Commons Sitting of 24 April 1882

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [April 21] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Financial Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—The Resolutions.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [21] [First Night], debate adjourned; Bankruptcy Law Amendment [87].
Committee—Report—Arklow Harbour (recomm.) [137].

QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF IRELAND—USE OF DYNAMITE.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that an attempt was recently made to blow up the house of Mr. John Ross Mahon, at Ahascreagh, with dynamite; whether Mr. Andrew Manning, Vice Chairman of the Ballinasloe Board of Guardians, and Mr. John Egan, have been arrested on suspicion of complicity with this outrage; whether he can state upon what kind of evidence such arrests were sanctioned by him; whether it is a fact that dynamite is largely used by the workmen of Mr. John Ross Mahon; whether seven cartridges of dynamite were found on the person of one of his workmen; whether this man has been arrested on suspicion; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will order a sworn investigation into the whole case?
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, that, before the right hon. Gentleman answered the Question, he wished to know whether the Mr. Ross Mahon alluded to in the Question was the son of Mr. Mahon, who was murdered in 1849?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had no information as to the latter Question. With reference to the Question on the Paper, there was an attempt made to blow up this house with dynamite. The men who had been arrested had been arrested under the Protection Act. Dynamite had been used in moderate quantities in Mr. Mahon's works, and the police had removed some charges from an outhouse, in which they had
  1240
  been injudiciously left. He could not give the grounds for the arrest of these men, as it was not customary to disclose the grounds of arrests under the Protection Act. He did not think it was necessary to order a further investigation into the subject.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—SERGEANT MAGUIRE.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Sergeant Maguire, chief clerk in the county inspector's office, Ballinasloe, absconded on the 16th of March last; whether he can state what amount of public money he embezzled; whether it is a fact that for years he had been in the habit of obtaining money under false pretences from newly appointed constables; and, what steps the Government have taken in the matter?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, Ex-Constable Maguire had been guilty of gross irregularity with regard to his duties as office clerk; but nothing came before the Court of Inquiry to ground a prosecution upon. Constable Maguire was no longer a member of the force.

  STATE OF IRELAND—OUTRAGES AT LONDONDERRY.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of the Correspondence which has lately taken place between the Corporation of Londonderry and the Government, with reference to the occurrence of alleged outrages at the foot of Bishop Street (Without), in Londonderry, and. of the consequent necessity for the erection thereat of a new and costly police barracks; whether the outrages so alleged were attributed to the Roman Catholics of the locality, and whether really no such outrages took place at all; whether, it being alleged that the Roman Catholics had severely beaten and injured some of the servants at Government House, the residence of the agent of the Irish Society, and that, in consequence thereof, the protection of the police for the agent was sought for and obtained; and, whether it has since transpired that no such outrage had been perpetrated, but that some of the

  1241
  Society's employés, having stolen a quantity of whiskey that came by railway with the Society, they got drunk upon it, and beat and severely outraged each other, and then charged the peaceable Roman Catholic inhabitants of the locality with a party outrage?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the Correspondence referred to by the hon. Member had taken place; but there was not, he thought, sufficient interest in it to warrant its being laid on the Table, unless the hon. Member chose to move for it, when there would be no objection to its production.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—RELEASE OF PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT—LIMERICK GAOL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Messrs. James F. Daly, John Holloway, and Michael Bush, were released from the Limerick Gaol on April 1st without the usual caution being given to them by the Governor; if it is the fact that the Governor followed one of those suspects, James F. Daly, to the rooms lately occupied by the Limerick Central Land League, and the other two to the private residence of the Secretary of the Limerick Ladies' Land League, and there administered the caution; and, whether the Government approve the Governor's course?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the facts, as stated in the Question, were substantially correct. The Government did not approve the course taken by the Governor of Limerick Gaol in this matter, and had already signified to him their disapproval of what he had done. It was to be mentioned, however, in justice to the Governor of the Gaol, that he released the "suspects" in question in consequence of telegraphic instructions to do so, which were sent for the convenience of the prisoners themselves, in order that they might be liberated in time to reach their homes that same day.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JOSEPH SMYTH.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will not again
  1242
  consider the case of Mr. Joseph Smyth of Columbkill, in the county of Longford, who has been confined for six months in Dundalk under a warrant charging him with being reasonably suspected of having taken part in intimidation; whether the district to which Mr. Smyth belongs is not and has not been peaceful and well conducted; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will direct that Mr. Smyth be released from prison?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it should be taken into consideration.

  ARMY—MILITIA REGULATIONS, 1880—BREVET PAY.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will explain why some officers on full pay as captains and brevet majors in the regular forces, and holding appointments as adjutants of auxiliary forces, who, by paragraph 451, Militia Regulations, 1880, are entitled to receive brevet pay if appointed on or after the 22nd February 1871, were on application refused arrears of brevet pay accruing to them previous to the 1st April 1877?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to point out to him that the Warrant of 1877, which settled this question, only allowed these officers brevet pay from the 1st of April of that year. I myself have done nothing in this matter; and it would be unprecedented to disturb such a decision made by my Predecessor five years ago.

  HARBOURS OF REFUGE (SCOTLAND).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR (for Sir ALEXANDER GORDON)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the loss of life and property every year on the East Coast of Scotland, he will cause a survey and report to be made, by competent officers, of the two places they may find most suitable for the formation of two harbours of refuge, one on the south, and the other on the north, of the Firth of Forth, to which vessels navigating the North Sea, and fishing boats from the Coast, may run to for safety, at all times of tide, when caught in a gale of wind from the east?
  MR. PEMBERTONasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether it

  1243
  is the intention of the Government to take any steps for the formation of a harbour of refuge on the South Eastern Coast; whether their attention has been directed to the advantages possessed by Dungeness for that purpose; and, whether the memorials addressed to the Board on this subject will be printed?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had put the Question would see that it would not be right for the Government to propose an inquiry of the kind suggested unless they had made up their mind that at the conclusion of the inquiry they would recommend to Parliament the construction of harbours of refuge at the national expense. That was a very large question, which concerned not only the East Coast of Scotland, as was shown by the Question on the same subject by the hon. Member for East Kent. It would involve an expenditure of many millions in the provision of harbours of refuge which could be shown to be necessary at different parts of the coast of the Three Kingdoms. He was sorry to say that past experience, with reference to this matter, hardly justified the Government in taking any such course. The provision of harbours of refuge by the State had not been, on the whole, very economical or efficient. This subject was fully discussed some 20 years ago, and the proposal to construct large harbours at the public cost decided against. Under these circumstances, the Government certainly would not be prepared to recommend the House to embark in any considerable undertaking of the kind. In reply to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member for East Kent, he had to say that only one Memorial had been received advocating the formation of a harbour on the South Eastern Coast. There was no intention on the part of the Board of Trade to print it; but if the hon. Member liked to move for it, he saw no objection to its publication.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS, CAVAN UNION—CHARGE AGAINST A RETURNING OFFICER.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the charges of great irregularity brought against the Returning Officer of Cavan
  1244
  Union by Mr. T. Boland, in connection with the late election of guardian for Belturbut electoral division, and on what grounds has an inquiry been refused?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, Mr. Boland had been in communication with the Local Government Board, and that body was instituting an inquiry into the matter.

  ARMY-SENIOR MAJORS—EXTRA PAY.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the advantage of extra pay granted to the two senior Majors of a Battalion of Infantry of the Line, or of a West India Regiment, by Art. 185—I. of the Royal Warrant for Pay,&c. dated 25th June 1881, has not been similarly extended to the two senior Majors of a Regiment of Cavalry of the Line; and, whether he will rectify this anomaly by a revised Warrant, granting the same advantage to Cavalry Majors as the Infantry Majors have obtained by the above-named Warrant?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to point out to him that in the Cavalry, as in the Infantry, Majors of three years' service as such will receive the higher rate of pay. The special and temporary allowance to the two senior Majors of an Infantry Battalion were granted to protect them against a loss which cannot occur in the Cavalry, in which all the existing Majors, if qualified and recommended for promotion, became, under the new establishment, Lieutenant Colonels.

  THE OPIUM TRADE—THE CHEFOO CONVENTION.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in the public papers, that Her Majesty's Government, through its Representative at Pekin, is in communication with the Government of China in regard to the trade in opium between India and China; and, if so, at what stage matters have arrived?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have been in communication for a considerable time with the Chinese Government, through Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin, respecting the opium trade and the arrangement on the subject conditionally agreed to in the

  1245
  Chefoo Convention. The negotiations have been adjourned pending the consideration by Her Majesty's Government of a new proposal for the settlement of this question recently made by the Chinese Government. Sir Thomas Wade telegraphed, on the 9th of February last, that he was reporting fully on that proposal, and Her Majesty's Government are now awaiting his Report.

  EDUCATION (WALES)—REPORT OF DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Government have approved the Report of the Departmental Committee on Education in Wales; and, whether he can state that a measure to give effect to its recommendations will be shortly introduced?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. Member for Devonport asks whether the Government have approved the Report of the Departmental Committee on Education in Wales. My answer is that the Government propose to legislate on the lines of that Report, and have announced their intention to do so in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of Parliament. In a later Question my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) asks me whether I expect soon to introduce the promised measure. I can only say that we shall be ready to introduce the measure as soon as there appears any reasonable prospect of making progress with it.

  ARMY—REENGAGEMENT.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will make known to the Army that private soldiers enlisted before August 1870, i.e. under the Act of 1867, may be allowed to re-engage, on the recommendation of their respective commanding officers, if of good character and otherwise eligible?
  MR.CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; the pledge which I gave to the House on Monday last, that the rule for the re-engagement of privates shall be made perfectly clear, will be fulfilled, and the necessary order will issue shortly.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (SCOTLAND)—THE EVICTIONS IN SKYE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, Did Lord Macdonald, in Syke, take
  1246
  away the pasture land from the tenants some years ago, without reducing their rents, and is the present struggle for restoration or reduction of rent; and, did he, or the Home Secretary, order Captain M'Caul to send the police to Skye, without consulting the Glasgow magistrates; and, if so, did the order instruct Mr. M'Caul to refuse all information to his superiors, the Lord Provost, Magistrates, Members of the Corporation, and Citizens of Glasgow? The hon. Member said he also wished to know whether the police who went on this expedition were armed with revolvers; and whether civil officers were entitled to be armed when going upon such expeditions?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I have made inquiry with the view of enabling me to answer this Question; and the information I have received is, that till about 70 years ago the piece of hill pasture in question was occupied by the tenants of several small townships in the neighbourhood. At that time it was taken from them, and their rents were reduced from£280 in the aggregate to£200, at which latter figure they have stood since then. After the pasture ground was resumed, it was used as a market stance, and as a place for impounding strayed cattle. As it was un-inclosed, the cattle and sheep of various persons were grazed upon it by tolerance, but not under lease or any other agreement. It was let for the first time about 17 years ago, and the animals belonging to the tenants in the neighbourhood were then excluded from it. No alteration was made upon their rents, which had continued to be paid down to the last few months without complaint. In answer to the second part of the Question, I have to say that neither the Home Secretary nor I gave any order, or had any communication with Captain M'Caul or the Glasgow police authorities on the subject of sending policemen. The application to the Glasgow authorities was made by the Sheriff, under the 90th section of the Police Act of 1866. The application was not, in the first instance, made to Captain M'Caul, but to the Lord Provost; and, the Lord Provost having assented, the Sheriff addressed a requisition to the Chief Constable, under which the constables were sent. I believe it is the case that the Sheriff did express the opinion that it would be desirable

  1247
  that the despatch should be made with as little publicity as possible, that being, in his judgment, essential for the proper execution of the duty, and in that opinion I entirely concur.

  IRELAND—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD—CIRCULAR BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CO. CLARE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What course the Government propose to take with respect to County Inspector Smith, of Clare, who issued the Circular of the 4th of March, addressed to the sub-inspectors under his command; whether any communications have been addressed to the sub-inspectors of Constabulary in Clare, instructing them that the Circular in question has been withdrawn; and, whether a copy of such communication will be laid upon the Table, or its substance imparted to the House?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that, acting on his own responsibility, he has ordered the withdrawal of the Circular to which the hon. Member alludes. As regards the other part of the Question, I am in communication with the Lord Lieutenant on the subject, and I will take care that the House is informed of the conclusion at which we arrive. But, in the meantime, I must state that no proper precautions for the protection of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in the performance of his arduous duties will be neglected.

  STATE OF IRELAND—OCCUPATION OF HUTS BY PERSONS EVICTED—INTERFERENCE OF THE POLICE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Government will undertake that in future there shall be no interference with persons building or occupying huts on sites properly procured, or with evicted tenants availing themselves of the shelter thus provided?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Where the huts are merely for the shelter of the persons building or occupying them there will be no interference; but in all cases the action of the Government must depend upon the particular facts of each case.
  MR. SEXTON: I am sure the House will believe that it is with extreme reluctance that I resort a second time in this matter to the use of the Forms of the House. ["Older!"]
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. It will be in the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Sligo, on Thursday last, put a Question to the Chief Secretary for Ireland with reference to this matter, and moved the adjournment of the House in order to discuss it. I am quite aware—[Cries of" Order!" from the Home Rulers]I—I am explaining the point of Order which I wish to put—I am aware that it is the practice of the House, under the exigencies of the moment, to extend its indulgence to any hon. Member who wishes to raise a Question upon a Motion for Adjournment; but I submit that when an hon. Member intends a second time to make use of the Motion for Adjournment on the same Question it is an abuse of the indulgence of the House, and an excess of even that outrageous licence which has grown up of late years.
  MR. HEALY: On the point of Order, Sir, I—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: As has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman who raised the point of Order, this case is certainly without precedent. The House is very indulgent to hon. Members in allowing the adjournment of the House to be moved before the commencement of the appointed Business of the day. That step was taken by the hon. Member for Sligo upon an occasion last week, when the same subject now raised was fully discussed; and I am bound to say that I consider that to raise again the same Question upon this occasion would be a gross abuse of the privilege ordinarily conceded to hon. Members. At the same time, I am not prepared, without direct instructions from the House, to say that the Question of Adjournment shall not be put from the Chair.
  MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker, I shall not proceed, as I originally intended, considering the nature of the remarks you have addressed to the House, and especially the considerate manner in which you, at the close of your statement, guarded the Privileges of the House. I shall merely ask leave to read a letter from a parish priest of Tulla, with respect to an interview which he

  1249
  had with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary on the subject before the House—
  "DEAR SIR,—As I had a large share in the erection of the wooden huts in the parish of Tulla, I take the liberty of sending you the following facts in connection with them. When the Chief Secretary visited here, I asked him if it were legal for me to assist the lady (Miss Kirk) who had just arrived from Dublin for the sole purpose of erecting huts for the evicted tenants and giving them temporary relief. Here are Mr. Forster's words—'It is perfectly legal, and nothing could he more legal than for man to assist man, and so long as the lady confines herself to these duties she should not he molested.' I then promised the Chief Secretary that I would act as a special policeman, and see that this lady did not in any way incite the people to pay no rent. I now assert that this lady did not, either directly or indirectly, interfere in anything outside what Mr. Forster had declared to he 'perfectly legal,' and that she always declined to answer any question outside the building of the huts and the distribution of a little charity. Miss Kirk is now in Limerick Gaol for acting legally. With regard to the erection of these huts, Miss Kirk and I were opposed to them whenever lodgings could be procured. Now, we erected them on sites for the most part where both landlord and occupier had given full and free consent. Only three of the entire number have been erected on land without the consent of the landlord, which consent would be applied for had we known his address. On the day of eviction the owner and occupier of a fee-simple property voluntarily came forward, and offered sites for huts for all evicted tenants. Several huts are erected, and others in course of erection, on that fee-simple property. Some of the evicted, with families of 10 and 12, first went into lodgings with neighbours who had large families and small houses. These lodgings were convenient to the holdings from which they had been evicted, and yet, as they had not sufficient accommodation, they went a considerable distance to wooden huts. This does not look like watching the farms. I know nothing about some of the evicted having paid their rents and are afraid of returning to their farms. Intimidation and outrage in the district have ceased. By Miss Kirk and myself telling these people that if any outrage or intimidation took place we would immediately break off all communication with them, we brought about a condition which the vast police, and military force too, had failed to effect."
  MR. Speaker, I submit that letter to the consideration of the House. I thank you sincerely for the manner in which you have guarded, on this occasion, our Privileges in this House; and I give Notice that I shall, on the earliest available occasion, call attention to the subject.
  MR. REDMONDwished to put a Question arising out of an answer given by the Chief Secretary a few moments ago. Had the attention of the right
  1250
  hon. Gentleman been called to Section 41 of the Code for the regulation of the "Royal Irish Constabulary? The section in question provided that—
  "Before issuing any orders of a general nature to police officers under his command the County Inspector will submit them to the Inspector General for his approval."
  What he wished to know was, whether the order directing the issue of County Inspector Smith's Circular was submitted to the approval of the Inspector General?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied, that he was quite cognizant of the section of the Code referred to by the hon. Member, and that the Inspector General was not aware of the Circular before it was issued. He hoped that on a future occasion he should be able to give the House much information on the subject.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE REMOVAL OF PLACARDS BY THE CONSTABULARY.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on Sunday the 9th instant, the constabulary tore down and destroyed placards which were posted in Lady's Island, county Wexford, inviting the tenants on two neighbouring estates to meet, in order to discuss the best manner of protecting their interests; and, whether he has sanctioned such action on the part of the police; and, if so, whether the Irish Executive intend to prevent, in the south of Ireland, meetings of tenants similar to those constantly held, unmolested, by the farmers of Ulster?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it was the duty of the police to remove placards of an unlawful character. Placards had been posted announcing a meeting at this place, and a meeting had been held at which a "no rent" resolution was unanimously adopted. [Mr. HEALY: Hear, hear!] When the placards were put up for the second meeting the police considered that the adjourned meeting would be of a similar character, and removed the placards, as was their duty.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MARTIN SCANLAN AND OTHERS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE (for Mr. O'SHEA)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord

  1251
  Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether No. 452, Martin Scanlan, No. 453, John Gregg, No. 454, Matthew O'Brien, No. 456, Michael Minogue, No. 458, John Clune, and No. 459, Martin Crotty, are correctly included, and whether the grounds for their arrest are correctly stated, in the Return of all Persons detained under the statute 44 Vic. c. 4, dated 1st April 1882?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the grounds of the arrest were incorrectly stated, but were given in the Return. They were originally arrested for treason-felony, but not under the Protection Act. They were remanded to Ennis Gaol, and were re-arrested under the Protection Act on the expiration of their term of imprisonment.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT—RESTRICTIONS ON THE MOVEMENT OF CATTLE.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE (for Sir SYDNEY WATERLOW)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, having regard to the high price of meat consequent upon the restrictions placed upon the movement of cattle after exposure for sale in the Metropolitan Market, and seeing that only one case of foot and mouth disease has appeared in the Metropolitan Market since the 23rd January (that case about 19th February), and that at this season of the year and during summer months the Home Counties draw the greater part of their beef supplies from the London Cattle Market, can he hold out any hope of an early modification of those restrictions, in order that the London Market may be placed on the same footing as the markets in other large towns, viz.: Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Wakefield, Birmingham,&c.?
  MR. MUNDELLA: We cannot admit that the high price of meat is caused by the restrictions placed on the Metropolitan Market. The price of beef in that market was exactly the same during the three months which preceded the imposition of the present restrictions and the three months during which they have been in force. The price of mutton here, as elsewhere throughout the country, has been higher during the last three months. The Privy Council, however, are fully alive to the inconvenience caused by the restrictions, and are considering whether
  1252
  they may not now safely return to the state of things which existed up till the end of last year, under which animals sold in the Metropolitan Market may be taken into the country for slaughter.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—POLICE PROTECTION (CARETAKERS)—CASE OF RICHARD ROCHE.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, in the case of Richard Roach, a caretaker in the employ of the Emergency Committee in Dublin, and who was shot dead on the night of the 17th, on the property of Mr. Caldwell, near New Pallas, county Limerick, that special police protection had been applied for and refused by the Irish Executive; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence between the Emergency Committee and himself, the Under Secretary, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and the Inspector General of Constabulary, with regard to the granting of special police protection to the men employed as caretakers by that Committee?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the protection applied for was not thought necessary by the authorities at Dublin. The murder was not committed at or near the house, but at some distance from it. There had been no application for protection for these persons in going to and fro, and police protection would not have been required for three or four well-armed men if they kept together; but, unfortunately, three out of the four went away, leaving the other man by himself.

  IRELAND—THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—PENSION TO WIDOW OF SERGEANT KAVANAGH.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What pension the Government has determined to award to the widow of Sergeant Kavanagh, who was assassinated whilst performing his duty at Letterfeach, county Galway?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he was glad to be able to say that a special pension of£40 per annum had been awarded to Mrs. Kavanagh so long as

  1253
  she remained unmarried, and of£2 10 s. to each of her children until they attained the age of 15 years.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—THE NEW WAREHOUSING SCHEME—SURVEYORS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What is the number of surveyors of each class to be added to the Outdoor Department of Her Majesty's Customs consequent on the transfer of work from the existing Warehousing Departments to the Outdoor Department; and, whether it is the intention of the Treasury that the whole of the surveyorships thus created shall be given to the clerks of the Warehousing Departments who consent to be transferred with their work?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Nine surveyors will be added to the first class, 12 to the second, and 24 to the third; but I cannot at present say how far these posts will be assigned to the outdoor and clerical branches of the Service.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—COLLISIONS AT SEA.
  CAPTIAN PRICEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the numerous collisions which take place between steamships, and the great loss of life and property arising therefrom; and, whether he would consider the expediency of amending the Merchant Shipping Act so as to make it compulsory for all vessels carrying passengers to be fitted with longitudinal bulkheads so as to subdivide their water-tight compartments?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am fully aware of the number of collisions between steamships. It is, however, satisfactory to know that the number of lives lost by collisions at sea has decreased considerably during the past two years, notwithstanding the great increase in the number and size of seagoing steamships. For the greater security of life and property, I look rather to the strict observance of the Rule of the Road than to any attempt to regulate the details of construction of ships by Act of Parliament. This view is supported by experience. At one time the Merchant Shipping Acts contained an enactment
  1254
  on the subject of bulkheads; but the minimum required by a Statute is apt to become the maximum in practice; and since the Compulsory Clause was repealed the number of bulkheads has greatly increased, and they have also become more efficient.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MOLONEY.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Moloney, at present confined as a suspect in Grangegorman Prison, Dublin, has been refused permission to see his wife except in the ordinary cage, and for fifteen minutes only each day; whether these rules have not been modified in the case of other prisoners who have been permitted to receive visits from their wives of an hour daily, and without the presence of warders; whether it is a fact that upon some occasions when Mr. Moloney had already received visits from friends from the country, even the visit of fifteen minutes in the cage was refused to his wife; whether there is any special reason for these rules being more rigidly enforced in the case of Mr. Moloney than in the case of other prisoners; and, whether the continued imprisonment of Mr. Moloney is due to the fact that Mrs. Moloney is a member of the Ladies' Land League, and that if she retired from that association the Government would release her husband?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that Mr. Moloney was at present confined as a "suspect." As regarded the visits of his wife, he was allowed to see her just in the same way as other "suspects" were allowed to see their friends. The Rules were not more rigidly enforced in his case than in the case of others. His continued detention was not due to the fact that his wife was a member of the Ladies' Land League.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—TREATMENT OF PERSONS ARRESTED UNDER THE ACT—GRANGEGORMAN PRISON.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  1255
  land, "Whether it is a fact that, although there are only two suspects in Grangegorman Prison, visitors are sometimes kept twenty minutes waiting before they can see their friends; no other visitor being in the Gaol; whether the air in the visiting cells is so bad that visitors have, on almost all occasions, made complaints on the subject; whether the cells are so cold that the suspects complain they
  "have to take off their boots and lie under the bed clothes for warmth from 8 o'clock till bed time at 10 o'clock;"
  whether it is a fact that the exercise ground consists of a small cottage garden; whether it is a fact that, when a suspect desires to take a bath, he must go down to the convicts' apartments and use their bath; whether it is a fact that there is no hospital in the prison, and not even a room with a fire in which sick persons might lie up; whether the association room is connected with the only closet in the gaol; whether this closet, frequently getting out of order, the atmosphere in the association room is not sometimes abominable; and, whether he will at once have these complaints inquired into?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that three persons were detained as "suspects" in this prison. Visitors to them were never kept so long as 20 minutes before they saw their friends. The architect had reported that the air in the cells was good, that they were well ventilated, and kept at a fair temperature. The baths used by the "suspects" had never been used by convicts, and the sanitary arrangements of the gaol were in good order.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MURPHY.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on the 25th of January, Mr. P. J. Murphy, of Cork, was liberated from Kilmainham Prison, on parole, for such time as was necessary to attend to some urgent private affairs, and having been required to sign an undertaking to give notice to the authorities when such affairs were duly arranged; whether, on the 12th of February, Mr. Murphy returned to Dublin, and wrote a letter to the authorities, informing them that he had re-
  1256
  turned to surrender his parole, and would remain for three days at the Imperial Hotel, in Dublin, ready to receive orders to return to prison; whether he remained for that period ready for re-arrest, and, in fact, called at Kilmainham, but received no intimation whatever from the authorities; and, whether, under these circumstances, his release did not become unconditional?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the facts were as stated by the hon. Member. Nothing had, however, occurred to alter the decision which had been come to by the authorities in this case.

