as there appeared to be very little difference between hon. Members on the subject, he thought that after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Amendment should not be pressed.
  MR. CHADWICKbegged to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. CHADWICK, on rising to move, in page 6, line 2, after "any," the insertion of the word" buildings," said, that if the Government objected to it, and would allow the substitution of the words "so as to leave the capital intact," as proposed in the following Amendment, which would be carrying out the recent decision, he would be satisfied.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the Amendment would carry the principle farther than he was prepared to go, and he must object to it.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, there were many buildings which might be so described. The clause was an attempt to do justly by manufacturing persons, who had ever, since the Property Tax Act
  1312
  had been passed, been unjustly dealt with by not permitting them to deduct anything for depreciation. The object was to remedy that injustice; but, unfortunately, the clause of the Bill now under discussion would not carry out that intention. He was not sure what was meant by "machinery and plant." Power was given to the Commissioners to allow for depreciation upon machinery and plant, but other and valuable portions of what constituted manufactories were not brought within the operation of the clause. He thought no hon. Member who had any knowledge of business would object to a fair amount being deducted for depreciation of value in machinery and plant before the profits of a manufactory, public work, or mine, were calculated for division among the partners. He could not suppose that the intention of the law was to act unjustly, and he could assure the Committee that injustice was done by the existing state of things; because, owing to the fact that deductions were not allowed, income tax was paid upon what every manufacturer who kept his books on proper principles deducted for depreciation before dividing the profits of the year. In the case of mine owners, it not unfrequently happened that they had to pay income tax upon minerals lying beneath their lands for years before they had been brought to the surface and converted into money. He, therefore, begged to move an Amendment, in the following terms:—Page 6, line 2, leave out from "any" to the end of the clause, and insert—
  "Manufactory, public work, or mine, which the trader, manufacturer, or mine owner, may consider necessary to make allowance for in making a true balance of his books, from time to time, for a division of profits."
  MR. SERJEANT SPINKSsaid, that the concession would be appreciated by the manufacturing classes; but its grace would be marred somewhat if the further concession proposed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick), with regard to buildings was not also granted.
  MR. KNOWLESsuggested to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick), that he should withdraw his Amendment on condition that the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted the proposal of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), modified in

  1313
  such a way as that the Commissioners of Taxes should be satisfied as to the amount proposed to be allowed, instead of allowing traders, manufacturers, and mine owners to be the sole judges of the allowances in question. He thought no difficulty could arise in the case of sound concerns if this proposal were adopted; and, further, that in such cases, a great deal of what was inquisitorial in the incidence and levying of the tax would be avoided.
  MR. WHITWELLsupported the clause as drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hoped its harmony would not be marred. If any alteration in it were thought necessary, it ought, in his (Mr. Whitwell's) view, to be made by means of an addition, and not by interpolation.
  MR. CHADWICKsaid, he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment (Mr. Chadwick), by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GOLDNEYhoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) would not be pressed, as it would exclude the unfortunate farmers from all benefit they would otherwise enjoy under the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKalso opposed the Amendment, remarking that if every man was to be allowed to judge as to the amount of Income Tax he should pay, there would be no occasion for Commissioner; who, as far as he had experience of them, had always performed important and delicate duties in a satisfactory manner.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDthought the Amendment ought not to be passed, on the ground that it would deprive of concessions some of the important industries which it was, and, he thought, with justice, intended to benefit.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the clause, as he had proposed it, was not drawn in consequence of any particular decision that had been arrived at, but in order to meet a difficulty which had for years been felt in regard to manufactories in which machinery was extensively used. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), which
  1314
  would go far beyond the point he was at present willing to concede. The only additional concession he was able to make was that the clause should apply to machinery rented, as well as to machinery which was the actual property of the person using it.
  MR. HERSCHELLthought it would be well not to press the Amendment then; but that, on the Report, it should be brought up in a modified form.
  MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he should be willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the Committee.
  Amendment (Mr. Orr-Ewing) negatived
  MR. CHADWICK MR. CHADWICK moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, lines 3 and 4, to leave out "and belonging to the person or Company by whom the concern is carried on," and to insert, "so as to leave the capital intact." If they did not allow for the depreciation of hired machinery, they would be doing an act of injustice. If the worker of a mill had hired machinery, which, by arrangement with the lessor, he was bound to keep in repair, there was no reason whatever why he should not be allowed for depreciation the same as though that machinery was absolutely his own.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out, that if the Amendment were adopted, it would make the remission in favour of the wrong person, because it would give the remission to the person who hired, and not to the lessor of the machinery; therefore, he proposed to retain the words which were under the consideration of the Committee, and then go on to add to the clause to meet the cases where machinery was let. The words he proposed to add were—
  "And where any machinery or plant is let, the lessor shall be entitled, on claim made to the Commissioners for general or special purposes, in the manner prescribed by section sixty-one of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, to have repaid to him such a portion of the sum which may have been assessed and charged in respect of the machinery or plant, and deducted by such lessee on payment of the rent, as shall represent the Income Tax upon such an amount as the said Commissioners may think just and reasonable for depreciation in respect of the wear and tear of such machinery or plant: Provided,

  1315
  That no such claim shall be allowed unless it shall be made within twelve calendar months after the expiration of the year of assessment."
  Thinking these words more appropriate than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, he should propose to substitute them.
  MR. CHADWICKsaid, he would agree to the Government Amendment, and withdraw his Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the hon. Gentleman wished to put his Amendment—which he supposed he did not—so as to leave the capital intact, it would be more convenient to propose it before the words he had proposed to add to the clause were considered.
  MR. CHADWICKbelieved, if the words were inserted as he proposed, the Commissioners would be saved a great deal of trouble. In Knowles's case in the Court of Exchequer, the three Judges had held that when coal was taken out and consumed in the way of business, it was to be allowed in deduction from the income of that business. The whole of the remarks of the Judges went to the principle of allowing, in the case of a Company or individual, the capital to remain intact; and, therefore, the insertion of those words would convey to the minds of everyone that they were not to pay on any portion of their capital, whether it had been absolutely consumed in taking out coal from a coal mine, or absolutely consumed in the wear or tear of machinery. Therefore, the words he suggested would, he believed, save a great deal of trouble and give very much satisfaction, showing plainly that people were not to pay Income Tax upon capital, as had been the case for many years. After consideration, he thought he should be compelled to take a division on the words he proposed.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, as the clause stood at present, in looking at the profits of a concern, so much was to be allowed for wear and tear of machinery. As to leaving the capital intact, he did not know what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chadwick) meant—whether it was the capital of the concern, or whether he meant the capital of the machinery. The clause did not in the slightest degree interfere with the decision of the Court of Exchequer as regarded mines; but here it was wanted to add words which meant allowing so much in respect
  1316
  of wear and tear of machinery, which would keep the capital intact, or the capital of the machinery intact. He thought the words really had no sense at all, and, instead of being clear, they would only be misunderstood.
  MR. NEWDEGATEadvised the consideration of the addition proposed to the clause by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to see if that did not meet the views of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick).
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, capital intact would mean the capital in the business, but the business might not be intact for various reasons. The question was a difficult one for anyone to go into. The words of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick) might do very well on a piece of paper; but when they came to sit down, and give a decision upon them, it would be found that they involved considerations which could not be dealt with at all. He did not know how they could go into the question of capital in a business, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resist the Amendment. At the same time, he wanted to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He had proposed, he believed, a very reasonable Amendment; but he thought it only fair to the Committee to ask to have it brought up on the Report. If they saw the proposal in print, they would have an opportunity of considering what it was like; but he thought it impossible to gather all the meanings and intentions of an intricate Amendment on hearing it read. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to bring up his addition to the clause on Report.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDadvised the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick) to withdraw his Amendment. As to the addition to Clause 12, proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Mr. Hubbard) had been completely lost while it was being read, and he should be glad to see it in the Paper before it was agreed to.
  MR. WHITWELLhoped the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick) would not press his Amendment. With regard to the addition proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Mr. Whitwell) had a strong wish to see it in the Paper, and for this reason—at present, a great deal of machinery was let on a term of years,

  1317
  subject to its value being kept up, and restored to the lessor exactly the same as it was handed over to the lessee. Therefore, it would not be at all consistent for the lessor to receive a reduction in Income Tax for depreciation of machinery, inasmuch as the lessee would have made all depreciations good, and he would very naturally expect to get this money back again at the end of the lease. Therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way clear to place his Amendment on the Paper.
  MR. CHADWICKwithdrew his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas sorry to have to refuse to put the Amendment on the Paper. The fact was, that the point had been considered by the Inland Revenue officials, and they thought such an Amendment as he had proposed would be advisable. They prepared it, and the object of it was, that if a man let his machinery, the person who had to pay rent for it should be entitled, on paying his rent, to deduct the income tax which he was charged, and the person to whom the rent was paid should have a portion of that income tax in respect of his machinery. That, he thought, would be a reasonable proposal to pass.
  Amendment made, by adding, at the end thereof, the following words:—
  "And where any machinery or plant is let, the lessor shall be entitled on claim made to the Commissioners for general or special purposes, in the manner prescribed by section sixty-one of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, to have repaid to him such a portion of the sum which may have been assessed and charged in respect of the machinery or plant, and deducted by such lessee on payment of the rent, as shall represent the Income Tax upon such an amount as the said Commissioners may think just and reasonable for depreciation in respect of the wear and tear of such machinery or plant: Provided, That no such claim shall be allowed unless it shall be made within twelve calendar months after the expiration of the year of assessment."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. CHADWICKdesired to see the Amendment in print.
  MR. HERSCHELLsaid, in the case of a man who owned machinery, it was quite clear that the deductions for depreciation would come to him. But in the case of a lessee, who was to bear the loss by depreciation? It was not unfrequently
  1318
  the case that when machinery was let, the real person on whom the loss fell was the lessee, who was bound by his agreement to restore it just as he found it. Therefore, the lessor in that case sustained no loss by depreciation, because the cost of depreciation in no way fell upon him. Therefore, he thought the matter required a little consideration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Amendment would be printed in the Votes on Tuesday, and would be in the hands of hon. Members, who would be able to see how the clause stood. Then, if anyone wished to make any other Amendment on Report, it was competent for him to do so.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKthought it unreasonable on the part of the right hon. Gentleman not to agree to place the Amendment on the Paper. As he had previously said, he believed the Amendment might be what was desired, but surely it was a reasonable request to ask that it might be allowed to come up on Report. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: It will come up to-morrow.] That might be so, but he thought the Committee ought to have an opportunity of discussing the matter after it had been placed on the Paper, and not on the Report.
  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not like a fresh Amendment, coming on before it had been placed on the Paper. In his Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted language which he thought would meet the case, and which had been approved by the Inland Revenue authorities.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Amendment of the law as to inhabited house duty).
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD MR. J. G. HUBBARD moved, in page 6, to add the following subsection:—
  "Where any dwelling-house, partly occupied by a shop or warehouse for goods exposed to sale, is chargeable under the Act of the fourteenth and fifteenth Victoria, chapter thirty-six, with a duty of sixpence in the pound, that duty of sixpence shall be charged whether the premises be occupied by the owner or by a tenant or tenants of the owner."
  He considered it perfectly absurd that because the owner of a house in which

  1319
  he had a shop lived somewhere else, and not in the shop premises, that he should pay a duty of 9d. and not of 6d. Such a proceeding simply made it obligatory that the owner and occupier should be the same man. At present there might be two houses with shops, both exactly alike, owned by two persons; but, whilst the one who lived on the premises only paid a duty of 6d., the one who let a portion to a tenant had to pay 9d. He thought nothing more need be said to get rid of such an anomalous clause, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would adopt his Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not agree with the principle which was contended for, because the Government regarded this tax not as being, in this sense, imposed upon the premises, but as a tax with reference to the person who occupied the premises. The truth was, that when a shop-keeper was obliged to take a shop in an expensive part of the town for the purpose of carrying on his business, and when he occupied some of the rooms over the shop as a dwelling-house, he was not rated as if the house were his dwelling-house; but it was generally allowed that he was living there in a more expensive situation than his means would otherwise allow from the necessity of attending to his business. But, if he left his business and went elsewhere to reside, and if he made profit out of the rooms above his shop by letting them to the other persons in order that he might derive advantage from the high rents in Bond Street or Regent Street, for example, then it was fair and reasonable that the portion of the house so let should be charged with a proper proportion of the tax. An alteration had been made by this clause, which would give relief in cases where the house and the shop were let as separate tenements. If the shop were not occupied at night, it would come under this new proposal of the law.
  Amendment negatived.
  COLONEL MAKINS COLONEL MAKINS moved the insertion of a sub-section exempting the Inns of Court and the Universities from payment of the Inhabited House Duty.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must ask his hon. and gallant Friend to give Notice of his Amendment, which, he added, might be
  1320
  considered on the Report of the Committee. The point raised was new to him, and he was unable, without further consideration, to say whether it would be desirable to insert the Amendment in the Bill.
  MR. HERSCHELLsaid, the Inns of Court and the Universities appeared to him to stand on a different footing under this clause. He was by no means sure that, as regarded the Inns of Court, the case would not be met by the words as they at present stood, though the Universities might not be exempted.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he should be quite content if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider this proposal between the present time and the bringing up of the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Amount fixed by the Treasury to be paid to clerks to Commissioners in lieu of allowances in certain cases).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to insert, in line 4, the words "exclusive of necessary office expenses."
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Appeal from High Court of Justice in cases stated under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1874).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved to add, page 7, line 12, the words—
  "And from the decision of the Court of Session as the Court of Exchequer in Scotland upon any case so stated in the House of Lords."
  SIR ANDREW LUSKdesired to know what was the object of the Amendment?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, that its object was to bring the law relating to taxes into harmony with the law relating to the Legacy and Succession Duties. In the case of the Legacy and Succession Duties, an appeal lay to the Court of Exchequer, and from thence to the House of Lords. No such appeal was allowed in cases relating to these taxes, and this seemed rather absurd, inasmuch as many of the questions relating to the levying of taxes were of a most important nature.
  MR. COURTNEYthought that the clause, as it stood, provided only for appeals to the Court of Exchequer in certain cases, and did not allow of appeals being taken from the Court of Exchequer to the House of Lords.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had called his attention to the matter. His hon. and learned Friend said that, although, in his opinion, it would not be absolutely necessary, yet it would be desirable, in order to make the point quite clear and free from ambiguity, to add to the clause the words "and from thence to the House of Lords."
  SIR ANDREW LUSKobserved, that he was of a rather Conservative disposition, and was content to let things remain as they were. The income tax had been levied for 35 years on the old principle, and why should the Government now open a field for new litigation by allowing appeals to be made from one Court to another?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbelieved his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had already explained that, in all cases involving questions of liability to Legacy or Succession Duty, the Crown had a right to appeal from the Court of Exchequer; whereas, in tax cases, there seemed to be at present no such right. Surely it was highly desirable to make the law uniform.
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen moved to add to the clause the words "and from thence to the House of Lords."
  Amendment agreed to; words inserted.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Serjeants' Inn transferred to City of London for purposes of taxes) agreed to.

PART III.
  Excise.

    DOG LICENCES.
    Clause 17 (Increase of duty imposed by 30 & 31 Vict. c. 5).
    MR. MONK MR. MONK moved, in page 7, line 38, to leave out from the word "seventy-eight" to the words "chapter
    1322
    five," in line 40. The hon. Gentleman said, he was in favour of keeping the duty as it then stood. He thought there was really no good reason for increasing it from 5s. to 7s. 6d., and that the police could accomplish the object of the tax, which was to diminish the number of stray dogs, and insure the regular collection of duty, as well under the former as under the increased rate of 7s. 6d.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 38, to leave out from the word "seventy-eight" to the words "chapter five," in line 40.—(Mr. Monk.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HOPWOODwould support the Amendment in place of his own, of which he had given Notice; because it equally raised the point which he had desired to raise—namely, that the duty should remain where it was. On a previous evening he had had the opportunity of saying something on this subject, and did not feel himself precluded from repeating some of the observations he then made. He claimed, in that instance, with the aid of some Friends about him, to represent a sentimental grievance—in his opinion, a very strong one. The tax which it was proposed to increase already pressed heavily on men of humble position in society, who had just the means of keeping a dog, possibly half-starved, possibly fed by chance contributions furnished by the sympathies of neighbours; but still a valued, and sometimes useful, member of the household. He wished to know whether it was worth while, or whether it was wise, of the Finance Minister to resort to this method of raising the Revenue? There were plenty of other taxes which might be resorted to—in fact, there was nothing, however low in degree, upon which Revenue could not be raised, if they chose to do so. He was speaking on behalf of a great number of persons who, though of poor estate, were as much the admirers of the dog as those of larger fortune. Was it to be supposed that the duty could be got from those people? Or was it that the right hon. Gentleman was making the tax rather in the interests, say, of the farmers or game preservers?

    1323
    If that were the case, let him be candid, and say so. But, even so, would the tax produce the results which were intended—either the extermination of stray dogs, or the collection of the money? He thought not. He did not believe that the dogs would be exterminated by imposing a tax which the poorer class of owners could not possibly pay. The man who was indifferent to the laws of society would assuredly let his dog—perhaps a fine bull-terrier—shift for himself. The policeman would go to his house, and when asked—"Is that your dog?" he would answer—"It is not mine." The policeman could, of course, go and take it if he liked—a dangerous duty—but the dog would not be paid for. He thought it was a grievous thing, out of so many sources of Revenue, to select anything so paltry as the imposition of a tax of 7s. 6d. on the dogs; which, however it was collected in the household, would allow the stray dogs to escape, as they had escaped hitherto. With regard to the immunity for 12 months allowed to fox-hounds, it was, in his opinion, quite unjustifiable; and were it extended to the dogs of the poor, it would include the whole term of their natural lives. Having made these observations, he hoped that the words would be omitted from the clause.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There are two questions which the Committee will have to consider; one, whether any alteration shall be made in the mode of levying the duty on dogs; the other, as to the increase in the tax itself. The arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) are arguments against altering the mode in which the tax is recommended to be levied. Nearly all that he said referred to the manner in which the persons he described would be affected, and is just as applicable to the tax at 5s. as to the tax at 7s. 6d. I cannot doubt that one effect of the alteration will be to diminish the number of dogs kept, a matter which has given rise to serious complaint. In the course of the last year or two, and before that time, complaints, which I venture to say are serious, and which cannot be overlooked, have been made of the great increase in the number of dogs, and they are increasing every succeeding year. I have received numbers of letters from all parts of the
    1324
    country, and from persons of different classes, all urging upon me the consideration of this question of the dog tax. They have not come from persons interested in sporting only—they have come from persons of all classes—clergymen, medical men, farmers, and fathers of families, who said that their children were alarmed and frightened. I have also had a good many complaints of the rough and improper manner in which a large number of dogs are used. I need not remind the Committee of the various representations which have been made as to hydrophobia, and other matters of that kind, which are possibly exaggerated; although considerable uneasiness is felt by large numbers of persons throughout the country on this subject. I think that the conclusion to which we are forced is—that it is really necessary to introduce a somewhat stricter principle in the collection of the dog tax—the effect of which will be to reduce the number of dogs kept, and that we should somewhat increase the rate of the tax itself. Hon. Members present will bear me out in saying that when I first made that intention known to the House, I was met by a great many cries that I should double this tax. I have resisted these representations, and have rather taken the line of keeping the tax to a moderate rate, and not causing unnecessary interference with those to whom keeping of dogs is a necessity.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, from the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was clear that the object of the right hon. Gentleman was restraint rather than Revenue. It seemed to him that his wiser course would have been to effect this, rather by greater strictness than by additional taxation; which would, no doubt, diminish the number of dogs for which the tax was not paid, but not the number of tax-paying dogs. Many people were affected by this tax, and he appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to impose an additional burden on the owners of what were called "poor men's dogs." Nothing was more irritating than the ravages of these stray dogs; and he quite admitted that it was extremely necessary that there should be some means of repressing them, although he did not see the necessity for altering the tax itself. He would vote