  ENTAIL BILL (SCOTLAND)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. DUFFasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will state to the House when Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce the Entail Bill for Scotland mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, in order that it may be considered before the meetings of the Commissioners of Supply?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR), in reply, said, that the Bill had been prepared, and would be introduced as soon as the state of Public Business would permit, and he should see whether the desire expressed by his hon. Friend could be carried out.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PERSONS CLAIMING TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state when he can lay the Correspondence with the United States relative to suspects claiming American nationality upon the Table; and, whether he can also present to Parliament the representations addressed last year to the United States Government in respect to the incitements offered in the United States to outrage in England, to which representation no answer has been received? The hon. Gentleman said he wished to know whether in case of the answer being unfavourable the hon. Gentleman would lay upon the Table that portion of the Correspondence which had been already published ill America?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Correspondence to which the hon. Member refers will be presented to Parliament before the close of the present week. There will be no objection to presenting the representations addressed last year to the Government of the United States.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—THE RECENT ACCIDENT TO THE "ALBERT EDWARD.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the accident that occurred on Tuesday last to the "Albert Edward" steamboat a short distance from Boulogne, on her passage to Folkstone, by the bursting of one of her cylinders; and if he has any official Report upon the subject explaining why she remained for four hours at anchor without receiving any assistance from the authorities at Boulogne; and, as to what provision is made by the Railway Companies at Folkestone and Dover to render assistance to a steamer disabled on her passage, so as to prevent in future the passengers being detained four hours at anchor, and then towed into Dover or Folkestone by a steam-tug in eight hours more? He wished also to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to a letter in The Times of that day giving a full narrative of the dangers run and the miseries endured by the passengers; and whether it was not compulsory on Channel passenger steamboats to carry lights in case they were overtaken by fog?
  MR. DIXON - HARTLANDasked whether the Albert Edward was not the same boat which had some of her machinery broken only the week before Easter, and drifted four or five hours before reaching Calais Harbour?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: With respect to the last Question, I have no information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the Question another day. As regards the additional Question of my hon. Friend the Member for the City, my attention has been called to the letter to which he refers, and it is no doubt the fact that the Channel boats, like all other passenger boats, are required to carry a proper supply of lights. As to the Question on the Paper, the Board of
  1258
  Trade have instructed their officials to make a preliminary inquiry into the accident that recently occurred to the steamship Albert Edward shortly after leaving Boulogne on her passage to Folkestone; and when the Report of this inquiry is received, I will consider whether any further investigation is necessary. As to the vessel not receiving assistance from the authorities at Boulogne, I have no official information; but I learn from a private source that a pilot boat was sent off, the state of the tide preventing a tug from leaving the harbour. As to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I will communicate with the Railway Companies.

  ARMY (INDIA)—PROMOTION OF CAVALRY OFFICERS.
  COLONEL WILLIAMSasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Papers showing what steps have been taken to relieve the stagnation of promotion amongst the Officers on the Cadres of Cavalry of the Indian Army, these Officers having been been led to believe, from various official communications addressed to them before, during, and since 1880, that "the question was then under the immediate consideration of Her Majesty's Government; "whether it is a fact that every Officer on these Cadres, after completing twenty years' service, serves pecuniarily at a disadvantage with his juniors of the "General List of Officers of Cavalry," by reason of those Officers being granted substantive promotion, and increased pay, after stipulated periods of service, these advantages being withheld from their seniors in the Cadres; and, whether this supersession in substantive rank, with the loss of the pecuniary advantages attaching thereto, is not a contravention of the guarantee given to the Officers of the Cadres above mentioned, by the "Henley Clause," and in antagonism, with the opinions of the Committees presided over by Lords Hotham and Cranborne, and Sir T. Aitcheson, respectively?
  THE MARQUESS HARTINGTON: The officers of the Cadres of the Cavalry of the Indian Army continue under the same rules of promotion as they enjoyed under the East India Company. Through slackness of Cadre promotion, they have for the most part fallen behind the Staff

  1259
  Corps and General List officers in attaining the higher grades of substantive rank; yet every one of them had the option, in 1866, of joining the Staff Corps, and thereby placing themselves on an exact equality with the officers of whose more favourable promotion they now complain. That they did not take advantage of this is probably due to their desire to preserve the present advantage of considerably higher unemployed and furlough pay than that drawn by the Staff Corps and General List officers; and, secondly, to their hope that their ordinary Cadre promotion would, as has proved to be the case with the Infantry, prove more favourable to them than the promotion by fixed periods in force with the Staff Corps. As a fact, their promotion has been considerably less favourable than that of the Staff Corps and General List; but they are protected from supersession by the grant of Army—that is, brevet—rank, on the completion of the same periods of qualifying service as the Staff Corps and General List. Their rights and privileges have been strictly maintained, and there has been in no degree a contravention of the Parliamentary guarantee. Still, there is no doubt that the position of the local Cavalry officers, especially in the junior grades, is so depressed that some exceptional and remedial measures are needed. I have, therefore, recently addressed the Government of India on the subject, and have suggested a measure, which will, I believe, prove efficacious. Until I receive their reply, I do not think I could properly lay the incomplete Correspondence before the House; nor would it be right that I should indicate the remedial measures which I had suggested, until the Government of India has had an opportunity of considering and expressing an opinion on it.

  NAVY—PAYMENT OF NAVAL PENSIONS.
  MR. GORSTasked, Whether it is a fact that the payment of Naval Pensions due April 1st has in the Chatham district not yet commenced; what steps will be taken by the Admiralty to expedite the payment of these pensions; and, whether measures will be taken to prevent on a future occasion the inconvenience and distress caused by the non-receipt of moneys upon which the
  1260
  pensioners have been accustomed to rely?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and learned Member, I have to remind him that I answered a general Question on this subject some days ago, and on Friday I stated that the delay in paying the pensions at Plymouth, which I was at a loss to understand, had led to an officer being specially sent there. We also found delays at Chatham, and sent an officer on Saturday there; and I hear by telegraph to-day that the issue to 2,700 pensioners (Army, Navy,&c.) is now concluded. These delays, as I have already informed the House, will not occur again.
  MR.PULESTONasked whether there was any objection to allowing these pensioners to go personally for their pensions? It would save both time and expense.
  MR. CHILDERS: The present system was established in order to remove the temptation which existed previously to pensioners to go and spend their money as soon as they received it. There is no intention to return to the old arrangement.
  MR. MACLIVERasked whether it was a fact that the pension papers must be signed by four Staff officers?
  MR. CHILDERS: I am unable to reply to that Question without Notice.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked whether it would not be desirable to station a Staff officer at Woolwich?
  MR. CHILDERS: I do not think that it is necessary that an officer should be stationed at that place.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—THE NEW WAREHOUSING SCHEME.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If it be the fact that, in reorganizing the Customs Service, the Indoor Warehousing Department is being abolished or greatly reduced, and the servants are offered only the ordinary terms of retirement, or the acceptance of outdoor service, involving longer hours, nightwork, and exposure in duties not strictly analogous to their former employment; and, if it be the fact that, when similar changes were made in the Admiralty and War Office, an Act was passed (.41 and 42 Vic. c. 53) giving gratuities to those who were thus retired, and why the

  1261
  Customs servants are to be less liberally dealt with?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I cannot admit that the alternative offered to the displaced warehousing clerks is accurately described in the Question of my hon. Friend. The new service will practically be not very unlike that to which they have been accustomed; and so far as the hours are different, they will be compensated by some increase of pay. Failing the acceptance of this alternative, they will receive pensions at the special rate allowed under the 7th section of the Superannuation Act, in case of abolition of office. I cannot but think that much groundless alarm has been excited by too literal interpretation of the technical term "outdoor." As regards the suggestion in the latter part of the Question, I have to observe that the very peculiar circumstances which were held to warrant the exceptional terms given in the War Office and Admiralty, under a special Act, do not exist in the present case.

  GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (SCOTLAND).
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will lay upon the Table the recent Memorial of the Edinburgh Geological Society with regard to the Scottish Geological Survey, together with the reply thereto of the Science and Art Department?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I shall be glad to lay the Correspondence on the Table if the hon. Member will move for it.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—INTERFERENCE OF THE CONSTABULARY.
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that, on the 15th instant, the constable of Ballybrittas Station, in the Queen's County, accompanied by a sub-constable, visited the residence of Mr. Edmund Nolan, of Belin, and told him that—
  "He had been ordered by the sub-inspector, Mr. Grene, of Maryborough, to call on him, Mr. Nolan, and ask what terms he had made with his landlord;"
  and, if so, is it to be understood that for the future the police force in Ireland
  1262
  shall have added to their other duties the responsibility of collecting rents, and otherwise acting as land agents?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the statement was not true, and that the police would not be employed in collecting rents.

  ISLAND OF CYPRUS—THE NEW CONSTITUTION—REPRESENTATION OF MUSSULMEN IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
  MR ASHMEAD-BAETLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Mussulman community of Cyprus have presented a Petition to Her Majesty's Government against the new Constitution of the Legislative Council in that Island, by which it is proposed that the Council shall consist of nine Christian to three Mussulman members, and whether the following is an accurate representation of the tenour of the Petition:—That the British Government, in proposing this change of proportion (the present members on the Council being half Mussulman and half Christian), have not considered the loyalty with which the Mussulman inhabitants of Cyprus accepted the change of administration, refusing to listen to the Anti-English party who tried to stir up agitation; that the British Government have not considered the character of the agitation which is now going on among the Greek population for the ruin and oppression of the Mahometans; that they have not considered the fact that the Mussulmans, who have for over three centuries possessed the Island, have always treated their Christian fellow-citizens with justice, and protected them in the enjoyment of their property and religion; that the Government have not consulted the British Authorities in Cyprus before using this new Constitution; that, although in the 10th and 11th Articles of the new Constitution it is stated that the British Government, in accordance with the terms of their Convention with the Sultan, wish to give the population of Cyprus a law and not privileges, yet by the 4th Article (which establishes this Council of nine Christians to three Mussulmans) they give to the Greeks the greatest possible privilege—one which they do not even possess in Greece itself; that in Asia Minor, where the Mussulmans are in a

  1263
  large majority, the Christian population have equal numbers and equal votes on the Administrative Councils, and of the fact that under the proposed change the Mussulmans who are in a majority in Nicosia, the principal town, would be at the mercy of the Greeks, and in view of the fact that the Greeks openly assert that they mean to use their majority on the Council in order to oppress the Mussulman population, and to obtain the independence of Cyprus; the Petitioners finally pray that either the proposed Constitution of the Legislative Council be modified and restored to the old plan of equal numbers and equal votes, or that the Mussulman population be allowed to emigrate in order to escape the loss of their rights and their personal safety; whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the inflammatory articles inciting to race persecution and revolution which appear in the Greek journals of Cyprus; and, whether, in view of the very grave statements contained in the petition of the above Mussulmans of Cyprus, which is signed by the Mufti and other notables on behalf of the whole Mussulman population of the Island, Her Majesty's Government will either withdraw the Article complained of, or fix an early day for the discussion of the question in Parliament?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, a Petition has been received from the Mussulman community of Cyprus; but the representation of it in the Question of the hon. Member cannot be accepted as accurate. The Petition and the reply will be included in the Papers shortly to be presented. I may, however, say now that the document commented on in the Petition is not a draft of a Constitution with definite Articles, but a despatch containing a general outline of a proposed new Council. It is not proposed that the Council shall consist of nine Christian and three Mussulman members. These will be the members elected by the Mussulmans and Christians, and in addition thereto there will be six official members, and the President will also have a vote. The present Council is not half Mussulman and half Christian. Sir Garnet Wolseley appointed one Mahomedan and two Christian unofficial members; but there is now one vacancy among the Christian members. It is not the case that the British authorities in Cyprus
  1264
  have not been consulted. There have, in truth, been long and frequent communications with them. It will be seen, without going through all the paragraphs of the Question of the hon. Member, that the fears of the Mussulman community, to whose loyalty and good behaviour the Secretary of State willingly bears testimony, rest on misapprehension of the nature of the proposed Council, and it is not proposed to withdraw the scheme. It is not thought that any particular attention is due to the articles in the Cyprus Press more than to other strong articles which appear in newspapers throughout our Colonies. It is not intended to fix an early day for the discussion of the question in Parliament.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked of what nationality the six official members were to be?
  MR. COURTNEY: As they will be appointed by England, they will be probably English.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of the hon. Gentleman, he should call attention to the subject on an early day.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MESSRS. NALLY AND O'KANE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what grounds the warrants were issued against Messrs. Nally and O'Kane, and who was the person at whose request these gentlemen were told that the warrants were suspended, and that they might return to Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had already explained the circumstances of this case, and he could not go into any more details.

  CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES—INSPECTOR OF COALS AT CARDIFF.
  MR. LEWISasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. John Batchelor, of Cardiff, has recently been appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies Inspector of Coals to the Crown Agents for the Colonies, or by whom such appointment was made; whether he had any experience whatever on the subject of coal exploration or coal mines, or any practical know-

  1265
  ledge of coal or the coal trade; whether he is the same person as carried on business as a timber merchant and shipbuilder during all his business life; whether he is also the same person who was for some time previous to his appointment the leader of the Liberal party in Cardiff; and, whether the appointment was conferred by the Colonial Secretary spontaneously or at the solicitation of Mr. Batchelor?
  MR. COURTNEY: The appointment to which the hon. Member refers is made by the Crown Agents on their own responsibility. The Secretary of State transmitted to the Crown Agents one testimonial which was sent to him in favour of Mr. Batchelor; but did not interfere further in the matter, and never heard anything about Mr. Batchelor's political antecedents. I myself received, and forwarded, a similar testimonial. Another letter which I received, referring to Mr. Batchelor's political services, I entirely suppressed. The Crown Agents report that Mr. Batchelor was one of several applicants who submitted their testimonials on the death of the late holder of the office in question; that he was then selected, with two or three others, as appearing to possess the best qualifications for the post; and it was eventually conferred upon him after communication with those who, in the Crown Agents' opinion, were competent to speak as to his special knowledge of the duties he proposed to undertake. The Crown Agents add that in making their appointments they are not actuated by political considerations, their object being to secure the most efficient servants they can get.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—"UNITED IRELAND"—ALLEGED EXCESS OF DUTY BY A CONSTABLE AT WATERFORD.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that on Sunday last a police constable entered the house of Mr. Patrick Kavanagh, Michael Street, Waterford, and, finding Mrs. Kavanagh engaged in reading "United Ireland," attempted to take it from her, and in the attempt threw her down, put his knees on her stomach and tore her clothes, while he searched her in a most insulting manner, Mrs. Kavanagh being unable to offer any resistance, as she has
  1266
  been for some time partially paralyzed; whether he also assaulted her daughter, Miss Kavanagh, and then proceeded to search the premises, knocking the furniture about in all directions; and, if these statements are correct, what course the authorities propose to take to mark their sense of such an outrage?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had made inquiry into this case, and found that the constable was guilty of this assault. He was not aware of the instructions that had been issued against seizing the recent numbers of United Ireland. He saw a woman reading a number of the paper, and wanted to take it. She resisted, and he then took it from her by force. The constable was summoned before the magistrates, and fined 21 s. and costs. He denied the particulars of the aggravated assault; and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) imagined that the magistrates must have agreed with him, because the Mayor and one of the Justices present said that, although it was their duty to fine him for assaulting the woman, they believed he only did it in what he considered the discharge of his duty.
  MR. SEXTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that some of the magistrates expressed their disbelief in the accuracy of his statement?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I was not aware of that.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE RIOTS AT CAMBORNE.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as reported in the "Cornish Telegraph" of Thursday 20th instant, that, on Tuesday last, a riot occurred at Camborne, Cornwall, which began in an attempt to stone two Irishmen who were in the custody of the police; that the houses of the Irish in the town were wrecked, and the property in them destroyed and several of their occupants brutally ill-used, that, in one case, a poor old woman who had been bedridden for a couple of years was pulled from her bed and left writhing in agony on the floor; that an attack was made on the Catholic Chapel, and that—
  "First the windows were smashed in, then, after repeated efforts, the doors were forced. Inside, the rioters lost all control of themselves, and did most wanton damage. They broke up

  1267
  the crucifixes and pictures; the image of the Virgin Mary was torn from its place, thrown amongst the mob, and trampled to pieces. The confessional-box was speedily converted into fire-wood. The altar and its fittings were torn down, the gaseliers were broken off, and the organ destroyed—the scene within the Church beggaring description;"
  whether any of the rioters have been arrested; and, whether any steps have been taken to protect the life and property of the Irish residents in Camborne and to restore law and order in that town?
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers the Question, I may, perhaps, be allowed to put another on the same subject. I wish to ask him whether he has seen the following statements in The Standard of this morning, and whether they are true so far as he knows:—
  "About a dozen men suspected of being ringleaders in the riots, were also sworn in, and placed on duty in the Town Hall;"
  and, again—
  "Complaint is generally made that there were rumours for a week or more before the Petty Sessions day that there would be a riot, and that the Catholic chapel would be wrecked, of which rumours the Magistrates were informed by the priest. No precautions were taken to prevent the threats being carried out. Secondly, that after the riot no protection was provided for the threatened Irish in the outlying villages. And, thirdly, that when the county police were brought to Camborne they were kept shut up in the station, so that they were utterly useless, and the victory lay with the mob. Not one of the rioters has yet been apprehended?"
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had seen the statement in this day's paper to the effect that the conduct of the authorities had been the subject of ridicule throughout the country amongst all classes?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have received reports on the subject from the Chief Constable and from the Justices, which are too long to read to the House; but the effect of which, to my mind, is that none of those reports in the newspapers are correct. They are entirely exaggerated, and altogther inaccurate. That is the answer I have to give with reference to the newspaper reports. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I am informed that the steps which have been taken to protect the life and property of the Irish resi-
  1268
  dents in Camborne, and to restore law and order in that town, have been sufficiently effectual, and that no repetition of these disgraceful riots has taken place. I saw the Chairman of the Local Quarter Sessions at the House here on Friday, just before he was going to Cornwall, and I impressed upon him the necessity and propriety of making every effort to arrest the authors of these riots. I have received a telegram to-day showing that one of the persons has been arrested, and that it is intended to make further arrests.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask whether it is not true that the special constables sworn in to prevent the riot were the ringleaders of it?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no information to that effect.
  MR. LEAMY: Is it true that the Roman Catholic Church was wrecked and the sacred ornaments torn down?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The accounts I have received say that that statement is quite untrue. Some of the windows were broken; but a very gallant lady routed the mob with a candlestick. [Cries of "Read!"]
  "She was carrying out a pair of large candlesticks when she saw a man trying to unship the altar rail. She put down one candlestick, clubbed the other, and went for him. He ran away, leaving his pocket-handkerchief behind him; and every soul in the place scuttled off, hiding their faces in their coat-collars."
  All the sacred vestments and other articles were rescued.
  MR. BELLINGHAM: Was the church in such a state that no service could be held in it on Sunday?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I believe it was thought indiscreet to hold a service there last Sunday.

  SOUTH AFRICA—NATAL—ALLEGED MASSACRE.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement of the "Gra-hamstown Journal" of March 8th:—
  "The correspondent of the 'Independent' at Taungs, March, 4th, says—'On Feb. 13th a patrol of Boers and Mosheshe's men captured thirty unarmed men of Jan Macsibi's on the road from the Diamond Fields, took them to their laager and massacred twenty-seven of them. On the 21st the whole force of two hundred and fifty Boers with Moshete's and Matchain's people attacked Montsioa's station

  1269
  with three cannon; in the afternoon they tried to storm the station by driving cattle in front of them against the trenches; at the third attempt Montsioa sallied out, captured all the cattle, and repulsed the Boers to their laager. Their loss is unknown, but must he heavy. At daylight on the 25th the Boers again attacked the station.… Thirty-eight Boers and allies were left on the field, and among them the Boer commandant and the leader of Moshete's army;'"
  and, whether he can give the House any information on the subject?
  MR. COURTNEY: I have not seen the paragraph in The Grahamstown Journal, except in the Question of the hon. Member; but we have received, under cover from Sir Hercules Robin-son, a letter from Mr. Bethell, agent to Montsioa, containing almost identically the same statements. Sir Hercules Robinson had already directed the Resident at Pretoria to inquire into the truth of the allegation of the murder of unarmed Natives, and we look for a further Report on this and other points.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE TENANTRY.
  MR. HEALYasked, If any information has reached the Government as to whether a number of the tenants who have made applications to the Land Court to fix a fair rent are in the meanwhile allowing their farms to remain untilled; and, if he can give the House any idea to what extent this practice is prevailing?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have no information to that effect. I have asked the Land Commissioners personally, and they likewise have no information.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
  MR. PEMBERTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to what took place in this House on Thursday last, during the time usually devoted to answering Questions, he has considered the desirability of moving the 2nd Resolution, relating to the Business of the House, before the 1st Resolution is finally disposed of?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We do not think it desirable to do so, even to avoid the inconvenience to which the hon. Member refers.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—"ARREARS."
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her Majesty's Government are prepared to submit any scheme to the House, in reference to the question of arrears of rent in Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: On Wednesday a Bill will be discussed which will give the hon. Member an opportunity of raising the question. If he likes he can put this Question then.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—FOREIGN SUBJECTS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce some measure to enable the Executive to deal with suspects claiming foreign nationality, on the principles laid down in the Act 11 and 12 Vic. c. 20?
  SIR CHARLES W.DILKE: It is not the intention of the Government to introduce such a measure.

  ENGLAND AND FRANCE—THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. ARTHUR VIVIANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether an opportunity will be afforded to Parliament of expressing an opinion on the general question of the desirability of a Channel Tunnel before any sort of sanction is given to any scheme by the Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already stated that nothing should be done without the House having a full opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the subject. If my hon. Friend means to inquire whether the Executive Government, in their corporate capacity, will do anything to prejudge the opinion of the House or to limit its discretion in any way, I would say certainly not.

  RATING—VALUATION OF GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. BOORDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the grant in lieu of rates, in respect of Government establishments situate in the parishes of Woolwich and Plumstead, is still paid on a valuation made in the year 1874; whether large additions and improvements have not been made in the said estab-

  1271
  lishments since that date; and, whether he will consider the propriety of causing a fresh valuation to be made?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The valuations on which the Treasury contributions in lieu of rates are made were settled in 1875 for the parishes of Woolwich and Plumstead. I believe it is true that since that date there has been considerable outlay on the property. It would be undesirable to reopen the question of the valuations until all the Government property in the United Kingdom has been assessed. This task will, I hope, be completed in about two months, after which the whole subject will be carefully considered.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE RECENT ATTACK UPON THE SALVATION ARMY AT CHESTER.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the recent trial, at the Chester Sessions, of the ringleaders of the riots against the Salvation Army in that city, who were charged with violent assaults on the members of that religious body, by which many peaceable citizens were injured, one woman having been at the point of death for more than a week, and a young man having become totally blind in consequence; if he is aware that the prisoners were all found guilty by the jury, and were proved, during their trial, to have been persons of known bad character; and if it is true that the Recorder of Chester inflicted no punishment, but simply bound them over to come up for judgment if called upon; if he is aware that the rioters dealt with summarily by the borough magistrates, at the time these ringleaders were sent to trial, are still in prison; and, if he will take into consideration how far the Law is properly vindicated by the lesser offenders receiving a more severe punishment than the ringleaders?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had no power over the magistrates in such matters. He could not order a heavier sentence than the magistrates thought fit to inflict.