    1325
    for the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester.
    MR. CLARE READsaid, he fancied the object of the Amendment was really to show the Committee that a great number of hon. Members considered the proposed increase of 2s. 6d. too much. Many hon. Members on that side considered that the tax should have been increased to 10 s., and he had himself placed an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. About 10 years ago, he was one of those who objected to the proposed modification of the dog tax, which then stood at 12 s. He had contended that by abolishing all exemptions, a great hardship would be placed upon a number of poor trades people and farmers, to whom a dog was essential in their vocations, and that the number of useless dogs would be augmented. His prophecies had been fulfilled, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had increased the tax to get rid of some of these worthless dogs which roamed about the country. He had heard that it was not an uncommon thing in the mining districts for dogs to be fed while children were starved. He did not believe that any sort of dog could be kept upon less than 1s. a-week, and that—or, as some hon. Members said 1s. 6d. a-week—was the rent of a cottage in some of the agricultural districts. Whenever dogs were multiplied either in town or country, they became a very great nuisance. It was to this class of dogs, not to the pet dogs, that the right hon. Gentleman referred as being the subjects of hydrophobia. It was these dogs that worried the farmer's sheep and disturbed the landlord's game, besides causing serious accidents. He considered the dog to be a fair subject for taxation, and would have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have seen his way to increase the tax to 10 s. He believed the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would be a benefit to the country, but wished the Revenue had received a little further increase.
    MR. GOURLEYconsidered, that unless a more stringent system of collection was adopted under the new system than prevailed under the old, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find that his proposal had made very little increase in the Revenue. The officers who collected the Revenue had no means of ascertaining who were and who were
    1326
    not keeping dogs, and it was certain that many owners of dogs would not pay the tax. Hence, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find, when he came to make inquiries, that to render the taxation really effective, he must place larger powers in the hands of the police. It must, in fact, be made part of the duty of the police to ascertain who were, and who were not, keeping dogs, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get the increase of Revenue he calculated upon. He agreed with the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read) that the tax ought to be increased from 5s. to 10 s., instead of to 7s. 6d., and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer would cause a still greater gain to the Revenue.
    MR. ASSHETONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had spoken the other evening on the poor man's dog. This was a creature in whose existence he did not believe, and he had hoped that this evening, when the hon. and learned Gentleman had again referred to the tax, that they would have heard something about a real bonâ fide poor man's dog. The hon. and learned Gentleman, at the commencement of his speech, had spoken of dogs kept by people in humble positions in life; he had talked of the half-starved dog, and then he began to speak of the highly-cultivated dog, whose keeper had some idea of sport. Then he (Mr. Assheton) began to see daylight, and he became still more enlightened when the hon. and learned Gentleman had said something about dogs kept for racing by the poorer classes. Those were the dogs that he believed were kept by the men who starved their children and beat their wives, but who fed their dogs on new milk and legs of mutton; and he felt strongly that, if any tax would suppress that sort of thing, it ought to be imposed by Parliament. He felt that he was now no nearer than he had been a few nights ago to finding out—what he still believed to be a mythical creature—the poor man's dog.
    MR. GOSCHENfailed to see how an addition of 2s. 6d. to the tax upon dogs would decrease their numbers, especially of those who were fed upon new milk and mutton. It appeared to him that, if this tax were directed against any

    1327
    particular class of dogs, it must break down. It could only diminish the number of dogs in one way—that was, if people were able to pay 5s. in the form of a tax, but could not afford 7s. 6d., and gave up their dogs rather than pay the increased sum. But this would not diminish the number of stray dogs, upon which no tax at all was paid. Nothing would be more proper than to prevent unowned dogs running about, but that could not be affected by the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The tax would have this effect—that all those who could afford to pay, and to whom it made no difference to pay 7s. 6d., would continue to keep their dogs in unabated numbers; but a number of persons would not keep dogs in future, because they could not afford to pay the increased amount. He believed the proposal would have the effect of diminishing the number of dogs kept by poor people. He did not believe what had been stated as to the brutalizing effect of dogs; on the contrary, he considered that they had—if there were no bull in the expression—a humanizing effect upon their owners; and it would be most undesirable that it should be thought that the House desired to diminish the number of dogs kept by the poorer classes. There seemed to be a desire to take advantage of two currents of opinion—one to prevent hydrophobia, and the other to stop poaching; and, under these two influences, the tax on dogs was to be increased; but the feeling would be that the tax was not to be raised so much for fiscal purposes as to diminish the number of dogs kept by the poorer classes.
    MR. FORSYTHbelieved that no part of the Budget would be more popular than that increasing the tax upon dogs. That the general feeling of the House was in favour of an increase was shown during the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, when, having proposed 7s. 6d., he was met with a cry of "Ten shillings" from both sides of the House. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman's proposition would have the effect of diminishing the number of dogs. If half of them were destroyed it would be a benefit to society, and the Government would get nearly the same Revenue; but, of course, nothing like so many dogs as one-half would be
    1328
    actually got rid of. The decrease would result, not from the increase in the tax under the new system but from the operation of the more stringent manner in which the duty was to be collected. Many a man kept a dog now without paying a tax upon it because the chance of detection was small. If a man had a useful dog he would just as willingly pay 7s. 6d. to the Revenue as 5s. This was not a question affecting the country alone; it had just as much bearing upon the inhabitants of London, in whose streets no one could have walked without being struck by the immense number of ownerless dogs that were running about. There was one city in Europe—Constantinople—where the dogs were remarkably numerous, and he thought London was getting very much like it in relation to useless dogs. The proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would cause no loss to the Revenue and be productive of general benefit.
    MR. COURTNEYthought the Constantinople dogs were not useless but useful, as they cleared away the rubbish from the streets. He should be obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his proposition reduced the number of useless dogs and increased the Revenue, but doubted if it would have that effect. The additional tax did not appear to have been imposed to get more money, but rather on the ground that it would diminish the number of dogs; but he questioned whether it would bring more money to the Revenue than the present system, and did not see how useless dogs would be put down by it. The class of dogs that should be put down was that which was owned by nobody and paid no tax; but the new system would affect a different kind of animal. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton) had said he had been unable to discover the poor man's dog; but there were, undoubtedly, poor men's dogs, and there were also poor children's dogs. Hon. Members must know the pleasure the possession of a puppy gave to poor children; but poor parents would have to deny them this pleasure if they could not afford to pay the tax. The particular dog it was desirable to put down was the animal that belonged to no one, or that was, at all events, owned by nobody—the dog that went wandering about without a local habitation, or was unowned directly the taxgatherer applied.

    1329
    That class of dog would not be affected by the imposition of a higher tax, the tendency of which might, perhaps, be to increase its numbers; while the pleasure of a great many poor people, who were unable to pay the additional tax for some favourite, would be spoiled without there being any increase in the Revenue. Therefore, the object of the tax would not be attained, because the dog would not be put down whose numbers ought to be diminished; while the tax would have the effect of lessening the number of dogs which were not unnecessary, and which gave a great deal of pleasure to a class of persons whose feelings the House ought to consult.
    SIR GEORGE DOUGLASsaid, he thought that the thanks of the country were due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having directed his attention to a question which, however small a matter it might appear to some persons, was a source both of danger to individuals and of injury to property. The late lamentable outbreak of hydrophobia had caused a great deal of suffering and the loss of many valuable lives. The county which he represented had escaped that great evil, but being a pastoral district, it had suffered much from the injuries inflicted by wandering dogs—for bands of men and lads were in the habit of going out from the towns on Sundays and other holidays, accompanied by a numerous following of dogs, which they did not attempt to control; but allowed them to hunt and range about the fields, doing much injury to sheep, particularly in the lambing season, and later to fattening cattle, by chasing and disturbing them.
    MR. DODSONsaid, they had heard a great many speeches on this clause, which proposed to increase the duty on dogs by 2s. 6d.; but no one had yet shown how that increase would operate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech appeared, as far as he could understand it, to be in favour of the extermination of dogs; but the right hon. Gentleman had not shown how the imposition of another 2s. 6d. on the tax would effect that object. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) had spoken in favour of reducing the number of dogs, but his whole argument had been that what was wanted was better police supervision. The additional 2s. 6d. would, as far as it would have
    1330
    any effect at all, be quite as likely or more likely to increase as to diminish the number of stray dogs; because, when the time approached for paying the duty, the owner of a dog who was not inclined to pay 7s. 6d., would be as likely to turn it adrift as to put it to death. He thought the tax came from two causes—one, the general objection on the part of country gentlemen, which he could perfectly understand, and to a certain extent sympathize with, that dogs running about loose got into covers and disturbed the game; the other was the apprehension, particularly on the part of dwellers in towns, of the danger of dogs. Last Autumn there had been an unusual alarm of hydrophobia, and, in consequence of the dread of the disease which existed, there was an extraordinary quantity of correspondence in the newspapers on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that one of the great inducements he had had to make his proposition on the subject of the tax was the number of letters he had received on the subject. But, in the dull season, newspapers must have something to fill their columns. The subject last Autumn had been hydrophobia; the Autumn before it, was the comparative charges and badness of English and foreign hotels; and the Autumn before that, it was the dangers of the Alps, or something else. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to put down dogs, let him make the tax 10 s. or £1 at once; but, if his object were to have a reasonable tax, he could not do better than keep it at 5s. If the Amendment were pressed, he should vote for it.
    MR. RODWELLfelt rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) should have suggested that the stories in the newspapers about hydrophobia were altogether illusory; because, if one thing was established more than another by statements independent of those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was that there was, in both town and country, a large number of useless dogs. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could increase the Revenue and at the same time decrease the number of dogs, the public would be under great obligations to him. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had offered the best argument in favour of an increase of the tax, when he had stated that there were people

    1331
    who were willing to pay 5s. who could not afford to pay 7s. 6d. So much the better, if the increase compelled them to part with their dog; because, if they could not afford to keep their families properly and pay the tax, the sooner, in the interests of their wives and families, that they gave up the luxury the better. The right hon. Gentleman had gone on to talk about the humanizing influence of dogs, but that entirely depended upon the sort of dog. He had heard of a dog, whose master was Bill Sykes, and that was not a humanizing kind of animal. There were a great many dogs of that type, he thought, in the district in which the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood's) constituency was situated. He could never see the humanizing effect of ladies' lap-dogs; but, of course, that was a matter of opinion. The curse of dogs in towns was greater than in the country. In the country, if a man kept a lurcher it was pretty well known, and if the keeper knew his business he could keep such dogs out of the covers. Looking at the new proposition from all points of view, he believed that, in a small way, the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about as acceptable as any the right hon. Gentleman could make.
    SIR. ANDREW LUSKthought that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had put the question on a false issue. He approved the increase of the duty, and did not think it was fair to object to it after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to an allowance off income tax for depreciation of machinery, and to a diminution of the house tax. He believed that the Revenue would be increased by the tax, just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated. Hon. Gentlemen in the habit of sitting as magistrates must repeatedly have had children before them, dreadfully bitten by dogs, and there was little power to punish the owners in such cases. Great injury to the public was done in this way. He did not believe the increase in the tax would decrease the number of dogs on which it would be paid.
    MR. PARNELLdiffered with the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Rodwell) as to the influence of the society of dogs upon men. Nearly all dogs were humanizing, but there were some men who could not be humanized.
    1332
    The hon. Member would recollect that Bill Sykes's dog would not come to him after the murder had been committed. That showed that Bill Sykes's dog was really a very superior dog indeed. The condition of the dog depended not so much upon the dog itself as upon the master. All dogs were capable of being more or less civilized, but there were some men who could not be humanized. However, to return to the subject, it was to be noted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer practically admitted that the object of the increase in the tax was not so much to augment the Revenue as to diminish the number of dogs throughout the country. Now, he (Mr. Parnell) protested against this round-about method of doing business. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to act straightforward, and to diminish the number of dogs at large, he ought to have introduced a Bill for that purpose. If they came to consider the subject fairly, they would not, practically speaking, put a stop to the dogs they saw running about in every town, and they were the dogs to be most dreaded. It turned out, from the course the debate had taken, that the country Gentlemen opposite did not desire to get rid of the dogs because they were disagreeable in the country, but only because they were disagreeable in towns and villages. He (Mr. Parnell) admitted, to the fullest extent, that stray dogs were exceedingly disagreeable in towns and villages; but then the question came, whether the means which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted would remedy the evil? All of them who had from time to time walked about London had certainly been confronted by dogs seemingly mad. It was when dogs were lost, when they had been driven out of their houses, that they got into that state which generated madness. It was when they were tortured by thirst and hunted in the streets by boys that they went mad. He admitted that the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have set before himself for attainment was a very proper one; but he could not agree that the way he proposed to effect it was the correct way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to attain his object by letting loose hundreds of thousands of dogs all over the country. That was, practically speaking, the proposition he had submitted

    1333
    to the Committee. He had told the Committee that he thought that the dogs would be reduced by one-half if this extra tax was levied, and if the police exerted themselves to prevent dogs from escaping the payment of the tax. If the police really did the duty that was imposed upon them, the owner would be driven to the choice of three courses. He could, in the first place, endeavour to either sell his dog or get rid of it by giving it to his neighbour. If the dog happened to be of a worthless description, or if he had not got a good-natured neighbour, he would be unable to sell it, or even give it away. If he could not do that, he would have to adopt one of two measures; he would either have to drive it into the street, or else to poison or shoot it. He submitted, that the owner of a dog, in nine cases out of 10, would prefer to drive his dog into the streets, than to hang it or to put an end to its life by some other method. Had the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever seen a dog hanged? It was one of the most painful sights conceivable. He (Mr. Parnell) saw one once, and it certainly made a very painful impression upon his mind, that could not be easily erased. It was shortly after the dog tax was introduced into Ireland, at which time a great many dogs were hung in that country. He (Mr. Parnell) recollected taking a walk at that time, in the course of which he saw a man hanging a fine sheep dog. The dog was swinging at the end of a rope; and the unfortunate owner, who was very fond of it, and who was only doing away with it because he could not pay the tax, was standing with his back turned to it, and with tears in his eyes. Anything more cruel than the spectacle he then witnessed he could not imagine. What was then done in Ireland was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do now in England. He was going to adopt almost the identical measures to bring about a diminution in the number of dogs; for he placed it in the hands of the police to see that these taxes were collected, and empowered them to summon the owners when the taxes were not paid. Of course, the result of that action would be that dogs would be hung in all directions. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer confined himself to raising or increasing the Revenue, it would have been far better. The right hon. Gentleman had
    1334
    admitted that he did not propose this additional tax for the purpose of increasing the Revenue. The fact was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been pressed by numerous letters from all parts of the country, and that had led him to propose this addition. He (Mr. Parnell) did not believe hydrophobia would be diminished one bit by the increased tax, but that, on the contrary, it would be increased very much; for more stray and mad dogs would roam about the streets than hitherto, because their owners, not caring to kill them, would turn them adrift. Under these circumstances, he felt bound to support the Motion before the Committee.
    MR. H. SAMUELSON,as a lover of dogs, thought it rather hard that an addition should be made to the tax upon them without any intention on the part of the Government of obtaining an increased Revenue. He did not believe that the outcry against hydrophobia last year was at all warranted. He had inquired into the matter a good deal, and his conviction was that the apparent increase in the number of cases of hydrophobia was due to the greater attention which was paid to them, not a single case being allowed to pass unnoticed. Besides, dogs were often said to have hydrophobia when their malady was nothing of the kind. So far as game was concerned, he did not think the proposed tax would effect any good. The most dangerous dogs were those which accompanied carts, &c., from town to town, and which were put through every bit of cover on the roadside by their masters. Now, over these dogs, the police would have little or no control. His chief objection to the proposed tax, however, was that it would give rise to a number of new offences, causing men to be summoned and fined who at present never appeared in a police court.
    MR. HOPWOODremarked, that a good many hon. Members seemed to be out of sympathy with those for whom they had to legislate. For instance, the hon. and learned Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Rodwell), arguing in favour of the proposed tax, said it would take away dogs from families who had no business to keep them. He (Mr. Hopwood) should like to ask him, with all respect, what right he or that House had to decide what the number of mouths should be in a particular household, and