  FRANCE—THE COMMERCIAL TREATY—RENEWAL OF THE NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR.MAGNIACasked, Whether there was any truth in the report that the Government had made proposals to France
  1272
  for a renewal of the negotiations for a Treaty of Commerce, in consideration of certain concessions in respect to cotton and silk?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There is no foundation for the report.

  ISLAND OF CYPRUS—THE NEW CONSTITUTION—REPRESENTATION OF MUSSULMEN IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
  MR. MACIVERinquired, Whether it was true that the Mussulman inhabitants of Cyprus were only to have three representatives on the Council out of a total of 18?
  MR COURTNEY, in reply, said, three Mussulman members would be elected to nine Christians—a proportion which fairly represented the population of the Island. The other members were official.

  THE LAND LEAGUE AND FENIANISM—MR. ARNOLD FORSTER AND THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE."
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in to-day's Pall Mall Gazette, signed "Arnold Forster," maintaining that there is no distinction between the members of the Land League and the Fenians; whether it is a fact that the principal members of the executive are now in prison; and, whether it is usual to allow persons confined under the Protection of Person and Property Act to write letters to newspapers on political matters?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member should give Notice of his Question; but I do not think I am bound to answer such Questions at all.

  CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS—PRIVATE SECRETARIES TO MINISTERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR, who had a Notice standing on the Paper to the effect—
  "That the practice of appointing clerks of the Treasury Office, and other gentlemen who have acted as private secretaries to Prime Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer, to important posts in Departments of the Civil Service other than the Treasury, is calculated to discourage zeal and industry in such Departments to the prejudice of the Public Service,"
  remarked that, although he regarded the subject of his Notice as one of great importance, still, as it appeared to be

  1273
  the general wish of the House that the Prime Minister should be allowed to make his Financial Statement at as early an hour as possible, he had yielded to the suggestion of his hon. Friends around him that he should withdraw his Motion. He therefore begged leave to give Notice that he should postpone his Motion until the next occasion when the House was asked to go into Committee of Supply.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—COMMITTEE.
  WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Mr. Lyon Playfair—I think that my first duty on this occasion is to tender my acknowledgments to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), for the courteous announcement which he has just made to the House. I believe, however, that I may say, without offence, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Queen's County would have been an innovation, and that it would have been in my power to have counteracted it by another innovation quite within the limits of the Orders of this House—namely, by making the Financial Statement with the Speaker in the Chair. I think, however, that the Committee will feel that it is much better that these two innovations should pass into the usual place of unfulfilled resolutions, and that the Financial Statement should be made in the usual manner, by which perfect freedom of remark is allowed to all hon. Members who may see occasion to enter into the subject. With respect to the general financial condition of the country, I will only say that essentially the position of the Expenditure is that it is a somewhat growing Expenditure, and that with respect to the Revenue, that it is a sluggish Revenue. It is much as it has been during the last two years—this being the third occasion during the existence of the present Government on which I have had cast upon me the duty of making the Financial Statement to the House. It is very remarkable
  1274
  that although employment is generally active, and although the condition of trade cannot be said to be generally unsatisfactory, yet the recovery of the country from the point of extreme depression has been a slow and a languid recovery, especially as far as regards the action of that recovery upon the Revenue of the country. No doubt, there is a natural explanation of the circumstance in the extreme excitement—the unnatural and the unhealthy excitement—of prices which existed during the period of prosperity which preceded the time of depression; and it is to that cause that we must look for the slackness of the recovery to which I have referred, and not to any diminution whatsoever in the resources of the country, or any deterioration of its industrial prospects. I go at once now to lay before the Committee the particulars which it is customary for them to receive on this occasion. I shall have to deal in the first instance with the financial year 1881–2, which reached its close on the 31st of March. The Expenditure of that year was estimated at£86,190,000; the actual Expenditure was£85,472,000, showing that the Expenditure fell short of the Estimate by£718,000. The comparison of the Expenditure with the Expenditure of the preceding year is a more serious matter. Of course, it is well within the Estimate; but the topic to which I next pass—namely, the comparison with the preceding year—re-quires a little closer investigation. The Expenditure of 1880–1 was£83,180,000; the Expenditure of 1881–2 was£85,472,000, showing an augmentation of£2,365,000. But, in order that the House may understand the position of these two years relatively to other years, and of the second year relatively to the first, it is right that I should mention to them what was the amount of special War Charges connected with various subjects of policy which have been repeatedly before the House, and which came upon both of these years. I will give the particulars for the two years—first, for the year 1880–1; and, secondly, for the year 1881–2. In 1880–1 the Charge on account of the Transvaal was£656,000 in connection with warlike operations in that country;£446,000 of that sum was on account of the Army, and£210,000 on account of the Navy. The Charge imposed upon that year in re-

  1275
  spect of the debt created by an arrangement shortly before we came into Office, for the purpose of getting rid in a small number of years of the debt of£6,000,000, contracted a few years ago for purposes connected with the War between Russia andTurkey—that Charge—namely, the charge of the Annuity by which the debt is to be extinguished—was in 1880–1£1,129,000. There was also a Loan of£2,000,000 contracted by my Predecessor in Office, and advanced without interest to India. The Charge in respect of that Loan in 1880–1 was£62,000. Besides, there was a Vote of£500,000 asked by the present Government from the House in aid of Indian Finance, and voted before the expiration of the financial year to which I am referring. The whole of these special Charges for the year 1880–1 was£2,347,000. In the year 1881–2 those Charges underwent a considerable increase. The Transvaal Army Charge was£1,066,000; the Transvaal Navy Charge was£303,000; and the Transvaal Civil Charge, for expenses which it was necessary to contract in connection with the re-transfer of the Civil Government, was£400,000; or in all, on account of the Transvaal,£1,769,000. The Charge in respect of the£6,000,000 Vote of 1878 was, for the year 1881–2,£1,350,000. The Charge for the Indian Loan was£88,000; and the Charge for the Grant in Aid of Indian Finance on account of the Afghan War, was, as before,£500,000. There was also a small special Vote for the Zulu War, to liquidate the account of£135,000; making the total amount of the special War Charges for the year 1881–2,£3,842,000, instead of£2,347,000. There was thus an excess of the War Charges for that year over those of 1880–1 of£1,495,000. That, however, still leaves an increase of Expenditure of between£800,000 and£900,000. I will not attempt minutely to explain that excess. The House is aware that some classes of increase in our Expenditure may be called normal, and that some classes of increase even represent a corresponding profit. Among what are commonly called normal augmentations are such augmentations as those in the Education Vote, and among those which are usually connected with a corresponding increase of profit are the very heavy and large augmentations of
  1276
  expenditure for the cost of establishments and buildings in connection with the Postal and Telegraph Services. In the particular case I refer to, the increase in the Postal and Telegraph Services for 1881–2 over the former year was£317,000. The cost of the Census was£140,000; the cost of the increased Education Estimates was£140,000; and the special Expenditure connected with the state of Ireland, partly for the increase of Constabulary and partly otherwise, was£190,000. These sums account for nearly£800,000 of the augmentation which I have pointed out to the House. It is not necessary to pursue the matter into more detail. Well, then, Sir, having compared the Expenditure with the Estimate, and having compared it with the Expenditure of the previous year, I have next to compare it with the Revenue of the year. That account will not be found to offer a very brilliant result; but, at the same time, it is so far a satisfactory result that the balance is on the right side. The Income for the year was£85,822,000, and the Expenditure£85,472,000; so that there is a small Surplus of Income over Expenditure amounting to£350,000. It is a matter of interest to compare the Revenue of the year with the Estimate of what that Revenue will be, because it tends to throw light on a subject to which I have referred—namely, the languid manner in which the Revenue is at present recovering from a state of depression. The subject, however, in one of its branches leads into discussions of very great moral and social interest, although they are discussions impossible at the present moment to lead to anything like a demonstrative result. Comparing the Revenue with the Estimates of the year, I find that the Customs, which were estimated to yield£19,180,000, yielded£19,287,000; the Excise, estimated to yield£27,444,000, yielded£27,240,000; Stamps, estimatedat£12,290,000, yielded£12,260,000; the Taxes, estimated at£2,760,000, yielded£2,725,000; and the Income Tax, estimated at£9,540,000, yielded the unexpectedly large amount of£9,945,000. I take all these items together, adhering to the practice—the convenient practice which has now been established for some years—of distinguishing between the Tax Revenue of the country and the non-Tax Revenue—

  1277
  between that which is derived directly and that which is derived indirectly from taxes. I find that the Tax Revenue, estimated at£71,210,000, yielded£71,457,000; an excess, although a very small excess, which I wish to bring under the notice of the House in connection with the present state of our relations between trade and industry on the one hand and the Exchequer on the other. Coming to those portions of the Revenue not derived from taxes, they stand more favourably on the whole. The Post Office, estimated to yield£6,800,000, yielded£7,000,000; Telegraphs, estimated to yield£1,600,000, yielded£1,630,000; the Crown Lands, estimated at£390,000, owing to difficulties connected with agricultural depression on a limited scale, yielded£380,000; the interest on Advances and other moneys included under the same head, estimated at£1.200,000, yielded£1,219,000; and the Miscellaneous Items, estimated at£3,900,000, yielded£4,136,000. Upon the whole, the non-Tax Revenue, estimated at£13,890,000, yielded£14,365,000; and the total Revenue of the country, estimated at£85,100,000, yielded£85,822,000; or an excess of£722,000 over the amount at which it had been taken at the commencement of the financial year. It has been my practice for a good many years to give the House what is necessarily a rough Estimate, but still an Estimate, on a matter of great importance—namely, an Estimate of the real increase, or the real augmentation, of the Revenue, because the accounts of the Revenue, as published, are not sufficiently clear, and those who are conversant with the subject are well aware that they are not always a safe guide to the rapid conclusions which some writers and observers are apt to arrive at from a rough inspection of them. I want, then, but not at any great length, to compare the Tax Revenue of 1880–1 with the Tax Revenue of 1881–2; but, of course, in order to make that comparison just, I must introduce certain rectifications to insure that I am dealing with exactly the same elements. The Tax Revenue of 1880–1 stood at£69,814,000. But then there was a sum of no less than£1,320,000, which was arrested on its way to the Exchequer, being part of the receipt of the Malt Tax Duty, which in due and regular course was employed to dis-
  1278
  charge the claim of the malsters for drawback. Therefore, adding that sum, which I suppose to have been arrested, for the purpose of comparison, to the Revenue of 1881, the addition gives a total of£71,134,000. But now I have to make an addition on the other side; and I have to make a deduction, for the purposes of comparison, because in that year we received a very large sum from the imposition of an additional 1d. on the Income Tax, a sum estimated at£1,460,000. I do not, however, take the whole of that sum, because about£400,000 of the produce of that 1d. may be considered to have been also enjoyed by the year just expired. I, therefore, deduct£1,060,000, which leaves the Revenue for 1880–1, for the purposes of comparison, at£70,074,000. The Tax Revenue of 1881–2standsat£71,457,000; but then it was augmented by two sums, one connected with the change in the Spirit Duties, and another connected with the change in the Probate and Legacy Duties, which were estimated to add to the Revenue£575,000, although they did not add quite so much. Therefore, deducting that sum for the purpose of comparison, it leaves the Tax Revenue of 1881–2 at£70,887,000. Deducting there from the Tax Revenue of 1880–1—£70,074,000—I have a residue of£813,000, which, as nearly as I am able to estimate, indicates to the House the true increase in the Revenue of the country from the same sources in the two years respectively. It is rather remarkable how closely that increase corresponds with the increase of population. The increase of the population is something over 1 per cent. This augmentation in the Tax Revenue is also something over 1 per cent. This is not the representation of a very bad year, neither is it the representation of a very good year, because in a fat year we ought to be able to do something more than merely keep pace with the increase of population, in order to make up for the deficit of the lean years in former times. The sum of£813,000 may be said to exhibit the true increase of the Revenue from the same sources and under the same supposed conditions of law. But I must not pass from this portion of the subject without adverting to those points in which changes have been introduced into the law, although there is only one of them upon which I

  1279
  shall have occasion to dwell. The first I shall mention is a subject on which no change has been introduced into the law, although I have been exceedingly desirous to introduce a change. That is the Duty on Silver Plate. There are two reasons that would recommend the abolition of that duty. The first and the special reason is the very great anxiety entertained by the Indian Government that that duty should, if possible, be removed, they believing it to be a very serious hindrance to the introduction of silver goods from India, and being under the belief admitted by all the authorities of this country, who, of course, speak with considerable weight, that a large trade would probably take place in the introduction of silver goods from India if the duty were abolished. But a more general reason, undoubtedly, recommends the abolition of this duty—namely, that it perplexes the market, and places transactions in new and in old plate on an embarrassed footing relatively, and inflicts much greater mischief in the limitation of industry, and possibly tends to lower the standard of our manufactured silver goods, while obstructing the progress of taste in design; these being objections which cannot at all correspond with any benefit derived from that source by the Revenue. Then, when it is said, "Why not abolish the duty? "—the abolition of the duty raises the formidable question of drawback; and the question of drawback is far more formidable, and far more difficult, and I will even Bay, in my opinion, far more questionable than it is in regard to any other Excise commodity whatever. Whenever this duty is abolished, if no drawback is given, at least the producers of silver goods in this country must be heard and their arguments considered. I am not prepared to make any proposal in this direction at the present time. As the House is aware, I have no Revenue to give away. The sum is not large enough, and, therefore, is not worth considering in that way. But I am not prepared to propose a drawback on silver goods; and, on the other hand, I doubt whether the trade is sufficiently lively and progressive to enable it to meet the change, or, at any rate, to make it content to meet the change without a drawback. The House will understand that, in this case, the draw-
  1280
  back is extreme; I conceive it in principle to be disputable. Our rule is this. We give drawbacks upon Excisable commodities, but not on every commodity that has not yet reached the hands of the consumer, and only upon Excisable commodities, so far as we can get at them, in the hands of the wholesale dealer, where we have distinct cognizance of those commodities, and where we can know what we are about. But there is no such cognizance in the case of silver goods. When the duties are once paid on the goods they are distributed over the whole country, and the claim to drawback is a claim which, in this instance alone, is made on behalf of the retail dealer. The amount of that drawback would not be a large sum in itself; but still it is extremely large with reference to the revenue in question—from£50,000 to£60,000 a-year—and the drawback, if it were given, would not be less than three or four times that revenue. That forms a very awkward combination of circumstances on which to give it consideration. I do not myself, upon the whole, incline to believe that the consideration of drawback is applicable to the subject at all. It may be necessary to wait for a more favourable opinion before a change can be made; but it cannot be made now. I do not in the least degree grudge parting with the revenue, and I have adverted to the question now in order that it may be well understood in India that we are really desirous of making progress. But I am not prepared, as at present advised, to face the question of drawback, beset as it is with difficulty formidable relatively to the Revenue; while, in my opinion, there is no sound reason for making an exception in this case. Another subject of change last year, on which I need not dwell, was a rectification of a small differential charge made upon foreign spirits. It was demonstrated that that charge was in excess, and would operate as a protective duty. It required re-adjustment, and the re-adjustment was made. It was estimated to produce about£180,000 a-year, and it has produced, as far as I can judge, about that amount. A more important change was made in relation to the Legacy and Probate Duty. It did not dispose of the whole of the Legacy and Probate Duty, but it circumscribed and simplified that subject.

  1281
  It got rid of most of the collateral points relating to it; but it left for the consideration of the House the very grave and serious question which, no doubt, will some day come under consideration—namely, what is known as the "consanguinity scale," which makes the State distribute the tax upon succession and legacies according to the degree of proximity to the testator—whether that system of differentia is a sound system, or whether it is the business of the State to take an equal tax and leave it to the testators themselves to regulate their own proceedings under their own wills, and distribute their property with the full knowledge of what the law requires of them? But the change made last year failed to produce the whole revenue that was expected from it. It was estimated to produce£390,000; it has produced only£305,000. The Committee is aware that these duties are extremely variable; and, although it seems paradoxical to say it, they are greatly affected by the accident of seasons. One year there may be enormous fortunes falling in, and in another year there may be comparatively small sums. Indeed, the Revenue Department, when I called upon them to explain why we had not got the whole return that we expected, gave me a variety of causes, among them being the extremely mild character of the season, in consequence of which the grim monster, Death, had had but an indifferent harvest, and the Probate and Legacy Duty suffered in proportion. There was another cause—namely, this, that there was some rush to pay Probate Duty last year before the change came into effect. With regard to the changes introduced into the law, I can report very favourably indeed. According to the old practice, as the Committee knows, estates were admitted to probate without any deduction for debts. The duty was levied at once without that deduction. After the debts had all been paid and settled by a difficult process, which, no doubt, yielded abundant pickings to the Legal Profession, the duty, as far as regarded the debts, was returned. That system was a bad one, and is now entirely got rid of. The debts are deducted at once, without introducing any confusion into the operation of the law. I can give a curious instance of the effect of this. Not long ago a gentleman died, with an estate of£900,000; but he
  1282
  was not so rich as he seemed, because his debts were£900,000. Under the old law,£21,250 would have been paid and held for a certain time by an ingenious title in respect of that estate. As it was, nothing was paid whatever, and the parties were saved from a great deal of expense, as well as from the burden of a large and heavy payment. Another important change, which I endeavoured to explain fully at the time, was the change by which we not only imposed a low duty upon small estates, but undertook to manage the whole transaction by the officers of the Revenue, upon the payment of 30 s. Every person having to deal with an estate under£300 in value may now put the matter in the hands of a Revenue officer, and receive the whole proceeds of the estate without any further charge whatever. It was a very common thing for persons in that predicament to have to pay£10,£20,£30, and even more, for the necessary expenses connected with the settlement of the estate; and I think I am justified in saying that the change we have introduced has been found to be a very great boon indeed. There is another small matter which tells the other way, in as much as I am afraid the gains will be insignificant; but they will be undoubtedly just. We abolish absolutely the absurdity of the law in exempting legacies under£20, from which there has grown up a practice of making a multitude of bequests of 19 guineas. These bequests, be it known to all and sundry whom it may concern, will not pass in future without paying duty. One of these bequests was left by a man whose estate reached several hundred thousand pounds to one of the wealthiest men in the country. There was no reason why that man should not be called upon to submit to the ordinary deduction without making a wry face. There is another point in regard to which some apprehension was not unnaturally felt. The Committee will remember there was some fear that by lightening the Legacy Duty, by taking off 1 per cent in case of direct descent, and making a corresponding increase in the Probate Duty, embarrassment would be caused to executors owing to the earlier payment of the Probate Duty. I am assured that no difficulty whatever has been experienced upon that subject, and that the working of the measure has

  1283
  been in all respects satisfactory. But a larger question, and one which deserves consideration, partly as being of much importance to a very extended trade, and partly as of great social and moral interest, was the change in the Beer Duty. I will first state how the proceeds of that change stand, only premising that, as regards all the difficulties which at one time used to be considered insuperable with respect to the levying of a Beer Duty, they have entirely vanished. Great credit, in my opinion, is due to the skilful Department which conducts the business on the part of the State; but the very highest credit is also due to the members of the trade, who, so far from opposing themselves through a blind adherence to past traditions to an exceedingly important and drastic change, entered into the spirit of it, and gave every assistance to the officers of the Revenue. The consequence is that the Beer Duty is universally levied with certainty and with facility, and, I believe, with general satisfaction to the trade, so far as the mere levying of the duty is concerned. Let me say a word on the subject of the amount. The Estimate which I gave last year for the Beer Duty was £8,800,000, and the Committee will be good enough to bear in mind that this is the first complete year in which we have had to deal with the Beer Duty. The year 1880–1 was a mixed year, and, therefore, is not available for purposes of comparison, because it consisted of half Malt Tax and half Beer Duty. This is a year of Beer Duty, and of nothing but Beer Duty. I mentioned that the levying of the tax had been perfectly satisfactory. I ought to have said, also—for it is a matter which may, undoubtedly, be looked at from different points of view—that the change has worked favourably and well in regard to the practice of private brewing. It has not extinguished the practice. The number of licences taken out is very large; no less than £46,000 has been received from those licences, the enormous majority of which are taken at only 6s. a-piece, so that the Committee will see what a large number of persons avail themselves of the facilities afforded for private brewing. I was certainly wrong in estimating the Revenue which I anticipated would be derived from the change. We estimated, as I have said, the total produce of the Beer Duty for
  1284
  the year at £8,800,000. That Estimate was taken rather high, in partial deference to the estimates made by gentlemen connected with the trade. They felt so great a confidence in the view they presented as to the mode in which we had tried to extend the law for the benefit of the Exchequer, and the weight due to their knowledge and experience was so considerable, that a small addition was made to the Estimate merely out of deference to them, there being some uncertainty as to the results of the change. The Estimate had been taken at £8,800,000; the actual yield has been £8,580,000.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Does that include the licence?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Yes; the licence, which amounted to £4 6,000, is included, and the actual yield is £220,000 short of the Estimate. The Estimate of the Revenue Department would have been very close indeed, but for the circumstances which I have mentioned. The Committee will be anxious to compare the proceeds of the Beer Duty with those of the old Malt Duty. If we compare the yield of the Beer Duty of the year just expired with the Malt Duty, then, indeed, we appear to have made marked progress, because the last complete year of the Malt Duty, and the last year of the finance of the late Administration, was the year 1879–80, when the product of brewing, in all its forms, malt, sugar, and licences, yielded £7,737,000, so that we appear to have gained £843,000. But that is entirely fallacious, because the barley harvest in 1879 was so bad, and the depression of trade was so great, that there is no fair standard of comparison. I have taken, therefore, for the purpose of comparison, the six preceding years of the Malt Duty; and I find that the average revenue from the Malt Duty, together with the sugar used in brewing, and the licences for the average of the six preceding years, from 1873 to 1879, was £8,672,000—that is, that the Malt Duty, upon an average of years, produced £92,000 a-year more than we have got out of the Beer Duty on the first full year of the duty. Effectively there is, in point of fact, for the time, a small diminution. Now, we do not allege that that diminution is in any degree due to having pitched the Beer Duty too low, in