    1335
    who was to prevent the children, if they chose, from giving a morsel of their bread and butter to the household favourite?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 30: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 104.)
    MR. PARNELL MR. PARNELL rose to move, in page 7, line 40, after "dog," to insert—
    "belonging to any person who has the necessary qualification for voting for Members of Parliament, and whose name is on the list of Parliamentary electors for any borough or county."
    The Amendment, he explained, was for the purpose of excluding from the operation of the Bill all dogs not belonging to registered Parliamentary voters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped, by means of this tax, to put an end to a vast number of dogs throughout the country. Now, the people unable to pay the tax, would be chiefly those who did not possess the Parliamentary franchise, and it was they whom he (Mr. Parnell) proposed to exempt. It appeared to him that if the tax were intended not to increase the Revenue, but to diminish the number of dogs in this country, the object in view might be better attained in some other way. In the city of New York, it was the duty of the police to arrest all stray dogs, and take them to a place set apart for their reception. That was the course of procedure in all American towns. In some of the States, however, different laws existed, and the regulations partook of a local character. Therefore, the law as to stray dogs in the State of New York was entirely different from that prevailing in Cincinnati. The career of stray dogs was, however, effectually put a stop to. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, would not increase the Revenue, neither would it carry out the objects which many of his supporters had in view. The danger to the public would not be diminished; on the contrary, he was of opinion that it would be very much increased. Instead of having dogs arrested, as in New York and Cincinnati, they would be allowed to run about the streets, thus becoming a nuisance and a danger to the public. The proposal, therefore, he had to submit to the House was simply this—that the class of dogs which was not likely
    1336
    to be taxed under any circumstances, and which would not, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted, contribute to the Revenue, should be omitted from the Bill. Dogs not expected to contribute to the Revenue ought not to be included in the Budget proposals. He submitted that hon. Members on the other side of the House—Representatives of the counties—ought to support his Amendment, inasmuch as they had said that they did not wish to get rid of the dogs in the counties, but simply desired to have security against the numerous stray dogs of the towns and villages. Of course, the class of dogs that would not be exempted under the provisions of his Amendment, would be very much more numerous in the towns than in the counties. Hon. Members from the country ought, if they were consistent, to support the Amendment. It had been said that the House of Commons laboured under a very great disadvantage in not having Representatives of the classes whose interests were affected in the House. For instance, if the representatives of the dogs, which were to be exterminated by the Budget proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were in a position to state their views with regard to those proposals, it would be a very great advantage to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He believed that those proposals would be met with a great amount of opposition, and that they would be most unpopular throughout the country. He would not go the length of saying that they would have their influence at the next General Election, but thought that the action which had been taken in that direction would diminish the popularity of the Government of this country. Therefore, from that point of view, the Government ought, in its own interests, to support the proposal he had to bring forward. He begged to move, in Clause 17, page 7, line 40, after "dog," to insert—
    "belonging to any person who has the necessary qualification for voting for Members of Parliament, and whose name is on the list of Parliamentary electors for any borough or county."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged the hon. Member to treat the matter in a serious manner. The effect of the adoption of the Amendment

    1337
    would really be to impose a fine upon persons who were qualified to vote for Members of Parliament, and who placed their names on the list. It would be a most extraordinary violation of Constitutional doctrine, if they tried to discourage voters from voting.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that the only objection which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward was not a very valid one. In fact, it was a very Conservative reason why the right hon. Gentleman should support the Amendment before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the effect of its adoption would be to prevent people from placing their names on the register of voters. Why, that was the very thing that the Conservative Government had been trying to do. All their Registration Acts were framed so as to prevent people from placing their names on the register.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. CHAPLIN (for Earl PERCY)MR. CHAPLIN (for Earl PERCY) moved, in page 8, line 3, after "sixpence," to insert—
    "Provided always, That no person shall be chargeable with Duty to any greater amount than thirty pounds for any number of hounds kept by him in any one year, and."
    He said, that the object of the Amendment was a very simple one, and he hoped that it would not be considered an altogether unreasonable proposal. It was to enable the owners and masters of packs of hounds to compound for them by paying one sum for the whole of the pack. There was a precedent for this course. In 1853, when the tax on dogs was 12 s. 6d., masters of hounds were able to compound for 66 hounds by a payment of £39 12 s. 6d. What reason existed for the selection of 66 as the number, he was really not in a position to state. In the present case they had selected 40 couple of hounds; because, taking all the packs throughout the country, that appeared to be the general average. He knew that there were certain objections raised a few nights ago with reference to a proposal of this kind. He was sorry that he was not in the House on that occasion. He gathered, however, that those objections were, in the first place, that there was no reason for the exemption; and, in the second place, that the objection really
    1338
    amounted to the statement that it was a piece of class legislation. With regard to there being no reason for the exemption, he thought that he should be able to show to the Committee that that was an entire mistake. On a former occasion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that one of the main—if not the main—objects of the tax was to reduce the number of stray or wandering dogs. But packs of hounds, it must be remembered, were always kept under the most careful and vigilant supervision. The proposal he had brought forward could certainly not be accurately described as a piece of class legislation. Hunting, so far from being a class amusement or pursuit, was the most public and popular recreation in this country. So far from being discouraged, everything ought to be done to encourage it. In the hunting field all were on the same level, enjoyed the same support, jumped over the same fences, and very often alighted in the same ditch.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 8, line 3, after the word "pence," to insert the words "Provided always, That no person shall be chargeable with Duty to any greater amount than thirty pounds for any number of hounds kept by him in any one year, and."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERregretted that he could not accept the proposal. He fully recognized all that had been said with regard to hunting. It was, undoubtedly, a national sport, and one which might be regarded as very different from class interests. At the same time, however, he thought that they ought to take care that they were just in their proceedings, and he confessed that he was unable to see the justice of the proposition. Of course, the matter was wholly different from the question which would come up by-and-by with regard to dogs not yet entered. Of course, there were circumstances which they would consider with regard to the number of hounds actually entered. The House, however, must, in justice, see that it would be impossible to have a compounding of the kind proposed, with the arbitrary line of 40 couple, without leading them into difficulties.
    MR. CHAPLINcould not consider as satisfactory the reasons advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had said that it was impossible that he could accept the Amendment, and that he should not be acting justly if he did so. The Amendment, however, only contemplated a reversion to the old principle of years gone by. It was abandoned in 1867, because the tax was lowered to a very small sum. It appeared to him, therefore, that the tax being now raised again, it was only reasonable that, in the interest of the sport they all desired to uphold, they should revert to the old state of affairs. He should be compelled, reluctantly, to divide the House on the subject, if his proposition was not accepted by the Government.
    MR. BEACHpointed out, that, with regard to small packs, the sum proposed would be rather in excess of the amount; and that, in the case of large packs, it would be rather curtailed. Though he thought it was a fair amount to be paid by a three-days-a-week pack, it would hardly operate fairly as a whole. A fair system of compounding could be arrived at, if a certain standard were taken for a pack which hunted three times a-week; and that it should vary according to the number of days which a pack hunted in the week.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that it was not only a question of small and large packs. It was a question of the millionaire's pack and the pack of the small owner—the ratcatcher, for instance. When the proposal was first suggested on the other side of the House that a special remission should be made in favour of the rich man's hounds, he did not think that it would be seriously persevered with. It would be an atrocious piece of class legislation, that a tax should be imposed upon the dogs of the poor which was not imposed upon the dogs of the millionaire.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 129: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 105.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Repeal of 30 and 31 Vict. c. 5 s. 10, and 32 and 33 Vict. c. 14 s. 38)agreed to.
    Clause 19 (Exemption of dog under two months old) agreed to.
    Clause 20 (Provision as to hound-whelps).
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he understood the object of the clause to be to exempt hounds from any tax until they were entered and used in the pack. In his opinion, however, that object would not be completely effected if the words "under the age of twelve months" were retained in the clause; and he should, therefore, move that those words be struck out.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not assent to the omission of the words, because to do so would interfere with the proper adjustment of the tax.
    Amendment negatived.
    On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he should propose that the clause be omitted. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the age of exemption in the case of dogs generally should be fixed at two months, instead of six, there might have been some reason for the special exemption provided by that clause for hound-puppies; because there was, he believed, a necessity for maintaining a large number of young puppies, in order to keep at its proper level the strength of any pack of hounds. Now, however, as the age of six months was to be retained for dogs in general, there existed no good reason for any such exemption. For many years past—certainly since 1853—there had been no exemption of the kind. In that year the masters of fox-hounds had been allowed to compound for the tax; but that privilege had been done away with in 1859, and they were required to pay the tax on their dogs like the rest of the community. But now it was proposed, while requiring the owners of all other classes of dogs—even of that formerly favoured class, the greyhound—to pay the tax for them after the age of six months, to make an exemption in favour of hound-whelps up to the age of 12 months. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had a few minutes before stated that the main object of increasing the tax from 5s. to

    1341
    7s. 6d. was to keep down the number of stray dogs, but that hounds were always kept under the most careful and vigilant control. He would, however, remind the hon. Gentleman, that the proposed exemption did not apply to hounds, but to whelps, which had not been entered with the pack. As to fox-hunting, while he did not wish to say a word against it, he would point out that there were numbers of persons who did not agree with those who entertained a very great admiration for the sport. A Member of that House, he might add, had told him only the other day that he had lost a very large proportion of his lambs owing to the hounds in his neighbourhood going across his farm two or three days in the week, doing a larger amount of damage than would be likely to be caused by a great number of stray dogs. He need not press the argument further, and would conclude by observing that he looked upon the exemption provided by the clause as a gross piece of class legislation.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the principle of the clause was, in point of fact, the very same as that upon which exemption had been claimed the other day for all puppies under the age of six months. The truth was, that it was impossible, with regard to a large number of young hounds, to tell whether they would be kept or not until they were brought into the pack and tried in order to see what their probable value might be. The practice had been, and still was, that those young hounds were sent to various parts of the country to be kept, and it was only when they were brought back that it was decided by the master of the pack whether he should keep them or not. The hon. Gentleman wished to know why any change should be made in the practice which had been settled with respect to the taxation of those puppies? and he had to inform him, that it was not intended by means of the clause to make any change, but merely to retain the present practice. In all such matters, the Excise had regulated the manner in which the tax should be levied, and it had always been the practice to exempt young hounds until they were brought into the pack for work. Now that legislation on the subject was being made more stringent, it had been deemed necessary to accommodate the laws to the
    1342
    practice which, in his opinion, was a reasonable one. For these reasons, he could not assent to the omission of the clause.
    MR. MONKmaintained that it was equally impossible to tell whether setters, pointers, retrievers, and, indeed, all sporting dogs, would be useful or not until they were 12 months' old, and that it was monstrous to exempt from the operation of the tax one class of dogs to the exclusion of other classes. He did not know by what right, so-called, the Excise had hitherto exempted young hounds from the tax, and it was absurd to suppose that they were the only description of dog whose qualities for usefulness it was impossible to determine until they were 12 months' old. He hoped his hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) would take a division on the clause, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer signified his willingness to extend the exemption which it provided to all dogs.
    MR. C. S. PARKERwished to say a word on behalf of a class of dogs which did not come within the category of sporting dogs. If the probable usefulness of hounds, setters, and pointers could not be ascertained until the age of 12 months, neither could that of the collie; and he hoped, that if the clause were retained in the Bill, the exemption would, on Report, be extended to young shepherd dogs also.
    MR. BEACHsaid, it was quite impossible for a master of hounds to know whether he ought to be liable to the tax or not on young puppies while they were out at walk until he had an opportunity of inspecting them and ascertaining whether they were fit to take their place in his pack or not, in the room of old and worn-out hounds. The fair arrangement was that the master should pay the tax only for those hounds which he kept, and such a proposal was certainly not justly open to the charge of being class legislation.
    MR. DODSONsaid, it would assist the Committee very much in coming to a decision on the clause if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform them what was the law at the present moment with respect to the taxation of fox-hound whelps. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that they had hitherto been exempted by the Excise; but were the Committee, he should like to know, to infer from that statement, that

    1343
    the law had given the Excise a discretion with respect to this particular class of hounds, or that an exception had been made in their favour contrary to law? Upon what authority had the exception been made?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was informed that it had not been the practice to enforce the levying of the tax on those hounds. He did not know on what authority that course had been pursued.
    MR. GOSCHENthought it should be ascertained whether there had been any breach of duty on the part of the Excise officers in the matter—for the exemption was either legal, or it was not. It would, he thought, be productive of great inconvenience, that it should go forth to the public that a particular class of dogs had been exempted from taxation at the discretion of the Excise, and that new legislation had to be founded on a custom which had thus grown up, and which was not in accordance with the law. He was sure the Committee were anxious to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make progress with the Bill; but he would, perhaps, think it well to re-consider whether, under the circumstances, he would persevere with the clause.
    VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, the practice referred to was one which had existed before the present Government came into Office. Packs of hounds were different from setters and pointers, which were only kept for private sport; and he would also remind the Committee that a hound was really of no use until it was entered in the pack, at the age of 12 months—until that time he was quite untrained. He might further observe, in reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker), that it was the general custom in Scotland to put collie dogs to use at six months' old, and that that could not be done with hounds. If too high a tax were imposed on hound-puppies, masters of hounds would be very much limited as to the number which they could send out to be reared, and the packs all over the country would, in consequence, become very much deteriorated. That he did not think was at all the wish of the Committee; and he, therefore, hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would stand by the clause. If he did, he would have the public with him.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLexpressed his great regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have retained in the Bill a proposal, which must be a great blot on his Financial Scheme, inasmuch as it would be regarded by the country as a piece of class legislation. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman involved the doctrine that no dog ought to be taxed until it was fit for the purposes for which it was intended. Now, if that were so, the exemption ought to be extended to other classes of dogs besides hounds. He was afraid he might be charged with irreverence, if he introduced the name of the ratcatcher again; but the principle of the clause was, in his opinion, clearly as applicable to the ratcatcher's young terrier as to hound-puppies, for the former could not be employed for the purposes for which he was intended until he had reached a certain degree of maturity. If the exemption were not based on principle, then it could be defended only on the ground that fox-hunting was a national amusement which deserved to be encouraged. Well, it could not, at all events, be denied, that it was a rich man's amusement; and that, for every hound that paid the tax under the operation of the Bill, there would be one, or two, or three men, who would spend hundreds or thousands a-year for the purpose of keeping horses to follow the hounds. Well, if a man could keep a horse to do so occasionally, he would be enjoying, no doubt, a very healthy exercise; but there were, on the other hand, gentlemen who made a business of hunting, and who spent month after month, and year after year, following a beast he did not wish to catch. Foxhunting, pursued in that way, he, for one, looked upon as a most contemptible occupation.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who had, in his hearing, spoken twice that evening, had, on both occasions, informed the Committee that he addressed the Government with very great grief. If, however, the hon. Gentleman would only take to fox-hunting, he would be doing something to relieve that grief. But, be that as it might, the clause was one which he hoped the Government would adhere to; for it was entitled to the support of hon. Members, whether they were admirers of fox-hunting

    1345
    or not. It was a pity that some of those who complained of the provisions of the Bill should not have taken the trouble to read it. The hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker), in his most persuasive manner, pleaded on behalf of collie dogs; but he seemed to be unaware that they were exempted from the operation of the Bill. As to the observations of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), he really was surprised to hear that hon. Gentleman talk as he had done about pointers and setters, forgetting that it was the amusement of their grandfathers to go out shooting with pointers and setters, and that no sensible man would think of doing so at the present day. Pointers and setters were probably a sort of recreation to the hon. Member; but the sport now, as the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had said, was fox-hunting, which was a truly national sport. For that sport, hounds had to be educated; and he felt sure the Committee would not refuse to give its assent to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by adhering to the clause which he had inserted in the Bill—a clause, not making any class exemption, as some hon. Members had endeavoured to show, who were jealous of fox-hunting, probably, because they were too heavy to get over the fences, and unmindful of the fact that it was a sport which more than any other tended to bring all classes together.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was not going to make an appeal to the prejudices of the Committee, either against class legislation or in favour of fox-hunting as a national sport. What he wished to do, was to put the point under consideration before them, calmly, as a matter of legislation. From the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a few moments ago, the Committee were left in the dark as to whether the clause was unnecessary, as merely re-enacting that which was already the law, or whether it was a piece of new legislation, which was to sanction that which had hitherto been done contrary to law. If the latter, the Committee ought to know clearly what they were about; and he should, therefore, suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he should withdraw the clause without prejudice, and bring it up on the Report, when he would, perhaps, be able to tell the House exactly what the state of the law really was.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no doubt that the state of the law at present was that there ought to be a licence taken out for every dog over six months' old, unless in the case of certain exemptions. The system, however, on which the law had been administered was by no means strict, and one of the objects of the Bill was to make it so. It would introduce the action of the police, and would throw the onus of proof as to the age of a dog on the owner. It would, in short, make the administration of the law stricter in various ways. Hitherto, the practice had been to send hound-puppies out to different farms, to be kept there until the time arrived for bringing them back to kennel. When sent out, they would, of course, be very much under six months' old. It had not been the practice of the Excise officers to look after them; and they, as well as, he dared say, a great number of other dogs, had escaped the tax, because the system under which it was worked was a lax system. Under that lax system, puppies only a few weeks' old had been left at the farms at which they were placed, and had not been charged with the tax until brought into kennel. Their case being a peculiar one, he proposed to meet it by the present clause, which, in his opinion, was a reasonable one. He did not, therefore, see any good ground for withdrawing it.
    MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, he could not admit that fox-hunting was an amusement exclusively for the rich, as was proved by the great numbers of foot-people who embarrassed a popular master of hounds. Indeed, he did not think there was any sport which gave so great an amount of pleasure to so large a number of people of all classes. He could not, at the same time, support the clause; for he could not see the justice of making an exemption in the case of masters of hounds, which was denied to the poor man who kept dogs.
    MR. STACPOOLEexpressed his astonishment at one observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). He understood him to say that fox-hunting was a contemptible amusement.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLpointed out that that was not a correct version of what he had said.
    MR. STACPOOLEhad understood the hon. Gentleman to say so; but he would remind him that the Duke of Wellington had kept a pack of hounds in the Peninsula.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKcontended that there was no justice in making an exception in favour of hounds to the exclusion of the poor man's dog. Equal justice should be extended to all kinds of dogs. Whether it was a pointer, a setter, a retriever, or a hound, a dog was a dog for all that. Here was an exemption asked for in favour of noblemen's and gentlemen's hounds. He said it was most indefensible, and he was astonished that sporting gentlemen should ask for so mean an advantage.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, that the speeches which had been made in supporting the exemption had been marked by a plentiful lack of argument. There should be no difficulty in collecting the tax on fox-hounds. They did not belong to poor or sordid people, to whom a half-crown was a serious object; but they belonged to gentlemen to whom 50 half-crowns could be no object. And what was the amount of the encouragement it would offer to fox-hunting, looking on it as a national sport? It would not affect a master of fox-hounds to the extent of a £5 note. There could not be the shadow of a doubt as to what the law on the subject was, and the true course would be to collect the arrears due; but he did not propose that-it might bear too hardly on the national amusement—but he would suggest that, for the future, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take care that every dog had his due. If the Excise had allowed these exemptions, they had exceeded their duty.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEobserved that there was only one pack of hounds in Ireland that was not kept up by subscription, and that was the pack kept by the Marquess of Waterford. All other packs were subscription packs, and everybody paid his half-crown towards them, whether he had on a red coat or a black one—showing that it was really a national sport.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 48: Majority 99.—(Div. List, No. 106.)
    Clause 21 (Mode of obtaining exemption in the case of shepherds' dogs).
    MR. E. S. HOWARD MR. E. S. HOWARD moved to insert, in page 8, line 39, after "number"—
    "or in the case of a farmer the extent of whose farm obliges him to employ one or more shepherds in respect of two dogs in addition for each shepherd so employed."
    The hon. Gentleman said, he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recognized the claims of shepherds' dogs to exemption; but he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should stop at the number two. Many sheep-farmers in the North of England, and in Scotland, required more than two dogs to carry on their sheep-farming. He proposed by this Amendment, therefore, to extend the number to as many as might be necessary, and he proposed to allow two dogs for every shepherd or guide so employed. He was not wedded to the particular Amendment he had drawn, however, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could devise any better mode of giving effect to his intentions, he should be very glad.
    MR. WHITWELL MR. WHITWELL moved, as an Amendment in page 9, line 2, after "following," to insert—
    "Where the owner or occupier of a sheep farm, the sheep belonging to whom feed on common or unenclosed land, proves to the Commissioners that it is needful for the exercise of his occupation to keep more than two sheep dogs; the Commissioners may grant a certificate of exemption from duty in respect of such dogs, to the extent of three dogs when the number of sheep on such farm exceeds four hundred; and, further, to the extent of one other dog for every five hundred sheep so kept over and above the first five hundred, but in no case to exceed eight dogs so exempted on any one farm."
    He was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had realized the importance of the question before the Committee, as he had done in the case of horses. Dogs were really an instrument of the shepherd's trade. He could not do without them. One hon. Member had spoken of the influence of dogs, and he might say they were sometimes more humane in their instincts than were men. But, more than that, the dog became the shepherd's trusty companion in the darkness, in the cold, and in dry and sultry weather. The shepherd roamed about the hills, and needed for many purposes the help which the dog gave him. Without that help