  1285
  comparison with what the Malt Duty had been; but I will advert to that question in a moment or two. We look for an explanation to other circumstances, some of them circumstances of great interest. But I must meet the allegation which is made on the other side. It is still stated with confidence by the other side—namely, by the great brewers of the country, who represent and speak for the entire trade—that we have pitched the Beer Duty too high, and that we have received fully 2s. a-quarter more in the shape of Beer Duty upon the quarter of barley used in brewing than we received formerly from the Malt Duty. Happily it is always a very great advantage when there is no serious dispute upon the fact. Upon the whole, we do not deny that statement. We plead guilty to the soft impeachment so far—that, to an amount, at any rate, closely approaching to 2s., we received that profit; but we contend that we are entitled to that profit, and upon that subject there is a friendly argument being carried on in the best possible humour between the members of the trade and ourselves. We point out, what is a known fact, that, under the Malt Duty, the peculiar method in which the duty was levied—and this is an allegation admitted on both sides—gave the brewer a certain advantage, and enabled him to contract his debt with perfect honour, and without the slightest reproach to him, but simply from the mode in which the law had been worked; and it enabled him to pay a duty somewhat less than the duty was, on the face of it, intended to be—that is to say, in consequence of the quantity of malt which he made out of a given quantity of barley, and of the mode in which the duty was levied, which was mainly on the barley, and not on the malt. I take it that the advantage which he got in that way was about 8d. in a quarter, and that is a moderate estimate of the advantage which he gained, and which we contend—although it is no reproach to him that he has enjoyed it—Parliament was entitled, and even bound in duty, to withdraw. Of course, as long as the Malt Duty existed, the maltster, who had to pay the duty, was compelled to take a profit upon the duty, just as he was compelled to take a profit on the short price that he paid for malt. The abolition of the Malt Duty relieved the
  1286
  trade of the charge of 10 d. a-quarter, and that accounts for 1s. 6d. out of the 2s. that are in contest between us. Besides that, we always say that as we were relieving the trade from the compulsory regulations of the old law, which instructed every maltster, and which compelled every maltster, to build his malt kilns, and to shape the details of his premises in a particular way—not allowing him to choose what was best for his trade, but compelling him to raise his buildings according to what was deemed necessary for our security in levying the duty—we say that an advantage is derived from the abolition of these restrictions, and of other restrictions which were imposed by the law for the purpose of Excise. Those restrictions, now that they are gone, are estimated very lightly; but it is a matter of historical interest to go back to the period when the maltsters had to make good their case, not for a protective duty, but for an equivalent duty, and a compensating duty against foreign malt; and in those days, now perhaps forgotten, they steadily maintained, and were supposed to have proved to the satisfaction of the Government, that the tax imposed by these restrictions of Excise was a burden upon them to the extent of 1s. 9½d. a-quarter. That 1s. 9½d. has now almost wholly—I believe I might say has wholly—disappeared. One of the differences to which I have previously referred has been a gain, which we distinctly say we are entitled to. I do not know what effect time may have had in disposing our friends—if I may be permitted to call them so, and I do not know why they should not be our friends—to recede from the claim which they made to this difference of nearly 2s. a-quarter in the Beer Duty, as compared with the Malt Duty. The other subject is a subject of a very wide and general interest, and the detail of it is, I should say, really a very curious detail. Obviously, as I have admitted, we get nearly 2s. a-quarter in the Beer Duty, as compared with the old Malt Duty; and as I have also shown that, notwithstanding the increase of population, our receipt from Beer Duty is less by £90,000 than the average receipt from the old Malt Duty in the years between l873 and 1879, I represent the state of facts in which there is some collapse somewhere. Is

  1287
  that collapse due to any alteration in the habits and practices of the people? According to the Board of Inland Revenue and their officers, whom I consider to be good authorities on the subject, they do not exclude that supposition; but they do not look to it as the main cause. They say that although employment in the country is general, yet wages have not yet reached, the full average level, and, undoubtedly, have not reached anything like the level which they reached in the years of prosperity between 1873 and 1879, although they fell at the close of that period. They also observe—and I have no doubt there is something in this—that last year in the cider counties there was a very great abundance of fruit, and a very large consumption of cider. Then comes another fact—the great increase of coffee-houses and clubs, which lead to the supposition that the more temperate habits of the people are the cause of this deficiency in the Revenue. I think the House will deem it quite worth their while to spend a few minutes in endeavouring to get as accurate information as we can upon this subject, and to put ourselves in a position to estimate fairly the influences which are at work. We have a group of simultaneous facts which, taken together, are curious, and which do not all run quite in the same direction. In the first place, there is a very decided decline of the drink revenues proper. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) approves of that term "drink revenues." It is something disparaging, and that, I am sure, will be agreeable to his feelings. I have got here a statement of the revenue derived from spirits, wine, malt, and beer, with the attendant Licence Duties and so forth, at three separate periods. I have taken 1867–8, which was before the great rise of prices; 1874–5, when that rise of prices and wages was still, on the whole, in operation; and 1881–2, the last financial year. The entire revenue from these sources in 1867–8 was £23,001,000. In 1874–5 the revenue had sprung to £31,029,000. In 1881–2 it had gone back to £28,444,000. The most curious circumstance in this is the history of the Wine Duties. The wine revenue advanced from the time of the important change in the duties in 1860 in a very steady manner for a great number of years, and in 1874–5 it was
  1288
  £1,719,000; so that with our duties on wine, varying from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a-gallon, we were deriving about the same revenue as we had been accustomed to receive with a uniform duty of 5s. l0 d. a-gallon. But ever since that time the duty upon wine has been receding in a much greater proportion than other revenues from alcoholic liquors. The total of these revenues fell from £31,029,000 to about £28,500,000, or, roundly, they fell by about one-eighth; but the duty on wine fell from £1,719,000 to £1,366,000, or by more than one-fifth. However, there is the fact that there is a great diminution, notwithstanding the large increase of population between 1867 and 1881—an increase in the population which could not be less than 4,000,000 people. The gross revenue from these sources, which had risen to £31,029,000 in 1874, fell by more than £2,500,000, with an increase of population between 1874–5 and 1881–2 of considerably over 2,000,000 people. It is also rather curious to take the proportion in which we have been dependent on this source of the Revenue of the country; and I have compared the liquor taxation of the country, as I would call it, with the non-liquor taxation—meaning by the non-liquor taxation all the Tax Revenue of the country except the Income Tax, which I do not include on account of its frequent variation; but I put on one side the taxation derived from alcoholic liquors, and on the other side the taxes derived from all other sources except the Income Tax. Taking the percentage on that basis, they stand as follows. In the six years from 1859 to 1865 we levied 37½ per cent of our taxation from alcoholic drinks, and 62 per cent from nonalcoholic drinks. In the three years from 1866 to 1868 we levied 42 per cent from alcoholic drinks, and 57½ per cent from all other sources. In the five years from 1869 to 1873 we levied 46£ per cent from alcoholic drinks—the Committee will, perhaps, observe that the percentage is continually mounting—and 53J per cent from all other sources. Prom 1874–5 to 1879–80 we levied 51 per cent of our whole taxation, except Income Tax, from alcoholic drinks, and 49 per cent from all other sources. That is a very curious state of facts. Since the last period I have named there has been some re-action. I have carried the

  1289
  comparison up to 1879–80; but during the last three years re-action has begun, and the alcoholic revenue has gone down to 46½ per cent, and the non-alcoholic revenue has risen to 53½ per cent, showing a real and serious diminution in the consumption of alcohol. Then you will say—"If that diminution is going on, which you have shown to be so considerable, and if the main cause of it is to be found in those useful and valuable institutions "—to be met with, I believe, in most of our great towns and in many country places, and known all over the country as coffee and cocoa houses—"we ought to see a large increase of Revenue from the other sources." But, Sir, that increase we do not find. It is a very curious fact, and therefore I mention it to the Committee. The Committee will perceive the effect of this upon tea; but I will not include that now, because tea is not much used in these public institutions. The revenue derived in 1867–8, jointly—I will not give all the details—from chicory, cocoa, and coffee, was £523,000. The revenue derived from the same sources in 1874–5 had fallen to £310,000 But, in the first place, the movement adverse to alcoholic liquors had not then commenced; and, in the second place, a large reduction had been made in the Coffee Duty, which, in 1867, yielded £390,000—it was reduced in 1872 from 3d. to l½d. per lb.—and which, in 1874, only yielded £207,000. It is worthy of remark that, whereas this great movement, adverse to alcohol and so eminently favourable to coffee and cocoa, has been at work since 1874–5, it has not produced the slightest rally in the revenue from coffee; but, on the contrary, during the last seven years, there has been a further diminution in the coffee revenue. In 1874 the Coffee Duty was £207,000; in 1881 it was only £189,000; and although the Chicory Duty slightly increased, it only increased by £8,000, and did not make up the whole difference. The Cocoa Duty increased from£40,000to£46,000; but the joint yield of these three articles, which in 1874 was £310,000, was only £306,000 in 1881. When we turn to tea the case is indeed different. My own opinion is that not a very great deal of tea is consumed in the tea houses; yet its domestic use is advancing at such a rate that there undoubtedly is a powerful champion able to encounter
  1290
  alcoholic drink in a fair field, and contest the ground in fair fight. The revenue from tea, which in 1867 was £3,350,000, had risen in 1874 to £3,878,000, and in 1881 to £4,280,000. The increase of the population during that period of 14 years was no less than £4,900,000; but there is no corresponding augmentation in the revenue from coffee and. chicory. I am bound to say that there is a peculiar state of the law to which, I think, we ought to ask the House to apply a remedy, and I shall lay a Resolution on the Table of the House this very evening with that view. At present, every description of admixture with coffee is permitted; and we have long proceeded on the principle that the admixture of chicory with coffee was not adulteration—that it was an admixture so rooted in the estimation of many countries, that many people—those of France and Belgium for instance—would not drink their coffee without it. But of late a practice has grown up of producing all kinds of substitutes, under the name of coffee—roots and berries—and that I cannot but think must account for the strange and singular state of the figures I have laid before the Committee. We shall not attempt to interfere with the admixture of chicory with coffee; but we propose that it should not be allowed to introduce other miscellaneous admixtures with coffee. There is one other circumstance in connection with this state of facts and this great diminution in alcoholic drinks which I am anxious to lay before the Committee; for certainly I do not hesitate to say that I think the Committee will agree with me that we can trace the operation of this diminution in the use of alcoholic drinks precisely where we should wish to trace it—that is, in the augmented savings of the people. Now, Sir, I will show what those savings are so far as they come under the cognizance of Her Majesty's Government. Of course, what does come under the direct cognizance of the Government is, I hope, a very small portion of those savings; but, at the same time, for the purpose of comparison, that small portion is perfectly effective. I look first to the Old Savings Banks, and I find these have fluctuated a good deal. In 1846 the deposits amounted to £31,750,000; in 1861 they had risen to £41,500,000; in 1867, perhaps owing

  1291
  to the competition of the Post Office Savings Banks, which paid a considerably lower rate of interest, they had fallen to £36,500,000. Since that time they have been advancing not rapidly, but to this extent. In 1S74 the deposits were £41,500,000; and in 1881 they were £44,175,000, showing an annual increment of about £350,000. The Post Office Savings Banks, as the Committee is aware, were founded in 1861. They have advanced, on the whole, with very great regularity. Even the most unfavourable state of circumstances amongst the labouring classes has never done more than reduce—not inconsiderably, but still not vitally—not the amount of deposits, but the increment upon the yearly amount of deposits. The ordinary increment in the Post Office Savings Banks' deposits has been from £1,600,000 to £1,800,000. The lowest amount for any year in the first decade of their existence was £1,533,000, and the highest was £1,926,000. The lowest year in the second decade was 1879, when there was great distress and want of employment, and even in that year the deposits amounted to £1,600,000. In the highest of the prosperity years—1872—the savings rose to £2,293,000; but there is no doubt that the wages of the labouring classes are much lower at this moment than they were in that year. And yet, although wages are now lower than in 1872, the deposits made in the Post Office Savings Banks have risen even higher than they were then, and I take them thus. The deposits made there, and remaining there, are now £2,449,000, or nearly £2,500,000. Besides that, we have invested for depositors £750,000; so that the whole sum placed in our hands by the depositors—although a portion has passed into the Funds—in the year 1881–2, with a great diminution of means on the part of the labouring population, has risen to £3,189,000. I think this shows that, whatever other effects this diminution of the duty on spirits is producing, it is clearly associated with the gradual extension of more saving habits amongst the people. I pass now from these subjects altogether; and I have only to state, in a very few words, what it has now become customary to lay before the Committee—namely, the aggregate operations upon the National Debt in the course of the
  1292
  year; and I do so now, because if they look at the figures that should be presented in a Parliamentary Return they might possibly fail to grasp the exact state of the case. The Debt was returned on the 31st of March, 1881, at £768,703,000. But there was an item existing at that time which had never been valued or reduced to figures—that was the deficiency in the funds of the Savings Banks, which we are bound, notwithstanding, to make good. Since the 31st of March, 1881, that deficiency has been ascertained, and an Annuity adequate to gradually diminishing it has been created. We now, therefore, value that Annuity as part of the Debt, just like any other Annuity; and, of course, we must add it to the Debt existing on the 31st of March, 1881, for the purpose of comparison with the amount of the Debt on the 31st of March, 1882. The value of that Annuity is £1,622,000. Adding that sum to the Debt as it stood in March, 1881, the total effective Debt was £770,325,000. The total on the 31st of March, 1882, was £763,166,000, so that the reduction of Debt in the year when the liquidation took place is £7,159,000. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Is that Debt of all kinds?] That is Debt of all kinds. There still remains a small subject which has not been dealt with, but which will have to be dealt with this year or next—namely, the small deficiency on the Friendly Societies' Account. I need not, however, refer to that in detail. I may say, also, that last year I proposed to make a conversion of Capital Debt into Annuities for the purpose of preparing for the year 1885, when a large portion of Annuities would lapse. I intend again to bring in that Bill during the present Session, if the state of Public Business should be favourable to it. But it is not a matter of extreme urgency, and it might be introduced next year without any essential difference. Therefore, I shall proceed with it this Session only if the state of affairs renders it advisable to introduce the Bill. I come now to the year 1882–3, which is no longer retrospective, but prospective, and relates to the practical portion of the subject with which we have to deal. The Committee will not, I think, expect me to offer them any very brilliant or alluring prospect, after what I have already said. I am now going,

  1293
  as is usual, to estimate the Expenditure for the year 1882–3. The total Charge of the Debt, including Interest on Local Loans and Charges on the Consolidated Fund, will be £31,415,000. The Charge for the Army is £15,458,000; Indian Home Charges amount to £1,100,000; and the Charges on account of the Navy to £10,484,000. We shall again ask the House to vote a Grant to India, as last year, which will entail a further Charge of £500,000. The expenses of the Civil Service will be £16,503,000—I am now going on the Estimates which are already in the possession of the House—the Customs and Inland Revenue charges of collection will be £2,901,000; which, with £5,889,000 for the Post Office, Telegraph, and Packet Services, makes a total of £84,258,000. But I am sorry to say that does not entirely close the account, because there are three or four items remaining, of which I must mention three of a serious character. The Committee will understand that in Ireland, owing to the circumstances of the last two or three years, the extra duties cast upon the Irish Constabulary have been extremely heavy. I cannot refer to this subject without stating my belief that the experience of that period has tended to raise even the high character of that Force. I am aware there are opinions entertained by some on the subject of having another description of Constabulary Force in Ireland; but into those opinions I do not now enter. As to the conduct of that Force, its fidelity and efficiency upon the footing of its present organization, I believe it is impossible to commend it too highly. However, Sir, it is a fact, according to the examination which we have made, that with the great amount of extra duty entailed upon them, the extra allowances have been decidedly insufficient; and it will, therefore, be an obligation on us to ask Parliament, besides the sum named in the Constabulary Estimates, which are already on the Table of the House, to vote a further sum in order to make good the deficiencies in those allowances. I do not now say in what form that will be voted; but the amount has been pretty closely investigated by the representatives of the Irish Government, together with able representatives of the Treasury, and they have agreed that it must be a sum of about £180,000. This Bum it will be necessary to ask Parlia-
  1294
  ment to accord. Then, Sir, we have, unfortunately, to ask for a Tote of £100,000 in connection with the Prisons Act of a few years ago. I believe that when this Act was passed it was intended that the cost of conveying prisoners should be charged upon the counties; but, unhappily, it appears, according to the view of the Courts of Justice, that the Act does not give effect to that intention; and the consequence is we are called upon to pay the sum of arrears for the three years which have elapsed since the Act came into operation. Of course, there may be a question, which I do not enter into, whether the original intention of Parliament ought not to be fulfilled? Still, we have these arrears to deal with, and it will be our duty to ask Parliament, in the course of the present year, for the sum I have specified, representing the three years' arrears for the conveyance of prisoners. Well, Sir, the third subject of serious difficulty to which I have referred is one that will not sound over-musically in the ears of the Committee. It is the Vote for the Civil Government of Cyprus. The Civil Government of Cyprus has never been settled. A large sum was taken for this purpose last year—I think more than £90,000—but the season has been an extremely bad one, and the Committee will be aware that in Cyprus, just as it used to be in Corfu, if there comes a bad olive year, the Revenue of the year was ruined. Consequently, the deficiency of this year in Cyprus is even greater than usual. We have thought it our duty to have the matter carefully examined, and to provide for squaring the account, more especially as my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been engaged in organizing a scheme of government for Cyprus, which will introduce local influences into the Government, and give it something like regularity and efficiency. We shall be obliged to ask the House to vote, during the present Session, £90,000 for that purpose. Out of that sum £12,000 is due to the former year; but between £70,000 and £80,000 is the charge which we find actually existing. I think about £30,000 of that sum is due to the circumstance I have named—that is to say, the peculiarly unfavourable character of the season. The Committee will naturally ask whether they are to be called upon for a correspond-

  1295
  ing sum year after year. Well, Sir, my noble Friend has made the closest investigation of this subject in his power, and has ordered what, so far as he can judge, is a most stringent system of economy and retrenchment in the administration of affairs in Cyprus, and what he hopes to do—I am not going beyond our real expectation of the effect—is next year to get the Vote down to £40,000. That may not be pleasant; but it is my duty to tell an unvarnished tale, and let the Committee know how the case stands. Therefore, together with minor charges, this makes an increase of £380,000, and raises the total estimated Expenditure to £84,630,000. I think it is an essential part of my duty briefly to compare this, as well as I can, with the Expenditure of last year. As I have said, £84,630,000 is the total Charge before us. The Expenditure of last year, according to the Estimates, was £86,190,000; so there is an apparent reduction of charge to the extent of £1,560,000. But a large proportion of that reduction is only apparent, because the Military and Naval Estimates of this year are presented in a form in which credit is at once taken for extra receipts, instead of having them presented without that reduction, and bringing the extra receipts to account on the other side. The disturbance which is thus introduced into the Account represents a sum of £809,000, and the real reduction in the Estimates is, in consequence, reduced to £750,000. But the relief from War Charges has been much larger than that. The War Charges are still very considerable. We have still £1,460,000 on account of the five years' Annuity for the Vote of £6,000,000. We have £500,000 for the Afghan Vote, and I think about £120,000 this year on account of the Indian Loan. Still, the year is relieved in respect of War Charges, upon the whole, to the extent of £2,250,000, or, more exactly, £2,276,000. against which I am only able to state a reduction upon the Estimates of £751,000; and, therefore, I must tell the Committee what becomes of the difference of £1,500,000 between these two sums. Some part of that represents permanent increase, some part of it represents normal increase; but undoubtedly there are portions of it which I am not able to place under one description or the other. I could not give
  1296
  the Committee a minutely accurate statement; it would be idle to attempt it; but I think I can, with general clearness and accuracy, state the main facts. The augmentation as connected with the Government of Ireland this year will be no less than £430,000. The Constabulary Estimate is £139,000; the Constabulary further Estimate, £ 180,000; and Resident Magistrates, £12,000. The Land Court, established in Ireland, which we have offered to landlords and tenants, not free of all expense—for I am afraid that legal expense in connection with it cannot be annihilated—but almost entirely free of expense, so far as the Exchequer is concerned, imposes on the taxpayers of the Three Countries the heavy charge for the year of £93,000, which brings up the total of the Irish Votes for this year to the sum 1 have already stated of £4 30,000. There is an increase of about £90,000 on the Non-Effective Votes for the Army and Navy, which may be contemplated by the Committee without great dissatisfaction, because, as they are aware, it belongs essentially to the transition period between the old system of general pensions in the Service and the new system based on Reserves. We are, at present, in the unfortunate position of having to pay all the charges connected with the New Reserve system, and of having also approached the maximum connected with the old system of pensions for long service. I believe, in the course of two years, that process will be reversed, and a very considerable although gradual relief will be experienced. The Charge for the Postal and Telegraph Services has largely increased. I will not enter into the causes of that increase; but I think I ought to state, injustice to all parties, that great care appears to have been taken by the late Government in restraining the extension of the Establishment. The pressure since we came into Office has reached a point which is nearly irresistible; and although, I hope, the Post Office will go on increasing, yet the percentage of cost for collection of revenue, I am afraid, will show some increase also. There is an increase of £207,000 in the Post Office Charge for this year; there is the sum to which I have referred for the conveyance of prisoners; and there is a Charge, which may be contemplated with unmixed satisfaction, of £85,000 in the increased payments for the liquidation

  1297
  of the National Debt, of which you have had the fruit in the statement I have made of a reduction of nearly £7,000,000 of Debt in the course of two years. That accounts for £900,000 out of a sum of £1,500,000, which I have represented as the increase to be accounted for. Effectively, the great bulk of the remainder of that increase is Navy Charge, and is repersented by demands with which the Committee is familiar. There are the changes of armament, which cause an augmentation of £250,000 in the Vote for Guns. There is another sum of £100,000 in the Vote for Shipbuilding; and, whatever the amount for shipbuilding may be, I must say that we look forward with considerable confidence to economy in matters connected with building, and to the securing of greater results for our money, in consequence of the arrangements which have been sanctioned by the First Lord of the Admiralty for placing a gentleman of the highest skill and character, and well acquainted with the practical details of the Service, on the Board of Admiralty. I will not enter into the remainder of the augmentations; but they amount to £500,000. I hope I have laid clearly before the Committee the reasons why this £1,500,000 is required. If I am asked whether the Expenditure is deemed satisfactory, I am afraid my notions are too old-fashioned to allow me to view it with as much complacency as that with which it is viewed by others. I wish, however, to state the case impartially, and to point out that a considerable portion of the increase will not, I hope, be permanent. It is not connected with Offices of a permanent character, and more than half of it is either in itself good and normal, or of a character purely temporary; but I do not see in the country that great desire for the restriction of expenditure which characterized this country and all Parties 40 or 50 years ago. It is an evil, I think, that public vigilance on this subject should be diminished, and that the attitude of the House of Commons should have been so sensibly changed. I confess I have great doubts—I have not arrived at any conclusion on the subject—as to whether the system under which our Estimates are now framed upon the exclusive responsibility of the Government, and without any responsibility on
  1298
  the part of the House, is a good system. It is a very important subject for consideration. For my own part, although I have not arrived at any absolute conclusion, I am very dissatisfied with the working of the system, especially during the last 20 or 30 years. Sir, there are three principles, greater than all others, on which, in my opinion, all good finance should be based. The first of them is that there should always be a certainty that whatever the charge may be it can be paid. That, I believe, is of vital importance. The second is that, in times of peace and prosperity, the people of the country should reduce their Debt; and the third point is that they should reduce their Expenditure. With regard to the first point, we are at present fulfilling that condition; with regard to the second, we ought to do more in the direction indicated than we have actually done; but at the same time we are doing a good deal more than was usually done in a long series of years. I do not refer to recent years in particular, but to what has been done on the average during the last 25 years. With regard to the diminution of Expenditure, I sorrowfully admit that the contagion and sympathy of foreign countries necessarily affects us; and I should arrive at very different conclusions indeed, according to the standard of comparison which I might take. If I am to look to American ideas and institutions, and the extraordinary vigour, determination, and forethought, which the people of America show as a Democracy in providing for the future by reducing their Debt, and in resolutely enduring the most painful taxation—I do not speak now of Protective Duties—in order to set free their hands and relieve those who come after them, I say it is impossible to praise them too highly, and that a comparison with them would not redound greatly to our credit. Perhaps, having said that, and not wishing to take a too saturnine view of the matter, instead of looking westward we may look eastward, and consider what has happened in other countries of Europe. Even though we may somewhat bend to the storm, and may, to a certain extent, follow this fashion of large Expenditure, yet certainly we may derive the materials of comparative congratulation when we see the course which other great countries follow.

  1299
  There is one country in particular which cannot be named in this House without great respect and sympathy; first, on account of its eminence; and, secondly, on account of the close friendship and associations in which she stands with us. I allude to France. I do not believe that country will ever involve itself in any great financial difficulties, because such is the skill, industry, and thrift of her people, that the moment she becomes clearly aware of her difficulty she will surmount it. At the same time, if I take a sketch of the history of France and England during the last half century, we may see that the causes which have brought about a large increase in our own Expenditure have been causes that have not exclusively operated in this country. We have not doubled our gross Expenditure; but it has nearly doubled since the Peace of 1815. Our Tax Expenditure has also largely increased, although I am happy to say it has not nearly doubled. But the increase in the Expenditure of France has been greater and more rapid than our own; and I will put this before the Committee in very few and simple figures. Between 1814 and 1829 the Expenditure of France was £40,000,000 a-year, and she made no addition to her Debt. Between 1830 and 1847 the Expenditure of France rose to £51,000,000 a-year, and there was an average annual deficit of £2,250,000. I do not take the years from 1848 to 1851, because of the then unsatisfactory state of the country; but from 1852 to 1870, under the Empire, the average annual deficit had diminished, and I believe it was something between £2,000,000 and £1,500,000. But the Expenditure had enormously increased; and it is only fair to say that, in my judgment, it was the enlightened policy of au approach to Free Trade that enabled France to bear with willingness the enormous increase of Expenditure then imposed on her. The average Expenditure of France, which under the previous régime was £51,000,000, under the Empire reached £83,000,000. But a Budget has been presented to the French Chamber for the year 1883—as the Committee is aware, the French Budgets are presented in anticipation—which, I believe, shows an Expenditure of £120,000,000 sterling. Our Expenditure, therefore, becomes insignificant when we compare it with the portentous
  1300
  scale it has reached in a neighbouring country which is not more wealthy than our own. Now I pass to the Revenue of the year, and my task will be completed. The Tax Revenue of the year amounts to £69,850,000, and the non-Tax Revenue to £14,595,000, or a total of £84,445,000. The Tax Revenue is made up as follows:—Customs, £19,300,000; Excise, £27,230,000; Stamps, £11,145; LandTax,£l,035,000; Income Tax, £9,400,000. The non-Tax Revenue is made up of the Receipts from Post Office, Telegraphs, Crown Lands, Interest on Advances, and Miscellaneous, and amounts altogether to £14,595,000, making the total Revenue £84,445,000. But as there are certain items of Expenditure which are not yet before the House, so there are some items of Revenue which it has not been in our power to bring to account, but which are so closely in prospect and which stand on such a footing that it is my duty to state them to the House, and to take credit for them, as I have already done, in setting out the general finances of the year. There are two payments from South Africa, both of which I have already reckoned, although I did not mention them to the House when I spoke of the comparative relief from War Charges which the coming year will enjoy. There is a sum of £150,000, which the responsible Government of the Cape will propose on the Estimates for Cape Colony in liquidation of their liability in respect to the cost of the Transvaal War—undoubtedly a small and most moderate Estimate, but an Estimate which will readily be voted by the Cape Parliament. Then there is a sum of £250,000 which has been virtually raised in Natal on account of the Zulu War; and there is a sum of £90,000 which will come to the Exchequer in connection with Cyprus, but with regard to which, lest I should obtain, upon false pretences, cheers from some quarters in which there has recently been some dissatisfaction, I must state that it does not seem to be anything in the nature of a Cyprus receipt. We hold certain sums of money on account of Cyprus for the Porte. The Porte owes us and the French the payment of the dividends on the Guaranteed Turkish Loan of 1855. It has not been in the power of the Porte to supply all the money from her own resources; and,

  1301
  consequently, it falls to her to pay that money in the shape of deductions or stoppages from the Revenues of Cyprus. We are collectors on behalf of our friends across the Channel not less than for ourselves; and of this £90,000 one-half will pass through the British Exchequer and go across to the Exchequer of France. However there is a sum of £490,000 available for the balances of the year, which makes the grand total of Revenue for the year£84,935,000 as against a grand total of Expenditure of £84,630,000. There is, therefore, a surplus of £305,000. That is a very small and modest surplus; but it is a surplus with which, under the circumstances, we might be content to move onwards, provided only that it would be subjected to no deductions. But the House will recollect—and the hon. Member for the County of Oxford (Mr. Harcourt) will see that I have not forgotten him, and that I have not been unmindful of the pledge given at the commencement of the Session. The hon. Member then proposed to move a Resolution, in guarded and qualified terms, that some relief should be given to the rate papers of this country in respect to the charge which has been transferred to them through the abolition of turnpikes and the consequent augmentation of the highway rate. I then engaged on the part of the Government, but without pledging myself as to details, to propose something in conformity with the spirit of his Resolution. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that I have not yet presented any proposal in redemption of that pledge. The surplus of £305,000 is a surplus that will not bear diminution. At the time when I gave that pledge undoubtedly it was in my hope—perhaps it was too sanguine a hope—that we should be able to deal with the matter in a distinctive way and as part of a considerable settlement. I no longer am able to cherish that expectation. The prospect which we then thought was good of being able to carry through the House a Bill for the establishment of County Boards, and appending to it an important financial re-adjustment, has become quite hopeless, and we no longer expect to be able to introduce that measure. But I engaged myself to the hon. Member to endeavour, if possible, to detach this subject from any general scheme of legislation, and there remained open to
  1302
  us as a mode of honourably redeeming that pledge—and at the same time doing nothing to perplex future operations—it remained open to us to resort to some plan which, while partial in itself, and provisional in its general character, would be such as to fit in with any more enlarged scheme which might be considered hereafter when local government and financial re-adjustment should come to receive the definitive consideration of the House. Therefore, what we have thought is, not that this is an occasion on which to enter on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, or to contract any new engagement, but we have felt it to be our duty to ask the House to place us in funds so far that we may, at the proper time, when my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) can deal with the subject, be enabled to give a fair interpretation to the promise which was then passed across the Table of the House. We think it necessary for that purpose, for this year, to ask the House to give us a sum of £250,000 to go in relief of the rates in reference to highways; and after considering the various modes in which that money may be raised, we think that, on the whole, considering what is the nature of the grievance, and how it has arisen, and how, in the main, it turns on the very large use of the roads by those who do not contribute to their cost, the best course we can take is to ask the House to authorize a moderate addition to the duty upon carriages. The Licence Duty on carriages is a matter which has been dealt with very tenderly by Parliament. I do not now speak of hired carriages; but, after all, it is a grievance—and there can be no doubt about the facts—that the roads are used and worn by carriages. I am proposing this as a temporary operation. If it were a settlement of the entire question, it might be right to make a larger proposal; it might be right to consider the present total exemption of all wheeled vehicles, except what are called carriages, from taxes of any kind. I do not at all exclude that from prospective consideration, although it is not free from difficulty; but for the present we feel certain that when that question comes to be considered, it will have to be considered in conjunction with some augmentation of the present very moderate Licence Duty on

  1303
  carriages. The rates of Carriage Duties down to 1854, when I had the honour of proposing a change, were these:—Every four-wheeled carriage paid a minimum duty of £6; and in proportion as persons owned more than one carriage, the charge rose till it reached the case of a person with nine carriages, and he was liable to pay £9 1s. 6d. upon each carriage. It is true that that was qualified, to a considerable extent, by a composition; but the basis of that composition was an augmentation of 10 per cent on the minimum duty. The Committee will therefore see how very high the duty was; yet, at the same time, when in 1839 Lord Northbrook, then Mr. Baring, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, made an addition all round to the Assessed Taxes, it was found that there was hardly any perceptible effect produced so far as the Assessed Taxes were concerned. An addition of 5 per cent on consumable commodities was then made, but of 10 per cent on the Assessed Taxes, and that had no perceptible effect. So stood the duty till 1854, and then, on my proposal, the rates were reduced as follows:—Every four-wheeled carriage with two horses paid £3 10 s.; every four-wheeled carriage with one horse paid £2; and carriages with two wheels and two horses paid £2, or if they had only one horse they paid 15 s. and 10 s. The system was rather anomalous, and when Lord Sher-brooke, then Mr. Lowe, was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1869, he further reduced the duties. He reduced them to £2 for four-wheeled carriages, unless they were extremely light, and to 15 s. for two-wheeled carriages. Perhaps I ought here to say a word as to hired carriages. Hired carriages in that year, or shortly afterwards, were relieved from the very heavy Licence Duty they had formerly paid. I will not say that it is desirable that on hired carriages, such as omnibuses, there should be any duty; but, at the same time, the duty I shall propose is very trifling as regards a trade of that description, and the great relief to them has not been the reduction of the rate they now pay in common with private carriages, but in the abolition of the old Licence and Mileage Duty. What we propose is that the £2 2s. now paid by four-wheeled carriages shall be raised to £3 3s., and that the 15 s. paid on the two-wheeled
  1304
  carriages, or light four-wheeled carriages, shall be raised to 21 s. The computation made is that 150,000 carriages with four wheels, and over 4 cwt., paying £3 3s., will bring in £157,500; and 300,000 carriages with two wheels or four wheels, if under 4 cwt., paying 21 s., will bring in £90,000, or a total increase of £247,500, for which the House is asked in order to give effect to the sentiment contained in the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and accepted by the Government. The House will at once see that the account now before us is a very simple one. We have a surplus of £305,000, which we regard as the minimum with which we ought to enter on the operations of the year. The £247,000 which we propose to raise will bring that up to £552,000, which places us in funds to consider, when the proper time comes, any proposal which my right hon. Friend may be able to make, and which it will be his duty to make for the purpose of fulfilling the engagement into which we entered at the beginning of the Session. I have now only to refer in one word to a very easy and simple question of detail. The House will see that this humble Financial Statement raises but a single point of novelty. The usual Resolution for the renewal of the Income Tax and the Tea Duty will be moved, and there will be, as I have said, a Resolution relating to the adulteration and spurious representations of coffee. The Carriage Duty will also require a Resolution; but the House is aware that these Resolutions for licences are not like the old Resolutions on Customs and Excise, which took effect immediately on being voted. They do not take effect until the Act of Parliament of which they form a part shall have become the law of the land. I would, therefore, submit to the House what I think will be the most convenient course to pursue—namely, that we should be allowed to proceed with the Resolutions and with the preliminary stages of the Bill at once, or from day to day, and that such a day as shall be convenient shall be fixed for the discussion, either on the second reading or on the Motion to go into Committee. That is a matter upon which I shall be very happy to know what will best suit the convenience of the House; but I think there should be no difficulty in bringing the measure before the House in a de-

  1305
  finite shape, because it is advantageous, especially as to the Income Tax, that there should be no longer delay than is absolutely necessary. I hope I have made clear to the House, without any attempt at varnishing, or keeping in the shade, or suppressing anything in the Statement it has been my duty to make. I, for my part, am certainly most grateful for the kind and unbroken attention of the House; and I am sure the House will deal with the subject in that spirit of gravity and considerateness which all the important considerations, political, social, and moral, connected with it, and branching out of it, undoubtedly demand.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "(1.) That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for the year which commenced on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, the following Duties of Income Tax (that is to say):
  For every Twenty Shillings of the annual value or amount of Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A), (C), (D), or (E) of the said Act, the Duty of Five Pence;
  And For every Twenty Shillings of the annual value of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act,—
  In England, the Duty of Two Pence Halfpenny;
  In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Duty of One Penny Three Farthings;
  Subject to the provisions contained in section one hundred and sixty-three of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, for the exemption of persons whose income is less than One Hundred and Fifty Pounds, and in section eight of "The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1876," for the relief of persons whose income is less than Four Hundred Pounds."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may mention two particulars which may be of interest to those persons whom they affect. We do not propose that this increase in the Carriage Duty shall affect any vehicle for hire of which the fares are fixed under the authority of any Imperial or Local Act; and, further, we do not propose that the increase shall affect any carriages habitually and solely used by coach makers to be lent to their customers during repairs; and the mode in which
  1306
  that provision will take effect will he that they will have to claim a repayment of duty.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think it has not been useful, certainly not in late years, to enter upon any serious discussion of the Budget at the moment of its being presented, and although there are one or two points in connection with, and arising from, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, upon which I shall be glad, at the proper time, to offer some observations, I do not think there would be any advantage in departing from the usual course. I cannot help feeling that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made his interesting Statement at, I fear, some personal inconvenience to himself, though we must feel much pleased at seeing that he has been able to resume his place and go through the interesting speech to which we have been listening, and I hope without any serious injury. I only rise, therefore, to say that the course he proposes for the discussion of the measure appears to me, and to my friends around me, to be the most convenient for the House.
  MR. WILLSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had intimated, some two months ago, that no alteration was, on this occasion, to be looked for in the duties affecting tobacco, and, therefore, he had not to-night expected any statement upon that subject; but the decision at which the right hon. Gentleman had arrived had been received with so much disappointment throughout the United Kingdom, especially by the working classes—and the subject was one of such vast fiscal importance, affecting, as it did, about one-ninth of the total Revenue of the country—that he ventured to ask the indulgence of the House while he made a few observations in reference to the duties on that article. Between the years 1840 and 1877—during all the vicissitudes of bad harvests and bad trade—there were only five years in which the duties on tobacco exhibited anything like a decline. Throughout the whole of that period the manufactured tobacco supplied to the public was exceedingly good. In 1878 the financial embarrassments of the late Government compelled the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon

  1307
  (Sir Stafford North cote) to look about for some means of increasing his Revenue, and in that year he added the sum of 4d. on the pound, thus raising the duty from 3s. 2d. to 3s. 6d. The right hon. Gentleman stated at the time that his necessity was but a temporary one; but the House knew how easy it was to put on an additional tax on the plea of temporary necessity, and how long a period frequently elapsed before it was possible to repeal that addition. Fourpence on the pound of tobacco seemed to be an exceedingly simple arrangement, and only meant ¼d. on the ounce; but that was quite enough to disorganize the trade, which produced a Revenue last year of something like £8,750,000. He desired to show the House briefly how it affected the consumer and the Revenue. Of the entire amount received from the duty on tobacco, £6,500,000 were contributed by the working classes of the country, who purchased their tobacco by the ounce, or even by the half-ounce. During 30 years the uniform price had been 3d. per ounce. A farthing was theoretically a current coin of the Realm; but it was not a very practical coin, and, therefore, the question had been between making the price 3½d. the ounce, or adhering to the old price of 3d. It was obvious that when an advance in the duty took place it was utterly impossible to supply to the consumer the same quality as heretofore; in fact, the value of the article supplied was reduced to the extent of 4d. a pound. Allowing for variations in the price of the raw material, with a duty of 3s. 2d., there was never any difficulty in supplying tobacco suitable for the public taste. The years 1878, 1879, and 1880 were noted for their very large imports, and for the very low prices, which proved, in many cases, almost ruinous to the planters in the United States; but which enabled the English manufacturers partially to meet the additional duty imposed upon thorn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North cote). But those who looked ahead and understood the subject were well aware that one bad crop would make the trade almost impossible under the new duty. They had witnessed the effects of the bad crop of 1880. Stocks were reduced, prices were forced up—in many cases from 10 to
  1308
  even 20 per cent—and manufacturers whose capital was not large were failing; and, in his opinion, with the prospect of a bad crop during the present year, a still larger number would have to succumb to the difficulty. The result of poor crops would be that, in a very short time, when stocks where exhausted, it would not be possible for the British consumer to buy for 3d. an ounce an article which was at all smokable; he would have to pay a higher price, and, as a consequence, the consumption would decrease. As to the effect upon the Revenue, for many years before 1878 the yearly increase in the consumption was 1,250,000 lbs. weight, resulting in an increase of the Revenue of £180,000. From the experience of former years they would very naturally have expected that this increase would have continued; but immediately the late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed the additional duty the increase disappeared altogether, and during the two years 1878–9 the consumption was nearly 1,000,000 lbs. weight less in the two years than that of 1877 for the same period. The present scarcity was acting in other ways. He had the opportunity of pointing out, the other day, to the Chairman of Inland Revenue that the number of persons who took out licences to retail tobacco had very largely decreased. The Returns made up to the 31st of March showed that 1,137 fewer licences had been issued this year than in the preceding year, representing a loss to the Revenue, on this head alone, of £409. The probability was that the quality supplied under the present duty would become worse and worse. In any case, the Revenue must suffer, and should another short crop be reaped, the loss would be reckoned, not by thousands, but by millions. He desired to place before the Committee two or three simple figures, which were furnished by the Returns of the United States Government. In 1879 the United States Government reduced the tax from 24 cents to 16 cents, or, in other words, 4d. per pound weight. Up to the 30th of June, 1879, their Revenue from tobacco was $40,000,000, and in 1881, notwithstanding the reduction of duty, the Revenue from the same source amounted to $50,000,000. In 1879 the quantity of tobacco used in the United States amounted to 206,000,000 lbs. weight;

  1309
  but in 1880 it had risen to 233,000,000 lbs. weight, showing an increase of 27,000,000 lbs. weight. These were important facts; they were too important to be overlooked or disregarded. For Revenue purposes no article could be more fairly or more properly taxed than tobacco; but the limit of taxation should be one calculated to expand, and not to contract, either the trade or the Revenue. He asked the Committee whether, in its opinion, the facts which he had been permitted to place before them did not show that the limits he had defined had been already considerably overstepped?
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had, in the course of his observations, reminded the Committee that this was the first complete year in which they could experience the effects of the repeal of the Malt Duty. He (Mr. Chaplin) would take the opportunity of observing that it enabled them also to consider what had been the effects other than those of a purely fiscal character. The House would remember that in the year 1880 the repeal of the Malt Tax was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman as a great boon to the farmers. He remembered that the right hon. Gentleman stated at the time that such was the condition of the agricultural interest that it was the special duty of any Government, no matter the Party to which it belonged, to consider the case of the farmers of the country. He (Mr. Chaplin) was not in the least ashamed to acknowledge that he cordially approved of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he accepted it with gratitude, and in the full belief that it would confer the benefit on the agricultural community that he had no doubt was intended. He had always held it was an unjust restriction upon the cultivators of the soil, especially upon those in the great barley-growing districts, that they should not be allowed to use or dispose of the produce of their farms in the way most profitable to them. The right hon. Gentleman, in 1880, expressed some doubt as to whether the repeal of the tax would have any considerable effect in inducing a larger consumption of malt as food for cattle. From the information he possessed he had reason to believe that in that respect the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. There was no doubt that since the repeal of the
  1310
  Malt Tax malt had in all parts of the country come rapidly into use as food for stock, and on that ground he had no doubt the expectations of the most sanguine Gentleman had been greatly exceeded. He was afraid, however, the benefits received in that direction had not by any means compensated for the injuries the farmers had received from the repeal of the tax on other grounds. The repeal of the tax benefited the farmer in so much as it enabled them to use malt freely as food for cattle. It had, however, another effect, and that was that, by the admission of a great variety of substitutes for malt in the manufacture of beer, the price of barley had been very considerably depreciated. Under ordinary circumstances, a depreciation of the price of barley would probably have been treated by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench as a matter of comparatively small importance; but he could not believe the Government would regard with indifference this result of a measure which was introduced by themselves with the special object, as the House understood, and as he believed the Government acknowledged, of conferring a benefit upon the agricultural interest of England. What he ventured to propose was this, and he was sanguine enough to believe the right hon. Gentleman would be disposed to entertain the proposition which it was intended to make on behalf of the agricultural class—what he would propose would be this—that in future they should not prohibit the use of rice or maize, or other substitutes for malt, in the manufacture of beer; but it should be made obligatory upon the persons using such substitutes to declare and publish the fact. He had been reliably informed that the beer manufactured out of such articles was of an inferior and unwholesome quality; an injury was inflicted upon the public at large; and, therefore, if beer was made from such articles, let it be stated. If the public chose to drink beer made from rice and maize, and the like, it was their business, and not his; but he was confident that if it was generally known that beer was made from articles of this description, the British public would soon exhibit a preference for beer made from malt and hops. If the Committee adopted his suggestion, they would discourage the public from making use of a beverage of an inferior

  1311
  and unwholesome character, and they would create a larger demand for barley, and in that way they would convert the repeal of the tax, which was intended to be a boon to the farmers, from an injury into a real benefit to the agricultural interest. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the question into his consideration, and that he would see his way to introduce into his Bill some clause which would have the effect he had described. While the adoption of his proposition could inflict no injustice upon anyone, it would confer a considerable boon upon the distressed agriculturists; and if the Government would not take the matter in hand he should be obliged to do so himself.
  MR. WATNEYagreed with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the whole brewing trade were paying 2s. per quarter more under the Beer Duty than under the old Malt Tax and Brewing Licence Duty; but, while that was the case, many of the larger brewers were paying 3s. a-quarter more than they had previously done; and he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, when the question was under discussion in 1880, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in asking the House to adopt his Beer Duty, stated that he only wanted something like a fair equivalent with a turn of the scale in favour of the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had given brewers relief from vexatious restrictions which existed under the Malt Tax; but those vexatious restrictions might have been removed without doing away with the Malt Tax. Still, for removing these restrictions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1880, said the trade must pay 1s. per quarter; and, as the Government agreed they were now getting 2s. extra per quarter, he hoped that at some future time the right hon. Gentleman would give the brewers back the extra 1s. a-quarter he had exacted from them. The right hon. Gentleman had said the revenue from the Beer Duty did not come up to his anticipations. He (Mr. Watney) did not know whether he ought to be glad or not; but that was in consequence of the depression of trade. The beer trade, in times of depression, suffered like all other trades. Within the last four years the total consumption of malt had decreased 10 per cent. It must not, however, be supposed that the
  1312
  brewers did not pay as much per quarter. The truth was that brewing had been depressed just as had been the case with the general trade of the country. He hoped that at no distant date the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take a more liberal view of the trade, and remit the extra 1s. he was now receiving from them.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reviewed, in a very interesting manner, the general policy of his Budgets of the last two years; but there was one subject which formed part of the Budget of 1880 to which the right hon. Gentleman had not alluded, and with regard to which he would like to address a few observations to the Committee—he meant the increase in the spirit licences which the right hon. Gentleman then proposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that evening he had no revenue to give away. He was not about to ask the right hon. Gentleman for any remission of taxation; but he did wish to draw his attention for a minute or two to the subject of that increase, and to the results of it. When the increase of taxation upon spirit licences was introduced in 1880, he ventured to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the pressure, and, as it seemed to him, under the circumstances, the unjust pressure, which that taxation caused, especially about the middle of the scale. At the present time, if a man occupied a house rated at £50 a-year, he paid for his licence 50 per cent; if his house was rated at £100, he paid 30 per cent; if his house was rated at £400, he paid 10 per cent; and if his house was rated at £1,000 a-year, he paid 6 per cent. Now, the Committee would see that was not a very just scale of charge. In 1880 there was a feeling that the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated to obtain from such a source should be so obtained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1880, estimated to get £305,000 from that change of taxation. Now, in the year 1880–1 he received £432,730 from the increase on spirit licences; and in the year 1881–2 he received within £12,000 of the same amount; so that during these two years the Chancellor of the Exchequer had obtained from spirit licences as much as £120,000 a-year more than the estimate

  1313
  he made in 1880. What was the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that increased charge upon spirit licences? He justified himself by calling attention to the Report of the Lords' Committee upon Intemperance, which had recommended an increase in the charge for spirit licences. It was, however, notorious that that Committee left out of consideration one circumstance, which was well known to every Member of the House of Commons, and especially to those who, like himself, represented a large town. It was true there had virtually been no increase of licensed houses in the United Kingdom. In the year 1880–1 the increase of spirit licences in England and Wales was under 220; therefore, there had been pratically no increase, and the monopoly of existing licences had been for a long series of years preserved. It was on the ground that the present houses possessed that monopoly, and that there was practically no increase in the number of licensed houses, that the right hon. Gentleman proposed the additional charge. But it must be known to hon. Members that licensed houses were subject to the competition of clubs, especially in the large boroughs. In the borough of Salford, which he had the honour to represent, there was a considerable number of political and other clubs. He looked with favour upon many of those institutions, because he believed they had been, and were, doing for the working classes what clubs for the higher classes of the community had done for the more wealthy and favoured classes. Just as the clubs in Pall Mall destroyed the trade of many public-houses of the olden time, so the political clubs which existed for the advantage of the working men, and which were doing good work in the way of social improvement, had largely diminished the trade of licensed houses. That was one reason, and, to his mind, a very strong reason, which he submitted, in 1880, against the heavy increase in spirit licences, especially upon houses rated at from £50 to £150 a-year. To-night the right hon. Gentleman, in what in this part of the House would be considered the most satisfactory portion of his Statement, told them that owing to the altered habits of the people there had been a great decline in the drink revenue, and that, in the right hon. Gentleman's own words, "there
  1314
  has been a real and serious decrease in the consumption of intoxicating drink." That statement was exactly in accordance with his (Mr. Arnold's) own observation amongst the large population from which he came. He believed it was perfectly true, and to him it was a matter of great satisfaction, that there was a sensible decrease in the consumption of intoxicating drink. The fact, however, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had borne testimony strengthened very considerably the claim of the holders of spirit licences. No society or body of persons had asked him to make the observations he now offered to the Committee; he was simply moved to make them from his own observation of what he considered to be the improvement that was going on amongst the large populations of the towns and the difficulties under which the smaller classes of licensed houses were suffering from the increase of taxation. And considering that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had received, and was receiving, at least £120,000 a-year more than the sum he calculated upon from this source, he (Mr. Arnold) did hope that, not on this occasion perhaps, but on another occasion when he had Revenue to give away, he would bear in mind the claims which this class of people—especially those in houses rated at from £50 to £150 a-year—had on his consideration. There was only one other subject upon which he desired to say a word, and that was the largely-increased Vote to be asked from Parliament in aid of Cyprus. As he intended to oppose that Vote—and he now gave Notice of that intention—he would not offer many remarks on this occasion. He would only say that last year, when the Colonial Office presented a prosperity Budget, and seemed particularly satisfied in regard to their policy concerning Cyprus, he had ventured to say—of course, making allowance for the fact that the present Under Secretary for the Colonies was at that time extremely new to his Office, and for the fact that the Government was not responsible for our present connection with the Island—that the figures would not turn out to realize the expectations placed before the House. He should be failing in his duty if, in regard to the Charge for Cyprus, he did not oppose the Vote. They were told it was Lord Kimberley's hope that he might be