    1349
    his sheep would go astray, and oftentimes get into danger. And, since the alarm caused by the spread of foot-and-mouth disease, it was the more necessary that the sheep should be constantly brought under the inspection of the shepherd, and looked after by him, which he could only do by means of dogs. In fact, he could not do without his dogs; and he, therefore, trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be as large in his views as he possibly could. He had made investigations among farmers in the North of England, more especially in Cumberland and Westmoreland, with respect to their wants; and from the statements they had made, he thought the Amendment he had proposed would meet their case. He did not think they could do with less than he had proposed; but he was satisfied with the observations of the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. E. S. Howard), that the hired shepherd should also have his two dogs allowed him.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he doubted whether there should be any alteration in the clause as it was drawn; for, as he understood the practice, it was that in taking out licences for shepherds' dogs in Scotland, usually the shepherd was allowed his two dogs, and under the clause, as it stood, the shepherd would be entitled to have his licence for those two dogs without being required to pay extra in respect of them. He had considered the matter with the Inland Revenue, however, and proposed to move an addition to the clause, which, he thought, would be preferable to the Amendments either of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell), or of the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. E. S. Howard), though it went very much on the lines indicated by the proposal of the hon. Member for Kendal. What he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed, was to move, at the end of the clause, as a separate sub-section—sub-section 3—that, where the keeper of a sheep-farm, having more than 400 sheep, which fed on common or uninclosed land, so that more than two dogs were required to be kept by him for tending them, and that being stated by him in a declaration, he should be entitled, on that statement, to exemption in respect of a third dog kept by him solely for such purpose; and if the number of sheep amounted to 1,000,
    1350
    then in respect of a fourth dog; and the same in respect of an additional dog for every 500 sheep kept by him on the farm above 1,000, provided always that there should not be exempted more than eight dogs in respect of the sheep kept on the farm. He thought that proposal would meet all the wants of the case.
    Amendments (Mr. Stafford Howard and Mr. Whitwell), by leave, withdrawn.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the insertion of the following sub-section at the end of the clause:—
    "Where the occupier of a sheep farm owns more than four hundred sheep which feed on common or unenclosed land, so that more than two dogs are required to be kept at a time for the purpose of tending the sheep, he shall be entitled to receive a certificate of exemption in respect of the third dog kept by him solely for such purpose, and if the number of sheep amounts to one thousand in respect of the fourth dog so kept, and in respect of an additional dog for every five hundred sheep over and above the number of one thousand, provided that not more than eight dogs are exempted on one farm."
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was willing to accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal; but he wished, that in place of his limit of 1,000, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to say 750.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sub-section inserted.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the insertion of a new clause, exempting from tax the dogs used by blind persons.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    MR. J. P. CORRY (for Mr. CHAINE)MR. J. P. CORRY (for Mr. CHAINE) moved, in page 8, after Clause 19, to insert the following clause:—
    (Exemption in England for dogs taxed in Ireland.)
    "It shall not be necessary for a licence to be taken out in respect of any dog for which the licence for the current year shall have been paid in Ireland."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERopposed the Motion, observing that those dogs had not contributed to

    1351
    the Revenue, and if they were brought over to this country they should pay.
    Amendment negatived.
    Preamble agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    (Mr. Raikes, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)

    [BILL 138.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcomplained that the Act of 1875 had not been complied with. The House was entirely ignorant whether there was any just cause for the large extent of these loans, and he maintained that the Government were bound to give some explanation. The next point he had to complain of was that the same Act required the publication of the accounts and the laying of the same before the House. At present, the Local Government Board admitted that that portion of the Act had not been complied with. The Report of the Public Works Loan Commissioners had been kept back so long that the House was not in the possession of information which it ought to possess in time to discuss the Report. Another point he had to complain of was this. Last year the Public Works Loan Commissioners received in excess no less than £30,000, and that remained outstanding until the 31st of March. That was an evil which ought to be remedied. The Audit Act required that all sums of money for any local authority should be submitted to examination. In the case of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, that had not been done; and, therefore, he did earnestly hope that the statements he made, which were well-founded, would be investigated. A sum of £18,000,000 was directly involved; and he maintained, therefore, that the complaints which he made ought to lead to inquiry.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the attention of the Public Works Loan Commissioners would be drawn to the statements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There was an elaborate
    1352
    Report published last year of the transactions of previous years. It was not so full, perhaps, as it might be; but if it was necessary to go back into previous years, no doubt, that would be attended to on another occasion. Not only would these demands be laid on the Table of the House, but an Estimate, founded on the demands made, should be presented to Parliament in order to found a Bill.
    Bill considered, in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Cancellation of debt due in respect of Wigan Church).
    MR. RYLANDSasked for some further information respecting the loan which was advanced for the purpose of building or restoring the parish church at Wigan. The point he wished to raise was, that there seemed to have been a delay of several years, during which period the Public Works Loan Commissioners took no steps in order to enforce the payment of a sum of public money from the churchwardens of Wigan.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would state in a few words what happened in the case of the Wigan loan. The amount of the original loan was about £4,540, of which three instalments had been paid. After the third instalment, it seemed that the parish authorities ceased to make any further payments, and a correspondence passed between the Public Works Loan Commissioners and the parish authorities, the latter asserting that their area of rating, having been diminished, owing to the creation of district parishes and separate townships, they were, or ought not to be, held liable for the amount that had been lent to a very different district. This correspondence seemed to have gone on for a considerable period, for it was not until 1867 that legal proceedings were first taken against the parish with a view to the recovery of the outstanding debt. The case was first tried in the Court of Queen's Bench, and the defendants, through their counsel, argued upon the facts which they had previously set out in their correspondence with the Public Works Loan Commissioners. They argued, also, that the period for which the loan had originally been granted had lapsed, and that, consequently

    1353
    they were no longer liable. Judgment was given against the parish authorities, but they carried their appeal from that decision to the Court of Exchequer. The appeal was heard in 1874, and the judgment of the Queen's Bench was reversed. The case was then carried to the House of Lords, who confirmed the reversal of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. The effect of that final decision was to make it impossible to recover any of the money, and hence the necessity for the clause introduced into the Bill of the present year.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, the question had not been properly stated. It was a fact, that from 1857 to 1863, nothing was done with regard to this loan. At the time it was granted, the Treasury was made responsible for the collection of all loans. The question which the Committee had to consider was this—that they were losing very considerable sums of money. He might say that they had struck off £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 as dead loss on account of those loans, from first to last, and they had no security that these losses were not going on at the present time. He had looked very carefully into the matter, and he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the amount of interest outstanding upon loans in the last three years had been gradually increasing. In the year 1875, the amount of outstanding interest was £311,000; in 1876, it was £338,000; and, in 1877, it was £354,000. He did not mean to say that was all bad interest; on the contrary, a portion of it might be got; but, as far as the House was concerned, they were involved in millions, and they had nothing but a bit of paper to show them whether the Treasury was looking after the funds or not. He contended that many of these loans must be in bad order. It was impossible for the rate of interest to go on increasing from £311,000 to £354,000 in three years, without some of them being in a bad state; and he submitted, that the Act of Parliament required that they should be made acquainted with the whole of the circumstances in connection with these loans, in order that they might judge how they stood with regard to them. [Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: Oh, oh!] The hon. and gallant Admiral cried
    1354
    Oh, oh!" but he (Sir George Balfour) would remind him that a sum of £18,000,000 was directly involved, and recommended him not to accept, as well-founded, the statement that the loan to which attention had been called was the only one in bad order.
    MR. DILLWYNwould like to know whether there were many more loans like that in question? [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: Oh, many.] Because it appeared to him that they had been sustaining considerable loss, and that loans were given rather indiscriminately. He should like to know on what principle the Exchequer Loan Commissioners acted in making advances of public money. It might be well to grant loans for drainage or harbour works; but he did not think that they ought to be granted except for works of public necessity—not, at all events, on the security of the rates.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the great bulk of the loans now advanced were under the Sanitary Acts, the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Act, and the Education Act, at low rates of interest. There were also the Harbour loans, which were advanced under a previous Act, at a small rate of interest. Besides these—in former days—the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, who were a different body from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, were empowered to make advances generally for public works; and there was no doubt that, in a great many instances, loans were formerly advanced on the security of the church rates. On the abolition of those rates, no doubt, difficulties arose in many quarters; and, although a power was reserved to the Government, in respect of the recovery of loans which had been advanced on the security of those rates, it was found extremely difficult, where the inhabitants meant to plead the abolition of the rates, to take advantage of that provision of the law. He was not aware that there were any bad debts outstanding at the present time. No doubt, a good many had been struck off, from time to time, by the authority of Parliament; but cases similar to the present could not occur again. There were other advances, which the Public Works Loan Commissioners were in the habit of making, especially advances for the building of workhouses; but all these loans were raised at 5 per cent interest,