  1315
  able to reduce the Vote by £40,000 a-year; but what did that mean? He had no doubt it was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated that in future years he might obtain the assent of the Porte to the deduction from the tribute which we were liable to pay in respect of Cyprus of the amount which was due under the Guarantee of this country in regard to the Loan of 1855. But that would not be reducing the cost of Cyprus to this country by £40,000 a-year, because this country was entitled to receive from the Porte the payment of the guaranteed interest. The whole condition and management of the Island of Cyprus seemed to him to be highly unsatisfactory, and he hoped that when he fulfilled his promise to move the rejection of the Vote he should receive the support of the House.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONwas understood to say he rose for the purpose of putting a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, but, in his absence, the President of the Local Government Board, no doubt, would answer. On that (the Opposition) side of the House the point of the grant in aid of Highway rates was not quite clear. They understood that a sum of about £250,000 was to be applied to this purpose, and he was not going now to criticize the amount nor the mode of raising it. As he understood it, it was a provisional Vote of small amount, and, in the mode of collecting, it did not fall upon the traffic which caused the wear and tear. But in what way was it proposed to dispense it—according to mileage of turnpike road, or of main road, or of cost, or how? Would not the simplest way of applying it be to hand it over to the county authorities, saying, "There, that is the sum we give you as a mileage grant?" He did not know whether that was the way in which the Government proposed to do it. There were two or three other subjects in which he was interested, which would, no doubt, be amply discussed when they were reached. He greatly regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to extending the limit of house assessment in respect of private-house licences, Particularly in the case of farm-houses. If he had done so the advantages would have been greatly appreciated, whilst the loss to the Exchequer would have
  1316
  been infinitesimal. These people paid more under the Beer Tax than they did under the Malt Tax, and he hoped that when the Committee came to this subject they would fully discuss it. He did not know the right hon. Gentleman would be able to see his way to making the change he proposed this year; but probably some other year he would be in a position to propose it. There were, no doubt, many other subjects about which they would hear more, and about which questions would be asked. For instance, they were told that a large amount was required for Post Office and Telegraph Office buildings, and he must say it seemed hard that this charge should be paid in one year. It seemed to him that it should rather have been a debt spread over three or four years, especially as the increased revenue from this source was £200,000 this last year. If the Postmaster General had been present he might have explained the matter.
  MR. DODDSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the very important changes introduced by him last year in relation to the Probate and Legacy Duties, and had given the Committee particulars of some of those changes. Having, on several previous occasions, brought the whole of those changes under the consideration of the House, it was extremely gratifying to him (Mr. Dodds) personally to find that the right hon. Gentleman reported so very favourably as to the whole of them. He would, however, remind the Committee that a year had not elapsed since those changes were adopted, and that for only a short period had they been in active operation in Somerset House; and it was, therefore, all the more satisfactory to receive so favourable a report as to their operation. When these changes were better understood throughout the country they would, he had no doubt, be still more favourably received, and prove satisfactory alike to the Government and to the public. He (Mr. Dodds) had looked forward very anxiously for that Financial Statement, and had indulged the earnest hope that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to take a further step very much in advance of that taken last year in the direction of reforming the death duties. The right hon. Gentleman had himself stated last year that he was only able to deal with the fringe

  1317
  of the subject on that occasion, and that considerable elbow-room would be required to enable the House to deal comprehensively with the remaining anomalies. The right hon. Gentleman had last year referred especially to three anomalies—three gross anomalies he termed them—in connection with these death duties. The first was the total exemption of property held in mortmain; secondly, the great difference in the charges upon settled and unsettled personalty; and, thirdly, the mode of charging the devolution of inheritance upon real property. He (Mr. Dodds) had indulged the sanguine hope that some one at least of these gross anomalies would have been dealt with on the present occasion. He contended that the death duty was strictly a charge upon the capital left by a deceased person, and that it should be charged at a uniform rate upon all persons, irrespective of consanguinity, and upon every description of property. Consanguinity, he contended, should for that purpose be disregarded, and, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, the question would have to be considered and disposed of by the House. In connection with this matter, he wished to remind the Committee of one or two gross anomalies in connection with the charge upon real property. It was alleged that real property was unduly burdened, and that relief from local taxation was urgently required; but he (Mr. Dodds) begged to point out that real property was entirely free from any tax of an analogous character to the Probate Duty charged upon personalty; whilst the Succession Duties charged upon real property, which he had always understood were intended to be about equivalent in amount to the charge imposed upon personalty in the form of Legacy Duty, was very much smaller in proportion to the value of the real estate charged than the Legacy Duty as now levied upon personalty. In a recent case which had come under his (Mr. Dodds's) own cognizance, a small reversionary interest in personalty had been, from circumstances, no doubt, of an exceptional and peculiar character, charged in the form of Probate and Legacy Duties very many times in excess of the amount that would have been charged upon a similar amount of real property. Had the right hon. Gentleman seen his
  1318
  way to assimilate the death duties on real property to similar duties now charged upon personal property, he would have been in a position to afford adequate relief to the local taxpayer by contributions from the Consolidated Fund for a variety of purposes; and he ventured to think that had that course been adopted, the right hon. Gentleman would have been able to redeem his promise to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford shire (Mr. E. W. Harcourt), by making his proposed contribution of £250,000 per annum towards the repairing of main roads and highways, without resorting to any other taxation, or increasing the duty charged upon carriages. However much he (Mr. Dodds) regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to deal with the subject on the present occasion, he most earnestly indulged the hope that the right hon. Gentleman might continue to hold the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer until the state of Business in that House enabled him to deal exhaustively with these death duties. He felt sure, if such was the case, he would sweep away the remaining anomalies, and especially the gross anomalies to which he himself adverted last year.
  MR. MOSSwas sure the brewers would be glad to hear the high compliment the right hon. Gentleman had paid them, and, in their name, he thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he had said. He had expressed his acknowledgments to them for the manner in which they had assisted the officers of the Government in the collection of the Beer Tax, and he (Mr. Moss) would, on their part, take this opportunity of thanking the officers of the Excise for the able and courteous manner in which they had performed their part of the duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Beer Tax had not realized the amount he had anticipated. Well, one could scarcely be surprised at that, because, up to this moment, they had not been told how much of the duty had been thrown away by permitting private persons to brew without taking note of the quantity they consumed. It could be shown, he thought, that the private licences, amounting to £46,000, represented from 150,000 to 200,000 quarters of malt. The gain to the Exchequer, through substituting a Beer for a Malt

  1319
  Duty, had been som.ethinglike£800,000, but that had not come from the pockets of the brewers. The brewers were merely the collectors of the tax—they collected it from those who consumed the beer. The consumers of the beer were the wage-earning class, and it was from their pockets that this £800,000 came. This sum took the place of an Income Tax of 1d. in the pound on the wage-earning class. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Bill for the change of the Malt Duty into a Beer Duty, said that the result of the change would leave a simple balance—just a turn—in favour of the Exchequer. He now said that he had obtained an additional duty of 2s. per quarter. He (Mr. Moss) said that he held in his hand a statement of the actual duty paid by a large maltster, showing that, during a period of five years, he had actually paid 20 s. 5d. per quarter, so that, as the duty now charged was equal to 24 s. 2d. per quarter, that was an increase of 3s. 9d. per quarter. It had been said that taking the duty off malt would bring about a change which had been very much sought after by the agricultural interests of the country. Well, it was true the agriculturists were always anxious for relief in this matter, not that they wished the change to be from the Malt to the Beer Duty, but they desired that the burden on their trade should be lightened and placed somewhere else, to give them an opportunity of conducting their business successfully. The agriculturists had been deceived into the belief that the effect of the change would be to lead to the consumption of a greater amount of home-grown barley, of a superior and medium quality, whereas it had simply led to a larger consumption of low-class foreign-grown barley. It was a matter of no consequence to the brewer what he used. He might as well use foreign barley, or a worse class of barley, as he now paid on the result of the operation, and not on the quality of the material. Of course, the pale ale brewers used the best barley; but the lower class was used in enormous quantities by ordinary brewers who now paid duty on result. And foreign barleys had not yet been introduced into the country quite to the extent he believed they would be. There could be no doubt that, in the
  1320
  future, very large quantities would be imported. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had congratulated the country upon the advance of temperance. If they would turn to the Blue Book con-containing the result of the labours of the Committee which sat in that House, to consider the subject of Temperance, some time ago, they would see it stated in evidence by one of the principal London brewers, that so far from the London brewers desiring the spread of intemperance, it was the greatest obstacle to the increase of their trade; and that there were no greater advocates of temperance than the brewers of the United Kingdom. He (Mr. Moss) fully endorsed the view of this gentleman, and congratulated the country on the spread of temperance. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do all that lay in his power to cause it to spread further. It benefited the country, and he was sure the brewers would be found as strong advocates of that which advanced the interests of the country as anyone outside their particular trade. It was not to be expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been able to make a change in the Beer Duty this year, looking at the state of the Revenue; still he thought the duty had been heavier than the right hon. Gentleman could have anticipated. As time went on, and we had good seasons, and the quality of the barley improved, it would be found that the charge of duty per quarter would be much larger than when seasons and the quality of the barley were bad. In conclusion, as he had said before, the increased taxation, in consequence of the change which had been made in the duty, fell not upon the brewers, but upon the consumers.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would not detain the Committee more than two or three moments, his object being to support, as far as possible, the contention of the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Wills) in regard to the Tobacco Duties. He had more than once endeavoured to bring this subject before the House, but had not been successful; and now that he had an opportunity he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer how hardly these duties pressed on the working classes, and how desirable it was that they should be lightened. The first step towards lightening them, he thought, ought to be the

  1321
  abolition of the additional duty imposed on tobacco in 1878 by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North cote). The result of the addition to the tax in that year was very slightly to increase the Revenue, but to cause a much more inferior article to be supplied to the working classes. It was perfectly plain that the article must be worse considering that the duty had been raised, although not to a very large extent, without the price to the consumer having been enhanced. Up to the year 1878 the Revenue had increased by large jumps. In 1871 it increased £174,000 over the preceding year, in 1872 the increase was £209,000, in 1873 £223,000, and so on, until in 1877 the increase was £243,000 over the preceding year. The increase in the duty was £388,000 in 1878, owing to the additional ½d. imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The actual importation of tobacco diminished. In the following year the duty increased slightly, and there was a similar decrease of imports; so that at present, whilst we have an advance of £47,000 in the duty on last year, the consumption of tobacco was about 500,000lbs. less than it was in 1877, the year before the new duty was imposed. It was not generally known how far the working classes suffered from these enormous duties on tobacco. For every 3d. the working man spent in tobacco about 2d. went to the Revenue. When the Tobacco Duty was increased in 1878, it was the custom of the tobacconists to sell tobacco to the working classes at the rate of 3d. an oz., which made 48 pence, or 4s. per lb. How did the tobacconists obtain their profit? They had to pay 3s. 2d. to the Revenue, they paid about 6d. for the tobacco, and their profit was 4d., that being increased 10 per cent by moisture added to the tobacco. After 1878 it was found that the working classes would not stand an advance on the price of their tobacco, and a simple process had to be resorted to. Ten per cent of water was added to the tobacco, thus enabling the increased duty to be paid, and keeping the price of the tobacco at its original amount. He hoped that the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who was listening for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would reflect on the great hardship to the working classes of this extra 4d. on tobacco, which, while it did
  1322
  not add much to the Revenue, deteriorated so seriously that which was almost the only luxury of these people. On another point he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they had come to any arrangement with the Turkish Government for the remission of the Revenue of Cyprus, which we had impounded on behalf of France? Unless Turkey agreed to it the transaction was one of doubtful character, and scarcely consistent with the undertaking upon which we took over the government of Cyprus. We took it on the understanding that we were to pay over to the Porte so much a year; but we did not take power to impound money belonging to Turkey. We might have a right to impound revenues on account of what was owing to ourselves; but it was rather remarkable that we should act as the assignees of France, unless Turkey had agreed that we should do so.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was sure the Committee had listened with great interest to the very lucid statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had taken his Estimates very judiciously, and the Committee must feel that he had acted wisely. At the same time, he (Mr. Fowler) was anxious to say this—and in 12 months' time hon. Members would know whether he was right or not—that he believed, and hoped, that the right hon. Gentleman's Estimate of the Revenue of the country would be very much exceeded by the actual receipts. It was a remarkable thing that during the period to which reference had been made—say, from 1872 to 1878 or 1879—while it was notorious that the trade of the country was not in a prosperous condition, the Revenue kept up much better than could have been expected. Well, now everyone was agreed that the trade of the country was reviving; nevertheless, they did not see those evidences of it in the Revenue of the country which they might have expected. His explanation of it was this—that either when trade declined or revived the last thing to be affected was the Revenue. They knew that one great item of Revenue was Excise, and particularly those duties which the right hon. Gentleman had called "Drink duties." The circumstances, he took it, were these. When the working classes got good wages a good deal of

  1323
  it went in drink. It was unfortunate; but it was, nevertheless, the fact. They might all lament it; but it was a fact which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Members of the House had to bear in mind. On the other hand, when times were bad the working classes became economical, and retrenched their consumption of drink. They did not begin again to drink largely when times improved and their wages increased. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman might possibly find his Estimates exceeded during the coming year. He threw this out, because he thought it well that it should be remembered that this question of Revenue and Revenue facilities was guided by given laws. He thought the Prime Minister would come down next year and tell the House that the Estimates of Revenue had been very much exceeded. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in taking cautious Estimates; but neither he nor the noble Lord could claim next year that it was owing to their good management that the Estimates had been exceeded, because he thought it was a thing the House might legitimately look forward to. He thoroughly agreed with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to the great importance, under all circumstances, of having a Surplus. He only wished they could do more in the way of making a Surplus for the purpose of reducing the National Debt. The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a picture of what had been done in America and in the different countries of Europe, particularly France; and it was gratifying to see that he adhered to the policy of always having a Surplus; and it was to be hoped that the Estimates—barring accidents, such as wars and famines, and events which were not anticipated—would produce more than the right hon. Gentleman expected. He should like to make a remark with regard to the Wine Duties. It was true they were not going to deal with them this year; but they had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. During a visit he had recently made to the Cape, he had found a very strong feeling existing there to the effect that the manner in which the Wine Duties were levied was very unfair towards the wine-growers of the Colony. It was declared that the alcoholic test was such that it prevented them from
  1324
  sending their wines to Europe. He made this remark and called the attention of the noble Lord to the subject because, whenever the Government determined upon dealing with the question of the Wine Duties—and there was reason to suppose that it was under their consideration—and there was a great change in the taxation of the country, the views of the Cape Colonists must not be lost sight of. He hoped something would be done to enable this important Colony to send their wines into this country. The only change introduced by the Budget—and it was an important one—was with regard to the duty on carriages. For his own part, he would rather see a duty on wheels than on carriages. He did not represent an agricultural constituency, therefore he must apologize to the House for alluding to the subject; but it certainly seemed to him that the roads in the country districts were cut up, not by carriages, but by waggons. In the parish in which he lived in the country the roads were very much cut up by the passage of heavy, powerful stone-waggons. He and others like him had to pay for this—had to pay for the damage done to the roads by those who were carrying on an important business in the conveyance of stone. No doubt, the Government could not this Session devote attention to more subjects than they had dealt with—the right hon. Gentleman was unable, in consequence of having only a small Surplus, to make more change than that which was necessary in consequence of the promise he had held out to the hon. Member for Oxfordshire. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) trusted the Government would elaborate the idea thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman, and that in the future they would be able to see their way to setting a duty upon wheels rather than upon carriages. No one could deny that the statement in which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced his Budget was a most lucid one. It was, of course, natural for Gentlemen whose interests had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, but not dealt with in his Budget, to take this opportunity of speaking of them; but the only new proposal in the Budget—that with regard to carriages—was one which he did not expect would lead to much discussion. The Budget was not a very ambitious one, and, no

  1325
  doubt, it would receive the general support of the House.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, that when the present Government came into Office the country was led to expect great relief from local taxation; but he could not say at present that their expectations had been realized. Although they gratefully accepted the instalments they had received, they looked forward to a great deal more—although he, of course, admitted that the state of the Revenue did not allow of their having more at present. As to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal affecting coffee, no doubt it was a very good thing to protect the public from the adulteration of that article; but he failed to see why the same consideration should not be extended to the public in regard to beer. They had always thought that genuine beer should be made of malt and hops. They found it made of all manner of things, as there was no protection against adulteration. The Government, in protecting coffee, had given them good reason to hope that the protection of beer would follow. The arguments of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) on that point were strong. It was hard on the brewer who sold the genuine article made of malt and hops, that other brewers who manufactured a spurious article should not be compelled to declare its true character to the purchaser. As to the relief given in the case of highways, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had altogether understood the complaints of the farming community. If highways were opened, those who used to pay hundreds and thousands a-year in passing the turnpikes—brewers and the like—would pay nothing. People of this kind had a great deal of very heavy traffic on the roads. It was not the light traffic that wore the roads, but the heavy traffic—such as brewers' drays, which were constantly on the road heavily laden. He should have liked to have seen some scheme prepared which would compel traffic of this sort to contribute to the maintenance of the roads. There was a point he had noticed the other day in a Question he had put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity of explaining. He had pointed out—and the right hon. Gentleman had admitted the accuracy of his figures—that
  1326
  the farming constituency in Mid Lothian paid less income tax than people similarly situated in England. Some explanation should be given of the inequality. He failed to see that anything could be said in defence of the existing principle, and he should look to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the necessary relief in the matter. The Scotch farmers were quite as well able to pay the income tax as the English farmers. The latter had, during recent years, been paying on an income they had never received; and it was only fair that the people of both countries should be treated alike.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "(2.) That, on and after the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, in lieu of the Duties imposed upon Carriages by the Act of the thirty-second and thirty-third years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter fourteen, save as hereinafter provided with respect to Hackney Carriages, there shall be granted and paid to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, in and throughout Great Britain, the Duties following (that is to say):
  For every Carriage—

  £

  s.

  d.

  If such Carriage shall have four or more wheels, and shall be of the weight of four hundred weight and upwards.

  3

  3

  0

  If such Carriage shall have less than four wheels, or, having four or more wheels, shall be of a less weight than four hundred weight.

  1

  1

  0

  Provided, That Excise Licences for a Carriage deemed to be a Hackney Carriage, by virtue of 'The Town Police Clauses Act, 1847' or 'The General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862,' and a Hackney Carriage, as defined by 'The Metropolitan Stage Carriage Act, 1869,' shall continue to be charged with the existing Duties."
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish to have this matter made quite clear. The Resolution will only apply to carriage licences taken out after the 1st of January next?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The right hon. Gentleman has quite correctly understood the intention of the Resolution.
  Resolution agreed to.
  (3.) Resolved, That the Duty of Excise on vegetable matter grown in the United Kingdom applicable to the uses of Chicory or Coffee (other than Chicory) shall cease to be payable, and the sale or exposure for sale of any such vegetable matter in imitation of, or mixed with, Chicory or Coffee shall be rendered illegal.
  (4.) Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs

  1327
  now charged on Tea shall continue to he levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

  £

  s.

  d.

  Tea

  the lb.

  0

  0

  6

  (5.) Resolved, That the Duties of Customs on Vegetable Matter applicable to the uses of Chicory or Coffee (other than Chicory) shall cease to he payable, and the Importation as Merchandise of any such Vegetable Matter mixed with Coffee or Chicory shall he prohibited.
  (6.) Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Inland Revenue and the Customs.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 21.]
(Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)

SECOND READING. [FIRST NIGHT.]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Bill was one the importance of which could not be too much exaggerated. He regretted, however, that the Attorney General had not, after further consideration, introduced more alterations into the Bill, but had presented it again in much the same shape which it assumed when it was originally brought in last Session. He entirely approved of that House taking steps to put a stop to the bribery of which they had recently had such startling revelations in the Report of the Commissioners. The Act of 1854 did a good deal at first in the way of checking bribery and corruption; but the ingenuity of lawyers and of others concerned in elections subsequently enabled them to evade many of its extremely beneficial provisions. Therefore, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly right in bringing in another Bill to do away with the scandal which undoubtedly existed. He rose for the purpose of saying that if hon. Gentlemen on his
1328
side of the House would he guided by his advice, and that of those who sat with him, they would assent to the second reading of the Bill, in order to take a step in the right direction and stop bribery. He thought the bribery which went on was a disgrace to the age; and anything that he could do to put a stop to it he would do to assist the hon. and learned Gentleman. Having said this, he should best discharge his duty by pointing out, in no captious spirit, what he considered to be serious defects in the measure. He quite concurred in the propriety of the provision which made treating an offence on the part, not of the candidate only, but of all persons who resorted to it. Nor had he any objection to that part of the Bill relating to corrupt practices, except that, in his opinion, the penalties enacted were far too severe. Indeed, he feared that by their severity the Government would defeat the very object they had in view. Where a candidate was guilty of corrupt practices in any shape—whether of bribery, treating, undue influence, or of intimidation—no punishment could be too severe for him; but the case was different with regard to acts done by agents and other persons, over whom the candidate had practically little or no control. When they came to the 4th section, where they were dealing with a candidate who had been guilty by his agents, what was the penalty they were going to impose upon him? He should never be capable of again sitting in the House of Commons for such a county or borough, and if elected such election should be void. That was a terrible penalty. The candidate might have no knowledge whatever, morally or practically; of the corruption. He might be a man who had represented the place for many years, and who had an excellent character. He thought it would be going a great deal too far to impose such a severe penalty as that. He thought that the tendency of the present age in all Criminal Law was rather to diminish than to increase the penalty. He did not want to lessen the liability of the candidate, or his agent, as it at present stood; but he was strongly against increasing it as proposed. The other candidate might be as guilty, and yet get off scot-free. He thought that undue severity would defeat its own object. Treachery might be introduced into the