    1355
    and had been a profitable investment to the public. No doubt, it would be desirable, before another year came round, to consider whether there ought not to be further restrictions in regard to future loans; but he would point out that, in the event of any restriction upon the issues of the Public Works Loan Commissioners being introduced into this Act, or one of a similar character, it would be doing very little more than the Commissioners themselves did by their own authority, and at the instance of the Treasury, at the present time. What was really required was the adoption, by the House, of something in the shape of a Standing Order, with a view of imparting uniformity to the action of Select Committees in dealing with the money clauses of Private Bills.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought that much of what the President of the Local Government Board had said was well worthy of the consideration of the House; but the right hon. Gentleman was under a mistake in saying that some of the sums now before them were the only ones dropped in 1875. In three years, no less than £20,000 had been struck off the loans which had been granted. He was totally ignorant of any authority having been given by the House for any such amount to be struck off; and, therefore, he would again urge that there should be a clean sweep made of all their bad debts. He by no means contended that they should cease to make advances for useful purposes, because they had acted foolishly in past times.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYobserved, that the Second Report of the Commissioners, which would be ready in the course of a few days, would give a list of all the amounts outstanding.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKwanted to know who was to be held responsible for the granting of these bad loans? In his opinion, any Government was wrong which became traders and lent money in this manner. The principle was bad altogether for a Government to enter into competition in the lending of money.
    Clause agreed to.
    MR. A. MOOREproposed the insertion of a new clause to enable the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend money for the purposes of industrial schools in Ireland. No doubt, everybody
    1356
    was complaining of the enormous amount of expenditure which was at present going on in connection with these loans; but he did not wish to add to their amount by this clause, but merely to include industrial schools amongst the objects for which the loans might be borrowed. He had brought the subject forward last year, when he thought the principle for which he contended was conceded; but such appeared not to be the case, though he must say if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now consent to this proposal he would confer a very great boon indeed. The increase for educational purposes in England was £200,000 this year alone, as compared with £5,000 for Ireland, and £8,000 for Scotland. Under these circumstances, he thought the Government might well make this concession. Hitherto these schools had been built by private subscriptions, and he knew one instance in which £9,000 was expended. If the Government would consent to lend money for these institutions, it would be coping with pauperism in the best possible manner.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsympathized with the object of the hon. Member, but he had made his proposal at a rather unfortunate moment. There would not be such security in connection with these industrial schools as the Commissioners obtained in respect of other public works to which they advanced money. The hon. Member must feel, after what had taken place, that at present it would not be desirable to add to the number of classes of public works to which these loans might be extended.
    Clause negatived.
    Preamble agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    ADULTERATION OF SEEDS ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 139.]
    (Mr. Clare Read, Sir William Earle Welby-Gregory, Mr. Butt.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CLARE READ, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its object was to amend the Act of 1869. That Act had been useful in many respects, and had prevented many

    1357
    nefarious practices which had previously existed. But there was one matter which the Act did not touch. Heated, old, or immature seeds could be coloured, and if they did not change their kind or sort, the colouring was no adulteration. A case was recently heard before Mr. Benson, one of the Metropolitan police magistrates, where a man had dyed old clover seed, and had sold it as new, genuine, and of good vitality, and Mr. Benson said that he very much regretted that, under the Act as it then stood, he could not convict the defendant. An appeal was made to the High Court of Justice, and the decision of the police magistrate was sustained; though, in giving judgment, the Lord Chief Justice said he regretted exceedingly having to arrive at that conclusion, because he looked upon what had been done as a wicked fraud, and one which ought, if possible, to be brought under the operations of the Act. It was a detestable and abominable fraud, to give to any seed used in agriculture an appearance of vitality which, in point of fact, it did not contain. This was the justification he had for bringing forward the Bill, and he hoped the House would consent to read it a second time. The name of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) was on the back of the Bill, and this would show that the small farmers of Ireland, as well as the large agriculturists of England, were interested in putting a stop to such practices as those to which he had referred. The hon. Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Clare Read.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 6th May.

    BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) (re-committed) BILL.
    (Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir Andrew Lusk, Mr. Isaac.)

    [BILL 72.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will To-morrow, at Two of the clock, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that when the Government took Morning
    1358
    Sittings for their work, it was most improper for private Members to put down their Bills, and thus necessitate hon. Members who might oppose them coming down to the House to watch whether they were reached or not. He moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be deferred to Monday, the 6th of May.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words ''this day, at Two of the clock," in order to insert the words "upon Monday 6th May,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'this day, at Two of the clock,' stand part of the Question."
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, this was his Bill, and he was entirely at a loss to understand why he should not be allowed to fix its being proceeded with for any day he thought proper.
    MR. MONKsaid, ever since the Bill had been read a second time, it had been on the Orders every day, and that he looked upon as most unfair to those hon. Gentlemen who opposed it.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) was put to great inconvenience in consequence of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and he did not see what was open to him to do more than he proposed to do. A private Member had a perfect right to put down his Bill, on any day he thought proper, in the hope that it might be reached and proceeded with.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 15: Majority 29.—(Div. List, No. 107.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MOTIONS.
  BURIAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. BALFOUR MR. BALFOUR moved—
    "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and declare the Law of Burial."
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the hon. Gentleman to explain what the nature of the Bill was. Already this Session they had had two measures on this subject.
    MR. BALFOURsaid, his object was simply to embody, in the form of a Bill, an Amendment which he brought forward at the time the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was before the House. That Amendment, to his mind, offered a satisfactory solution of the question, and the proposal was this—All members of whatever denomination, might be buried in the churchyards, with what orderly and decent rights they pleased, except in those cases where there was already a cemetery within reach. If the cemetery existed, or was subsequently provided, then the churchyard reverted to its present legal condition.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend and declare the Law of Burial.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. BALFOUR, Lord FRANCIS HERVEY, Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE, and Mr. WAIT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 154.]

    GOLD AND SILVER HALL MARKING.
    Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the operation of the Acts relating to the Hall Marking of Gold and Silver manufactures."—(Sir Henry Jackson.)

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 1) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. J. G. TALBOT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Aldershot and Farnborough Tramways, Bolton and Suburban Tramways, Gloucester Tramways, Moss Side Local Board Tramways, Newton Heath Local Board Tramways, Reading Tramways, Sunderland Tramways, Wavertree Local Board Tramways, West Derby Local Board Tramways, and Wolverhampton Tramways (Extension), ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. G. TALBOT and Viscount SANDON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 151.]

    TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. J. G. TALBOT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Cardiff Tramways (Extensions),
    1360
    Manchester Corporation Tramways, Manchester Suburban Tramways, Oldham Borough Tramways, and Rusholme Local Board Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. G. TALBOT and Viscount SANDON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 152.]

    GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. J. G. TALBOT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870," relating to Bognor Gas, Dysynni Gas, Elland Gas, Formby Gas, Godalming Gas, Greenhithe Gas, Sandown Gas, Shanklin Gas, Weston-super-Mare Gas, Alcester Water, Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, and Lindfield Water, Fowey Water, Frith Hill, Godalming, and Farncombe Water, Holywell and District Water, Newquay Water, Norwood (Middlesex) Water, Wokingham Water, Hoylake and West Kirby Gas and Water, New Tredegar Gas and Water, and Walton-on-the-Naze Gas and Water, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. G. TALBOT and Viscount SANDON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 153.]

    COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION (NO. 2) BILL.
    Select Committee on the County Courts Jurisdiction (No. 2) Bill to consist of Nineteen Members:—Committee nominated:—Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. FORSYTH, Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS, Mr. HERMON, Mr. BULWER, Mr. ROWLEY HILL, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. GREGORY, Mr. ALEXANDER M'ARTHUR, Mr. MORGAN LLOYD, Mr. GORDON, Sir GEORGE BOWYER, Mr. CLIVE, Mr. PULESTON, Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. CHARLES LEWIS, and Sir EARDLEY WILMOT:—Five to be the quorum.

    COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE COUNCILS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to make provision for the better administration of public moneys now levied by presentment in Ireland, and for the establishment of Representative Councils in the Irish. Counties, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT and Mr. M'CARTHY DOWNING.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 155.]
    House adjourned at One o'clock.