1329
opposite camp; and he did not see how a man could possibly be safe against treachery. When they came to the question of illegal practices, they were introducing quite a new element into the Law of Elections. These illegal practices, although they rendered persons liable to a penalty—and, very properly, a heavy penalty—had not the same effect as corrupt practices, so far as the seat was concerned. There was a great deal which he would like to see stopped very much. It would be well to do away absolutely and entirely with paid canvassers. There was the question of conveyance of voters to the polls. He was prepared to discuss that when he came to it. Then there was the question of placards; but he did not know how, in the case of a constituency like Westminster, a man was to bring his views before the electors, except by placard, in certain cases. But, under this Bill, if a man paid for the posting of placards, he would come under the penalties. The next head related to election expenses. He approved of the attempt which the Attorney General had made to limit the expense of an election, because there was no doubt that if they allowed extravagant expenditure, somehow or other it ended in bribery or corruption, or that something was wrong. He had always appreciated the great difficulty of the House with regard to that question. It was impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast line on the subject of expenditure. The General Election in 1868 did not take place until December. What was the result? During the whole of the Recess, from the time that Parliament was prorogued to December, electioneering work went on. He addressed the people of Lancaster; but his friends came, he thought, to a very wise determination. They had one meeting immediately after Parliament broke up, and they agreed not to speak for three months. But he did not think everybody else took that course; and the expenses went on increasing during the whole of the three months. In 1874 the Election was wanted as soon as possible. It could not be said that the Elections of 1868 and 1874 were conducted with the same expenditure. He wanted to know whether all the expenditure, from the time of a Dissolution till the time of Election, which might be some months afterwards, was to be allowed? There
1330
was, of course, a very great difference on the question of election expenditure between the case of a large straggling county and that of a small borough. In fact, the circumstances of the two were as different as they could possibly be. He wanted to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the definition in Clause 55 of the time at which the expenses were to begin. He could not make out from the Bill the time when the expenditure was to begin. That time should be made absolutely clear. There never had been a rule that a candidate must not spend beyond a certain sum. But the moment they laid down a scale beyond which a candidate might not go, it was absolutely necessary that they should state in the Bill itself at what time the expenditure was to begin and when it was to end. The Bill provided that no payment or deposit was to be made by a candidate except through an election agent; but the election agent was not to be appointed until just before the election. A person might be a candidate months or years before an election took place. As to the question of expenses he was referred to the Schedules. As he read it, all the expenditure which might legally take place was contained in the Schedules—that was to say, the expenses you incurred under the 1st Schedule must be included in the 2nd. The 1st Schedule showed how many persons you might employ; and as he read the 2nd Schedule, it showed how much money you might spend. The Bill provided that there should be only one election agent. He himself would not like to pay for more than one. But take the case of a large county. How could one agent have control over what was going on in different parts of the county unless he was allowed to appoint throughout the county some persons whom he could trust? The Bill should provide that the agent should be entitled to appoint a sub-agent for each polling district, in order that his instructions might be carried out. The Bill provided that the agent might not vote; but if you employed your own solicitor to act as agent, why he could not vote he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) could not understand. The Bill would prevent you from employing as agent those who were most conversant with the subject simply because they were voters. He could not help thinking that the Schedules were

1331
drawn up by some person who had had nothing to do with large boroughs or counties. With regard to the clerks and messengers that might be employed, he contended that, under the Bill, very great inequalities would arise; so that while in Westminster, for instance, 40 clerks and the same number of messengers would be employed, in East Surrey only nine clerks and nine messengers; and in Herefordshire, with a constituency of 10,000 electors, there would be 34 clerks and 34 messengers. [The right hon. Gentleman made several other comparisons between the number of clerks and messengers to be allowed in boroughs and in counties to enforce his objection to the provision of the Bill on the subject.] Again, the election agent had to make a return of expenses within 40 days from the day of election, according to the very proper provisions of this Bill. But what would be the consequence? A newly-elected Member might not sit or vote until that return had been made under penalty of £100 for every occasion on which he sat or voted; and the result would surely be that no Member would take his seat within a period of 40 days from his election, unless he felt absolutely certain that his agent had complied with the law. He submitted that in the case of a new Minister taking Office after a General Election, this part of the Act would have an absurd and unintended effect. With the provisions of the Bill by which an agent was compelled to make up his accounts within a certain time, he cordially agreed; and he held with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the concealment of election expenses was a serious offence. But while there was in the Bill much that he approved, there were matters of detail, such as the 25th clause, to which he entertained a decided objection. That clause provided—
"That any elector letting a committee-room for the purposes of an election, or beneficially interested in the proceeds of such letting, is prohibited from voting at the election."
There was a great snare in that clause, because, in many cases, no meeting rooms could be hired for the purposes of elections, except public halls, which were usually the property of Companies; and surely it could not be intended by the framers of the Bill that the shareholders in such Companies should be disqualified for voting if meetings were held in the build-
1332
ings owned by them. These and similar details showed the imperfections of the Bill, but, were, after all, minor matters. The measure had a far more considerable defect, to which he felt bound to call attention. The authors of the Bill proposed to inflict penalties hitherto unheard of, which, he hoped, would not be allowed to be enacted in their present shape; and the worst of it all was that the Bill, while diminishing the control of a candidate over his agent, left the political character and Parliamentary prospects of the candidate to the decision of a single Judge. To such a principle he absolutely and entirely demurred. He was sure the House would never pass that. Other offences were dealt with by Courts, from which appeals were allowed; but the class of malpractices against which the Bill was directed were left to the decision of a Judge who sat without a jury, and from whose decision there was no appeal. He would give all the help he could to the passing of the Bill through Parliament; but, as at present framed, two effects would happen. It was a great snare for the innocent candidate; while the man who contested a seat, and did not happen to get it, might get off scot-free, unless a Public Prosecutor was introduced. He was very much afraid it would lead to political clubs, not in burghs, not in counties, but organizations elsewhere who had their own particular crotchets—antivaccinators and anti-vivisectionists—who would send down their agents to particular towns at election times. They would greatly increase the strength of those political agencies which some people were wicked enough to call Caucus, and the elections would not be conducted by the best men. They would also leave the candidate much more helpless than at present, unless they put some safeguards in this direction.
MR. R. N. FOWLERpointed out that the chief expenses at elections were those of advertising, supplying committee-rooms, and of agents. In London, for instance, it was necessary to advertise in the daily papers, and such a paper as The Times could not, of course, publish an election address on the same terms as those of The Little Pedlington News. He did not see how an election could take place in a large constituency if this Bill were passed into law. In the City the rent of committee-

1333
rooms, as his hon. Friend—a late opponent—the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Martin) would bear him out, was enormous. In the City of London, which returned four Members, with a University vote, and had a constituency of 22,000, the cost allowed under the Bill would be £2,940, or £980 for each candidate. He wished to know, in the event of a bye-election, which was almost as costly as a General Election, whether this £980 was all that the candidate in the great constituency of the City of London would be allowed to incur? It was proposed in this measure to prohibit the use of rooms in public-houses as committee-rooms. Although he approved of this provision, it was a step which was calculated to increase the expenses of an election, as publicans granted the use of their premises at a cheaper rate than that at which they could be obtained from any other tradesman. Another cause of expense was the employment of agents. In the City there were 19 polling districts, and where there were a large number of districts an election could not be conducted without considerable expense. The defects of the Bill seemed to him to be those parts of it which dealt with the points at which he had glanced. He should be as glad as any hon. Member on the opposite side of the House to see an end put to those improper and illegal practices at some elections, which, wherever they prevailed, caused disgrace. At the same time, he recognized the fact that it was a great mistake to go in advance of public opinion in this matter. Certain questionable acts public opinion did not brand as corrupt, and to punish persons who committed, them would be to enlist the sympathy of the House in their behalf. He hoped the House would seriously consider the provisions of the Bill, and when they got into Committee would materially alter and modify them. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
"That, considering no corruption has been proved to exist in the larger town constituencies, or in any county constituency, it is inexpedient to adopt such uniform restrictions and punishments as will render the fair conduct of an election in a great constituency perilous and penal."
MR. WARTON, who seconded the Amendment, criticized the drafting of the Schedule of the Bill. There were,
1334
he said, some proposals in the Bill which, in his opinion, were quite impracticable. How was it possible, for instance, to pay the expenses of public meetings with such a sum as £20, or to defray the charge of postage and telegrams with £10 per 1,000? He felt quite sure that, in the large constituencies particularly, the Bill would prove useless.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "considering no corruption has been proved to exist in the larger town constituencies, or in any county constituency, it is inexpedient to adopt such uniform restrictions and punishments as will render the fair conduct of an election in a great constituency perilous and penal,"—(Mr. Robert Fowler,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. HINDE PALMERapproved of the spirit in which the proposed second reading of the Bill had been met by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross). He regarded the Bill as a great and useful attempt to remove a scandal that had for too long a period existed among the electoral body, bearing on its face an evident sense of political immorality. He believed the Bill would be open to considerable criticism when it got into Committee; but he could hardly believe the worthy Alderman hoped to carry his Amendment, which did not go to the root of the mischief. He had always thought the right principle was to lay down a distinct law, setting forth what were to be illegal and corrupt practices, and then prohibit anything like an indulgence, directly or indirectly, in those corrupt and illegal practices. The difficulty he felt in the Bill was to be found in the Schedule, which established a maximum for the expenses of all elections, according to a graduated scale. He feared it was impossible to do this. At the same time, other parts of the Bill—as, for instance, the 6th section—struck a blow at many things in detail which rendered expenses in frequent cases enormous. Again, he had an objection to that part which dealt with the solemn declaration to be made by the candidate, and filed with the election agent's account. In addition to the affidavit so provided by the Bill, he would propose that the candidate,

1335
on taking his seat, should present to the Clerk of the House a duplicate of such declaration, verifying a true statement as to the total amount of expenses. He believed that a provision to that effect would work very satisfactorily. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would take into conderation the suggestions which had been made from both sides of the House.
CAPTAIN AYLMERregarded the Bill as unworkable, owing to the attempt of its authors to apply it to constituencies wholly diverse in their character. For example, the maximum expenditure allowed for constituencies of 20,000 was £920; but a candidate who contested Westminster, observing a reasonable calculation for the employments allowed for in the Bill, would incur an expenditure of £1,377, while in East Surrey his expenses would not exceed £769. In other matters of detail the Bill appeared equally impracticable. For instance, a man who gave a dinner to two or three friends six months before the election would, if he were known to be a candidate, be disqualified. It seemed unfair, also, that disqualification should result from the mere act of an agent for so great a length of time as the Bill provided; and that the same number of agents, messengers, and clerks should be provided for constituencies extending over large and small areas. He was not particularly interested in protecting the Licensed Victualler; but he thought that in this Bill he was extremely hardly treated. He would give one instance. Clause 37 stated that—
"The holder of a licence for the sale by retail of any intoxicating liquor (whether for consumption on or off the premises), who permits any act which constitutes bribery, treating, or undue influence within the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts as amended by this Act, to take place upon his licensed premises, shall be guilty of bribery, treating, or undue influence, as the case may be."
How could he possibly prevent these acts in some cases? If the words "knowingly permits" had been inserted it would have been right; but only the word "permits" was contained in the clause. In short, the Bill was full of pitfalls for candidate, agent, and voter, and made them liable to severe punishment. It would be unworkable owing to its stringency. He thought the wisest course the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could
1336
adopt would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, with orders to report to the House in three or four weeks; and it might get through this Session, after being carefully amended in Committee.
MR. CARBUTTconsidered that no Bill would meet the wants of this country unless it had a clause in it to the effect that public-houses should be closed on the day of election. He had intended to move that as an Amendment, but was informed that if he were successful it would have the effect of throwing out the Attorney General's Bill, and, as that was not his wish, he did not intend to move his Amendment; still, he hoped the Attorney General would consent to a clause to that effect being inserted in the Bill in Committee. Last year he had a Bill for the purpose, and a Wednesday's Sitting was set apart for it. They did not go to a division; but he believed they would have carried it if they had. This year he wished to reintroduce the same measure; but the Motion was blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who stated that his reason for doing so was because he preferred pure beer to pure elections. It was the belief of many persons that if they closed public-houses on election days, elections would be conducted in comfort and there would be much less bribery, because it was when people got "fuddled" with beer they committed acts of bribery and corruption, for which they were punished. He had again gone through the evidence which bore upon the point, and it appeared to be conclusive as to the demoralizing effects resulting from the practice of giving away refreshments from public-houses during elections. The closing of public-houses at Newport had a marked effect in putting a stop to the riot and disorder which formerly prevailed there.
MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he wished to call attention to a few points which had not been touched upon by the previous speakers; and, in doing so, he was sure his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would acquit him of all hostile intention towards the Bill. In his opinion, the immediate duty of the House of Commons was to apply some remedy to the mischiefs which were growing to an enormous extent at elections. He only envied the hon. and learned Gentleman his great opportunity

1337
for applying some real remedy to this present state of things. He was afraid, however, that the House was attaching more importance to that part of the Bill which referred to the amount of election expenses, than to that part of it which dealt with corrupt and illegal practices. The Bill ought, in fact, to be called, not the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, but the Parliamentary Elections (Limitation of Expenses) Bill, for that was much the more prominent portion of the Bill, and the House was likely to lose sight of the main and most important portion of the measure, which was the suppression of corrupt practices. He did not wish, on the present occasion, to say anything upon the closing of public-houses on the day of election; but when that proposal was made he should certainly oppose it. He thought the Bill, as it stood, was unfair to the Licensed Victuallers, who would be affected by that proposition, and did not see any defence for two sections of it in particular—namely, the 8th and the 38th, which affected licensed houses. He could not see why there should be a legislative prohibition against the holding of committee-rooms at public-houses. He sat for a constituency among whom, at the election, there were no committee-rooms held at public-houses; but he had also been concerned in two other elections, in which committee-rooms were held at public-houses, and his experience had been that there was no connection between the work of the committee-room and the business carried on in the public-house in which the committee-room was held. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, he could only say that had been his experience; and the House should bear in mind that there were many places in which it was impossible to obtain committee-rooms except at public-houses. He was entirely disinterested, as far as his constituency was concerned; but he did not see any reason for imposing a special disqualification upon a particular trade, when it had not been rendered necessary by anything which had occurred in the course of election proceedings. But there was a still more indefensible proceeding proposed in the Bill. The 38th section provided that—
"Where a holder of a license for the sale by retail of any intoxicating liquor on any premises (whether the license be for consumption on or off the premises) is found guilty of any
1338
corrupt practice, either on conviction or by the report of an election court, such holder shall, in addition to any other punishment or incapacity, and if in the case of a report by an election court he has obtained a certificate of indemnity notwithstanding that certificate, be liable to forfeit his license and to be disqualified for a period not exceeding three years from holding a license for the sale of intoxicating liquors on those premises."
That was making a special penalty for one trade; but let them see what the penalty was for those who were found guilty. In Section 30 there was a provision to which the attention of the House had not been called, and which, in his opinion, ought certainly to be struck out of the Bill. It was to the effect that one Judge should have the power of giving judgment on an Election Petition. The position of a Judge was already invidious enough; but this would be throwing on him a burden too heavy. Section 32 made an entire change in the duties which the Judges had to perform, and the altered position of the Judges deserved the serious attention of the House. He believed that that provision would unduly enlarge the duty of the Judge. Again, in the 12th section of the Bill, there was an unjust distinction instituted between those who were charged with illegal and those who were charged with corrupt practices. Those who were accused of illegal practices might demand to have their cases tried before the ordinary tribunal of Judge and Jury; while those charged with corrupt practices had no option given to them whatever, but might, without having any legal advice, be then and there summarily convicted, and on conviction fined a sum not exceeding £100, and be declared incapable for five years of voting, or of being put upon any registry in the United Kingdom. That was a power too large to give to any tribunal whatever, and certainly too large to be given to a single Judge. Again, the 42nd section provided that—
"Where an indictment for any offence under the Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts or this Act is removed into the High Court by a writ of certiorari issued at the instance of the Attorney General, and the Attorney General suggests on the part of the Crown that it is expedient for the purposes of justice that the indictment should be tried in the Central Criminal Court, the order that such indictment shall be so tried shall be made as of course by the High Court."
A case occurred within the last few months in which the Attorney General

1339
made an application to the High Court to change the venue in a ease like that; hut the Court declined to do so, as no ground had been shown to induce it to think that the case could not be fairly tried within the local jurisdiction. The proposal, however, here was that the Attorney General, who must always be more or less a political partizan, should suo motu remove the trial of a case from one Court to another. The 36th clause contained a remarkable provision. It was to this effect—that if, within six months after an election, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or any number of the residents in any borough or county, not fewer than 10, should apply to the High Court, stating they had evidence to show that a considerable portion of the electors had been guilty of corrupt practices, the Court might then appoint a barrister, being one of Her Majesty's Counsel, as a Special Commissioner to inquire into the matter, and on proof, fine or imprison the persons so charged. If the applicants failed to substantiate their allegation, they should then pay the costs of the procedure. It was hardly likely, however, that electors would put themselves in such peril, when they could, without incurring any risk in regard to costs, go to the ordinary tribunals of the country. The expression "a considerable number" was too vague, and the power given to the Special Commissioner, whom he hoped to see swept from the Bill, was too large. A speedy and effectual means of putting an end to corrupt practices was that suggested by Lord Beacons-field in proposing the Reform Bill in 1867. The suggestion was that after an election a certain number of electors should, upon finding a security for £250, be allowed to present a Petition to the Supreme Court, stating that they had reason to believe that corrupt practices had taken place. Thereupon two Commissioners were to go down, not to try the case as between two parties, but with power to examine witnesses and to report to the House whether corrupt practices had been resorted to or not, and their Report was to be conclusive, unless it were challenged within 30 days it was laid upon the Table. If such a scheme were adopted a speedy stop would be put to corrupt practices. The real mischief at present was that the hearing of an Election Petition was the
1340
trial of a cause between two parties. Two things were a great scandal under the present system of dealing with corrupt practices. In a good many boroughs, especially those in which the representation was divided between one Liberal and one Conservative, inquiry was avoided because of the risk of disfranchisement. There were at least a dozen boroughs in the country which, if brought to the test of an Election Inquiry, would share the fate of those corrupt constituencies with which the House would, he hoped, shortly deal. The other matter was, that when a seat was attacked, and a particular case of corrupt practices was proved, the advisers of the sitting Member confessed that the election was void. By confessing that at an early period, in most cases, though not at Gloucester, the Judges had been prevented from making a Report which would lead to the discovery of extensive corrupt practices. In many cases the prevalence of corrupt practices was suppressed by both sides. If the House would only send down within a month of an election a couple of barristers, with power to examine witnesses and call for documents, their Report would seldom be challenged. He wished to make one observation with regard to canvassers. In the Schedule of the Bill he found that one election agent might be employed who might be an elector, but who could not vote. But the clerks and messengers could not be electors. He did not see any reason for that. Now that the electoral body was so greatly increased, it would be most difficult to find men who could be depended upon and who knew the place, and yet were not voters. It would be much better to deal with the question in a straightforward way. In one cathedral city he believed that as many as 800 persons were employed on one side as canvassers or poll clerks. The straightforward course would be to provide that 40 or 24 hours before the opening of the poll the agent of each candidate should send a list of the persons he had employed for reward to the Returning Officer, and that that officer should be bound to refuse the vote of every person so employed. At present the Returning Officer could not refuse the vote of such persons, although the votes would be struck out on a scrutiny. He hoped that some of the matters he had indicated might be

1341
incorporated into the Bill. It was his desire, and that of other hon. Members on that side of the House, to assist, by every means in their power, the passage of a substantial measure for the prevention of corrupt practices.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), after expressing a hope that the House would allow the second reading of the Bill to be taken that night, said, it would, perhaps, be convenient if he were now to reply to some of the observations which had been made by the hon. Members who had taken part in the debate. He felt it his duty, in the first place, to acknowledge the fairness of the tone in which the debate had been conducted, and also of the way in which the attempt of Her Majesty's Government to deal with the question of corrupt practices had been received. Above all, he must express his gratification at the courtesy which had been shown by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and the value of the criticisms which the right hon. Gentleman had applied to the clauses of the Bill. He could assure the House that no Member who had taken any interest in the subject could be more sensible than he (the Attorney General) was of the difficulty of dealing with the matter. To adopt a general measure dealing with the interests of different constituencies, entirely distinct in size, differing in the density of their population, and varying in their circumstances, would be, under the most favourable circumstances, no easy task. He was sure that neither the experience nor the ability of any one Member would enable him to carry such a measure; and, therefore, every suggestion and every amendment which hon. Members representing different constituencies with different interests might wish to make would be at least accepted for the purpose of being fairly considered, and would not be objected to simply because it was an amendment of the Bill. There was, no doubt, very much in the Bill which was deserving of discussion and consideration; and if, after consideration and discussion by the House, it should be found that any clause either required alteration or should be struck out of the Bill altogether, hon. Members would find him at least ready to accept to the extent of fully considering
1342
any suggestion they might make. He trusted that, having said so much, the House would now allow him to make one or two general observations. The Bill proceeded upon two distinct lines, and had two distinct objects in view. As his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) had said, one object was to lessen the expenses of elections, and the other was to deal vigorously, and he hoped successfully, with corrupt practices. He believed that the Bill satisfactorily dealt with the growing evil of unnecessary expenditure at elections, and that it would do a great deal in the direction of putting an end to corrupt practices. His objection to the great expenditure which it was now necessary to incur proceeded from three distinct grounds. In the first place, this large expenditure deprived the House of the services of many men who would be useful in the House; secondly, it threw an unnecessary burden upon those who were there; and, thirdly, the expenditure itself led to corrupt practices. It was almost impossible to draw a line between the expenditure that was lavish and extravagant in a great degree, and that which involved the commission of corrupt practices. One kind of expenditure led to another; and by paying a man highly and extravagantly for services rendered at elections, and by that means making it a source of great profit to him, they enlisted the services of a class of men whose minds naturally had a tendency towards corrupt practices. If they could enlist the services of volunteers, instead of these paid agents, they would get rid of the class who now set an example of corruption, and were the means of corrupting others; while, at the same time, they would obtain a much juster representation. Then, thirdly, he attached considerable importance to the changing of paid agents into voluntary services; because he entertained a great hope that if they could get rid of the influence of wealth, if they could diminish the chances of the success of a rich man as against a poor man, if they could enlist the services of volunteers, who would be actuated less by the hope of personal advantage and gain than by the enthusiasm of their political convictions, they would obtain a much truer representation in the House of Commons, and would return to the House

1343
those who would represent the majority of the people, and not so much the wealth of the country. Dealing with the subject of the reduction of expenditure, he knew there were many who felt that it was impossible to reduce the expenditure—at least, to the extent that was attempted by the present Bill. He admitted that if they were to continue to conduct elections on the system upon which they were conducted at present, there would be great force in that idea; but the object of the Bill was to alter the system on which elections were now conducted. If they were to pursue the old system of paid agents and paid canvassers, of circulating addresses in three or four different ways; if they were to continue in the large constituencies to issue 50,000 or 60,000 circulars, and to employ small armies to carry about printed addresses and notices, he was prepared to admit that no result could be produced in diminishing the expense of elections. But it was to get rid of this system that the present Bill had been introduced. He was afraid that the provisions of the measure would not meet with universal favour; but he trusted that the experience of hon. Members would induce them to admit that the worst evil of the present large expenditure was that it did not enable the country to obtain a true expression of the political opinion of the constituencies. Some assistance in considering this question would be derived from a perusal of the Return which had been presented to the House of the Expenses incurred at the last General Election. He believed that those expenses in the last Election reached a larger sum than they had ever reached in any previous General Election. In looking over the Return, hon. Members could not help seeing that the expenditure was not a matter of necessity, but rather a matter of fashion and custom. At present, it was a matter of habit to place upon the candidate many expenses which were altogether unnecessary. He would take two cases. First, the Welsh county of Montgomery. In that county there was a constituency representing 5,291 electors, and of those 4,273 polled. The unsuccessful candidate polled 2,041 votes, and expended £13,053—that was to say, he expended the sum of about £6 5s. per vote. This was the published expenditure, returned by the agents of the
1344
candidate; and he altogether failed to see what necessity there could be for such an expenditure. Turning to another county—Herefordshire—the contrast was most remarkable, and it showed what the necessary expenditure really ought to be. He found that in Herefordshire the lowest of the successful candidates polled 2,726 votes, and his expenses came to £296, or 2s. 1d. per head. How was it that the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) was successful with so small an expenditure, when the candidate for Montgomeryshire was unsuccessful, notwithstanding the enormous expenditure to which he was put? The real reason was that the hon. Member for Herefordshire worked with a voluntary force. He represented the tenant farmers of the county, who set to work with willing enthusiasm. They brought their gigs and their dog-carts, and carried the voters to the poll, and they carried the election for the smallest conceivable amount of expenditure. They carried it simply by the force of public opinion. That was not the case with regard to the candidate for Montgomeryshire. He had paid agents all round him, who were not animated by enthusiasm for his cause, and who imposed black mail upon him at every stage of the contest. He had no doubt that that gentleman most reluctantly yielded to the demands made upon him, and his opponent, who was successful, also spent a very large sum indeed, showing that the excessive expenditure was simply the habit of those who conducted the election on both sides. It was quite possible to keep the expenditure within the amount provided by the Bill. In 35 of the borough constituencies, the expenditure that was returned was less than that which had been suggested by the Bill. In some eases all the candidates spent less; in some the successful candidates spent considerably less; but in 35 constituencies candidates were able to conduct their elections for an expenditure much less than that specified in the Bill. In the Metropolis itself—in Hackney and Finsbury—the successful candidates incurred expenses within the limit fixed by the Bill; and he would ask the attention of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) to the fact, that while the hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to contest the City of Lon-

1345
don on the scale of expenditure suggested by the Bill, it was nevertheless possible for two Members of the Government now sitting on the Bench with him (Mr. Fawcett and Mr. J. Holms) to be returned for Hackney for a sum considerably within the limit. How was it they were able to do so? It was because they appealed to voluntary support. They had no paid agencies, and no committee rooms. They told the electors that they were not going to spend money; but that, if they were returned, it would be because the electors agreed with them in political opinion, and would be prepared to return them free from all expense, except that which was strictly legitimate. How was it that one of the Members for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) was able to win his election, and to poll more than 15,000 votes for an expenditure far below the sum mentioned in the Bill. He was a totally independent candidate, and he appealed as an old Member to the electors for their support. His success was entirely due to voluntary effort. Then, again, his right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright and Mr. Chamberlain) had been enabled, by means of an organization, to which reference had frequently been made—[Cries of "Oh!"]—an organization perfectly voluntary, and without any paid agency, to become successful candidates, and to carry their elections at a moderate expense, quite within the limit fixed by the Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had not spent one-half the sum which would be allowed under the Bill, and yet he was successful. He might go through many other constituencies of different sizes. His right hon. Friend opposite, who sat for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), conducted his candidature on the same principle, and was equally successful. There were many other Members in the House who had been returned the same way, and without unnecessary expense. He could mention, at least, 35 cases, which proved that, with voluntary effort, this very large expenditure was altogether unnecessary. Some hon. Members thought there would be considerable difficulty in reducing their expenditure to the figure mentioned in the Bill. But the inconvenience suggested would apply to every candidate alike. The Bill dealt with no one unfairly, but left the same
1346
and equal weapons to all parties. If they found that they had to reduce the amount of their printer's bill they would find that their opponent would also find it necessary to reduce his. They would find it essential to keep the amount expended for paid agency on both sides to the same figure; and if they found it requisite to measure the length of their weapons they might depend upon it that their opponents would be placed under a similar disadvantage. They would simply be required to collect their forces with care and caution, and to rely upon voluntary effort and the strength of their political convictions, instead of trusting, as was the case in too many instances, upon the length of the purse of one candidate or the other. It was impossible to press this point too strongly upon the attention of the House—namely, the necessity of establishing an entirely new order of things. It had become absolutely essential that the present vast and useless expenditure incurred in election contests should be got rid of, and that corrupt practices should be put an end to; but, of course, the details of the Bill would have to be considered in Committee. He desired now to refer to the criticisms which had been passed upon the Bill, and especially to those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out one matter, which he would assure his right hon. Friend had already engaged his attention. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the existence of an inequality in respect of a borough constituency and a county constituency, which proceeded from one or two causes. The principle he (the Attorney General) had gone upon was to make a paid agent applicable to 500 electors in one constituency, and to a polling district in another. Now, he thought there was a reason why a county, in this respect, should be treated differently from a borough. It had occurred to him that if the House of Commons preferred to have two Schedules instead of one, the principle might be met by adhering to the principle of restraining the agencies, and by acknowledging the application of a principle of difference in the case of a borough and of a county constituency. He, therefore, hoped the proposal he had intro-

1347
duced into the Bill would meet the views of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had also expressed a fear lest treacherous agents might be introduced from the camp of the enemy. He had heard a similar objection raised before; but he was of opinion that a treacherous agent existed only in theory, and never in fact. He derived his experience from the evidence given in the trial of Election Petitions; and he was prepared to say that it was next to impossible for a treacherous agent to go through an election contest without being detected, and his treachery being proved. And he ceased to be an agent directly his treachery was proved. At the present moment a treacherous agent, if undetected, could cause a Member to lose his seat; and, therefore, he had the candidate at his mercy, and every man who desired to become a Member of the House of Commons must run this risk. It was, however, a risk which was more nominal than real, and was a matter which, among other things, must be left to the Judge. The right hon. Gentleman said he wanted an absolute definition of the time when a person could be said to have become a candidate. Now, he (the Attorney General) contended that that was an impossibility. They might define who was a candidate; but it was an impossibility to define when the expenses connected with an election should have commenced. Of course, the expenses must be connected with the election; but they might commence several years before a contest became probable or imminent. Expenses might be incurred long prior to the actual contest in inducing the electors to look favourably upon a particular candidate; but they would not be expenses "in and about the election." The same difficulty existed at the present moment as that which the right hon. Gentleman predicted under the provisions of the Bill. But by practice they knew what were election expenses, and what were not election expenses; and if they found that a candidate did not return what really formed part of his election expenses, then a heavy penalty was imposed upon him, which would not be imposed if the Judge came to the conclusion that they were legitimate election expenses. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that a distinction should be drawn in the expenses
1348
incurred in an election campaign that was long, and another that was only short. Now, personally, he (the Attorney General) thought that the campaign of 1874 was quite long enough. What advantage could there be in having a six months' campaign? What advantage could there be in prolonging an election contest, with all its difficulties and animosities, for a period of six months? The sharper and shorter the contest was the better, and there was no satisfactory result to be attained by disturbing a constituency for six or eight months by commencing the campaign at an unnecessarily early period. There might be some justice in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to the maximum expenditure allowed by the Bill; but he (the Attorney General) felt that there would be considerable advantage in fixing a maximum expenditure, and that the principle could not be abandoned by the Government. It must not be forgotten that they had a very skilful class of persons to deal with when they found it necessary to engage electioneering agents, who had always been in the habit of making money out of an election. And when they said, as they did by the Bill—"You shall only employ a certain limited number of people," there was a possibility that their directions would only be nominally obeyed, because the persons who had always been in the habit of making money out of the candidates would still be on the look-out for it. He would give an instance to explain what he meant. Suppose the candidate were to say—"I will only employ one agent and one clerk or messenger;" the agent would reply—"Well, if I am bound to employ only one person to assist me, I can only say that I will only employ one clerk or one messenger; but I will enter into a contract with a printer, and will issue 5,000 circulars, paying men for distributing them." In that way the money would be spent all the same in employing voters to deliver the circulars, and the difficulty would still exist unless Parliament fixed a maximum expenditure in the Bill. Therefore, while he was willing and anxious to meet the evils that had been pointed out, and to accept any practical suggestion that might be offered for meeting those evils—especially that which related to the unequality of fixing

1349
the same maximum for constituencies differently placed—he must ask the House to support him in laying down the principle of a maximum expenditure. He made these observations in reply to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who had criticized the maximum principle, and had pointed out the effects which it was likely to produce; but he was satisfied that if the Government were compelled to give up that clause the greatest benefit of the Bill would be got rid of. At the same time he hoped the House would not suppose that he suggested that there should not be a perfectly free discussion of the matter. All he desired to point out was that unless they wished to make the Bill comparatively useless in its operation the principle of a maximum expenditure must be retained. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman had said that the penalties imposed by the Bill were too severe; and he had given as an instance, that a candidate who had all his life represented a particular constituency would, in the event of losing his seat, in consequence of the improper practices of an agent, be disqualified for ever afterwards from representing the constituency in which the offence was committed. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a very great hardship that a corrupt agent should be the means of inflicting great hardship upon an innocent candidate, and that the innocent candidate should have to bear the burden of his agent's malpractices. But it must not be forgetten that penalties for this offence already existed; but that they had proved ineffective, and after an absence of a year or two the same candidate had been returned, and the same agent had been guilty of similar illegal practices. The right hon. Gentleman complained that a candidate should lose his seat for the acts of another person; but the law already said that, and the reason why it was now proposed to make the penalty more severe was that while in some cases an undoubted hardship was inflicted upon an innocent candidate, in other cases a candidate who had lost his seat for corrupt practices immediately set his agents to Work to regain it; and although without hope of regaining it in that particular Parliament, as soon as a new
1350
Parliament was summoned he was returned for the old constituency. The reason why it was now proposed that a candidate should be disqualified for life for sitting for a constituency which had been corrupted by his agent was because it was felt that if an agent knew that in the event of his being guilty of corrupt practices he would lose his candidate, he would be much less likely to resort to corrupt practices than he was now. The fact was that the inadequacy of the existing penalties had led to the introduction of the Bill; and this provision was to be defended, like the others, on the ground that it would make both candidates and agents more careful in future. The consciousness that the candidate would lose the seat for ever, if corrupt practices were established, would make the agent much more careful than he was now. He had very little more to say. He quite admitted that this was one of the matters of the very highest importance, and it ought to be discussed by the House without Party feeling, in the desire to arrive at the best possible conclusion. If it was considered that the penalty proposed by the Bill was too severe, it was open to the revision of the House; but he should certainly adhere to the opinion which he had expressed. There were many other minor matters dealt with in the Bill; but he hoped he had satisfied the House that the Government were anxious to change the present system of elections, and to cause them to be conducted in a more satisfactory manner in future. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) spoke of the difficulty connected with the sending out of circulars. He (the Attorney General) wished to get rid of the system altogether; but it was not convenient, neither would it be proper, that he should enter into a criticism of the details of the Bill upon the Motion for the second reading. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) said that a Member should be required to make a declaration, when he came to the Table to be sworn, that he had complied with the provisions of the Act. There was, however, a practical difficulty in the way of the adoption of such a provision. Forty days were allowed for the return of the election expenses; but the candidate who had been returned was allowed to take the Oath and his seat as soon as the

1351
Return to the Writ had been made. It would, therefore, not be in the power of a Member to make such a declaration until after the 40 days had expired; and he might have been sitting and voting in the House for many days before that period arrived. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had pointed out a difficulty in regard to one particular clause, and had stated that it would require alteration. The difficulty was this—that a Member might have taken his seat, and at the last moment find that an improper expenditure had been incurred through inadvertence, which incapacitated him from legally discharging his duties as a Member. He (the Attorney General) had been under the impression that the clause had been drawn so as to meet that difficulty. It had been drawn, at any rate, with that intention, and he would see that it was framed in that sense. By the 14th clause, protection was extended to Members in all cases where the expenditure had been incurred inadvertently, or through miscalculation; and where it was plain that there had been no intention of breaking through the provisions of the Act no penalty would be incurred. Any person placed in such circumstances would be at liberty to make an application to the Judge; and a discretion was allowed to the Judge which he could exercise in giving relief to any candidate or agent who might be innocent. He should have no objection to extend the provisions of the Bill even more generously than he had attempted to frame them in behalf of persons who might have offended innocently. Suggestions had also been made of an alternative character. It had been pointed out, in the course of the debate, that there were other courses that might be taken as well as those which were provided in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Edward Clarke) had referred to a suggestion made by Lord Beaconsfield in 1857 that, apart from the Election Petition, there should be power to obtain a Commission of Inquiry into the existence of corruption at previous elections. For some reason or other, a Bill upon that subject was not introduced until long after the suggestion was originally made, in 1868, when the Government of Lord Beaconsfield brought forward a Bill dealing with the question of corrupt practices
1352
at elections. By the 57th section, the view which Lord Beaconsfield had put forward was carried into effect, and provision was made that, in the event of the electors petitioning, there should be power to issue a Commission. That power had existed since 1868, and in introducing the present Bill he had considered it advisable to carry that principle still further, and to give the Election Judges and Commissions power to deal with a much wider range of questions than was at present submitted to them. There was one other point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had referred to, and that was the proposal to allow one Judge instead of two to inquire into an Election Petition. Originally the investigation was intrusted to a single Judge; but in 1879 a change was made, and it was directed that the inquiry into Election Petitions should in future be conducted by two Judges. The principal reason for the determination to revert to a system of single Judges was that it was proposed by the present Bill to cast a great many duties upon the Election Judges in investigating corrupt practices, from which they were altogether free now. As a matter of necessity, this would tend to prolong the inquiry before the Judges; and if two Judges were insisted upon he doubted whether the judicial strength of the country would be sufficient to meet the demands upon it. It was therefore proposed that they should go back to the system which prevailed previously to 1879, and which past experience proved to have worked very well. He had not succeeded in discovering that the decisions given by two Judges had been any more satisfactory than those which were given formerly by one, and there was certainly a greater sense of responsibility in one Judge than existed in the case of two. Not only the necessity of economizing the judicial strength of the country, but also the result of past experience, justified the proposal to return to the system of trying Election Petitions by one Judge only. But here, again, although he was personally in favour of a single Judge, he had no wish to press his view too strongly, if he found that the feeling of the House was against him. He thought he had now touched upon almost every subject, ex-

1353
cept one, and that was one which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna). His hon. Friend had spoken strongly upon the necessity of closing the public-houses on the polling day. That was a matter which certainly required very grave consideration indeed, and in respect of which there was a great deal to be said on both sides. No one who was acquainted with the way in which elections were now conducted could fail to see that there was a great deal of force in the arguments of his ton. Friend. The great mass of the corrupt practices now resorted to took place in the public-houses. Not only did treating take place in the public-houses, or in some room adjoining, or connected with it, but bribery as well; and he was certainly of opinion that if it were practicable to compel the public-houses to close on the polling-day that they would get rid of a vast amount of the corrupt practices which took place under the roof of these houses. When the argument was used that such a provision would penalize the Licensed Victuallers, he did not believe that that view would be accepted by the Licensed Victuallers themselves—at any rate, by the respectable portion of them, who wished to conduct their business reputably. He had received a deputation from the Licensed Victuallers, and they had expressed themselves most reasonably and sensibly upon the subject. There was, undoubtedly, a great deal to be said on both sides; and they had mentioned, as a matter worthy of consideration, whether, rather than be placed under restrictive legislation, which would make them incur the risk of losing their licences in the event of any breach of the Act being committed on their premises, they would not prefer to have their premises closed altogether on the polling day. But there were other considerations which affected the question. For instance, if they were to close the public-houses on the polling day were they to close them absolutely? Was there to be no opening of the door to the bonâ fide traveller? On the other hand, was the restriction to be applied only to borough elections, because in county elections a voter frequently had to travel seven or eight miles before he reached the polling-place, and was he to be prohibited from putting up his horse at a public-
1354
house, or from obtaining anything to eat for himself? Was it intended that the operation of public-house closing should only be partial, and not general—that it should be confined to borough constituencies, and should not include the county constituencies? Then, again, another question would arise—Was the clause to be confined to Parliamentary elections, or must they have the necessity placed before them of extending the legislation to municipal contests also? If, for instance, there was a municipal election in Birmingham, and it was confined to a single ward, were they to close the whole of the public-houses in the municipality? If that were not done, there would be no advantage in closing them in one ward and in allowing them to remain open in all the others. He wished to point out these considerations to hon. Members; but he thought he was justified in saying that if such a clause were proposed the Government would be quite ready to consider it, and the objections to it would not come from that Bench. He had only one observation more to add. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke), who had often bravely fought the battle of the Licensed Victuallers, no doubt from a feeling of gratitude towards them for their efforts on his own behalf, said that the legislation proposed by the Bill with regard to the Licensed Victuallers was exceptional legislation. He (the Attorney General) altogether dissented from that view. At the same time, he was prepared to admit that they had to deal with the Licensed Victuallers, in one sense, exceptionally, because it became their duty to deal with a particular class of corruption, which consisted of treating; and treating was only carried out at public-houses, because liquor was the article by which it was carried out. If treating took place with other commodities, restrictions would have to be placed on those who sold those commodities. They dealt with the evil of corruption wherever they had reason to believe that it existed. They dealt with it as far as the agents were concerned, and they dealt with it where members of his own Profession were concerned. It was the desire of the Government to deal with it wherever it was likely to be found. Why, then, were they bound to deal with the Licensed Victuallers and to

1355
have the appearance of dealing with them exceptionally? It was because treating took place in the Licensed Victuallers' houses. As he had already pointed out, if treating took place by giving a penny bun to the voter, it would be their duty to go to the confectioner's shop and to lay down the same restriction. But those who committed the corrupt practices never attempted to treat with anything but the liquor sold at the Licensed Victuallers' houses. There the evil was; and they went to the fountain head, and endeavoured to destroy it wherever they found it to exist. It was even to the interest of the Licensed Victualler himself that the evil should be dealt with; and the matter was very much in his own hands, because he could speedily put a stop to it if he thought proper. He was certain there was no honest man in the country, who knew what had taken place in certain constituencies, but must admit the necessity for passing a Bill to deal with the evil of corruption; and he hoped and believed that the House would see that the time had come when they must take upon themselves the duty of aiding the honest and thwarting the dishonest man. In that case, he felt sure it would not be long before the Bill which he now asked should be read a second time would pass into law.
COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was very much in favour of a measure for the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices at elections; but he was bound to say that some portions of the present Bill were too Draconian in their severity. The first provision to which he applied that remark was that which proposed to keep a candidate out of his constituency for ever on account of acts committed by his agent, of which he might know absolutely nothing, except in the legal meaning of the term. His agent might, for instance, have made a speech which he had not had the opportunity of repudiating. Surely, such an offence was too severely dealt with by excluding him for ever from the representation of his constituency. The next fault he found in the Bill was that it proposed to keep a candidate out of Parliament for 10 years who was found guilty of corrupt practices. The House should bear in mind that these clauses not only included bribery, but treating, amongst the corrupt practices on account of which a
1356
man would be precluded from sitting in Parliament. Bribery, of course, stood in a different position to other acts, because it was an offence which could hardly be committed without the cognizance of the candidate; but with regard to treating and other trifling acts of the kind, he defied the most careful candidate to prevent them. The Bill, therefore, in his opinion, was too severe in dealing with these matters. The same remark applied to what was called "undue influence," a term which raised a question of great importance in connection with Irish elections, because it was well known that it would be construed by the Irish Judges in a very different manner to that in which it would be construed by the Judges in England. He was confident that for every case of undue influence recorded against an English candidate there would be five or six against Irish candidates; and, therefore, for the reasons he had assigned, he was compelled to drop the defence of the portions of the Bill to which he had referred. It would seem that the Attorney General believed that, in all cases of corrupt practice, he would be dealing with a dishonest candidate and a dishonest constituency, but not a dishonest Judge. The latter, however, was not an impossibility; and he contended that some protection against the action of a dishonest Judge should be afforded by the Bill; and, for his own part, he did not know of any more effectual means of keeping Election Judges in order than by allowing the re-election of candidates. The clauses in question certainly appeared to him to require alteration, and, unless they were modified, he should feel it his duty to oppose the Bill very strongly. He would go farther, and say that Irish Members would act very unwisely if they allowed the clauses to remain in the Bill in their present form, because there was nothing whatever to prevent a Judge keeping a leader of the Irish Party out of Parliament on the plea of undue influence. It must be remembered that most of the Judges on the Irish Bench were by no means unscrupulous; and it would be a very easy matter to effect the exclusion of a candidate, because, as he had already pointed out, the term "undue influence" would be differently construed in Ireland to what it would be in England. It was, therefore, incumbent upon Irish

1357
Members to scrutinize the clauses of a Bill which gave power to any Judge to keep a candidate out of Parliament during a period of 10 years. For his own part, he hoped the clauses would be modified by the Attorney General in the direction indicated; if not, the hon. and learned Gentleman would find that he should take a very keen interest in every line of the Bill when it went into Committee.
MR. A. J. BALFOURtrusted the Government did not propose to insist upon the second reading of the Bill at that Sitting. It was difficult to overestimate the importance of a measure that was to alter the whole system under which Members were elected to that House. But what was the occasion on which they were expected to accept the second reading of the Bill? He would not say it had taken the House by surprise, because he supposed hon. Members ought to have known that it was coming on that evening; but his own impression was that it was part of the arrangement of last week that it should be taken, not on Monday, but on Tuesday. That might have been a mistake for which he alone was to blame; but, however it might be, it was a mistake very largely shared by Members on both sides of the House, and, that being so, he thought the Government ought not to press the Motion for the second reading to a division on the present occasion. But that was not the only reason. How much time had been given to the discussion of the Bill? The second reading, he believed, was only moved at half-past 9 o'clock that evening, and hon. Members would know very well that the hours after that time were of much less value for the purpose of a debate of this kind than the hours that preceded it, and this was especially true on the day when the Prime Minister made his Financial Statement. Was it possible that the House, after listening with the closest attention to a speech by the Prime Minister of two hours in length, presenting arguments which it required the utmost stretch of the mind to follow, lucidly as the right hon. Gentleman unfolded them, should be in a condition to give the present most important Bill the attention which it required? Since the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's Statement, the House had been addressed by some of
1358
the foremost and ablest Members, and yet no one who had listened to them could doubt how flat their speeches fell upon the ears of hon. Members, and how feeble was the attention given to arguments even such as those of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke). They had also been addressed by his hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill (the Attorney General), and even that speech had fallen upon a wearied and inattentive House. Under the circumstances, he trusted the discussion would be allowed to extend to another day, when the House would be able to approach it unfatigued by any previous question, and, doubtless, continue the favourable criticism which had up to that time been extended to the well-meaning measure under discussion. For these reasons, and in order to give the House an opportunity of further discussion, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he hoped the second reading would be allowed, to be taken that evening. He appealed to hon. Members opposite to consider whether it was desirable to spend another day in debating matters which could be perfectly well discussed upon the clauses of the Bill in Committee. For his own part, he did not think there would be any injustice to Members of the House in asking them to continue the discussion upon the present Motion; and he was, therefore, compelled to express a hope that the hon. Member for Hertford would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
MR. GORSTsaid, he could but express his astonishment at the course taken that evening by the Government with regard to this Bill, because it was within his recollection that Tuesday next was the day appointed for the express purpose of the discussion on the Motion for the second reading. Private Members had been asked to give up their rights for the purpose of taking this stage of the Bill on Tuesday, and the day was named after a debate in which the subject was thoroughly discussed. The Bill before them was of the greatest

1359
interest to hon. Members, and the discussion which had taken place was by no means proportioned to its importance. It had certainly been a very short one, and he appealed to hon. Members in all parts of the House as to whether they would not like a further opportunity of discussing subjects upon which they could bring their own personal experiences to bear. For his own part, he was sure that if the Government would consent to adjourn the debate until to-morrow morning they would have the advantage of listening to many interesting experiences from Members of the House, who had not been able to take part in the discussion; and he believed also that the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill would receive suggestions from various parts of the House which could not but be of use when it went into Committee. His approval of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was given from no feeling of hostility to the Bill, because he had already promised his active support to a measure of this kind. He thought it well that Members who desired to address the House on the principle of the Bill should not be denied the opportunity of doing so. He believed, for instance, that the observations which his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) might make would be listened to by the House with great attention; and although he did not desire to enter into his own experiences of elections, he very much wished to offer some observations upon the principles involved in the Bill. If the debate were adjourned until tomorrow he should ask permission to do this. It was hardly possible that the debate of that evening could be prolonged to any great extent, seeing that it was then half-past 12 o'clock, and bearing in mind the speech to which they had listened at the beginning of the evening. For these reasons he hoped the Government would, out of consistency with their own desire to obtain Tuesday for the discussion of the Bill, consent to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford.
MR. CALLANsaid, he had no hostile feeling towards the Bill. On the contrary, he only regretted that it was not retrospective in its character, because, if it were, it would clear the House of
1360
nearly half its Members. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the Bill would be better taken again to-morrow, because it related to Ireland as well as to England, and the columns both of English and Irish newspapers would be filled up with the debate on the Budget, and only a very small portion of space would be allotted to the debate on the present Bill. If the debate were adjourned until Tuesday the question would be better ventilated in the public Press, and the experience of many hon. Gentlemen in regard to elections would be added to the information already possessed by the House. While he held that the Bill was very much desired by the country, and was in an especial manner necessary for some English and Welsh constituencies, he considered that the principles of the measure required to be narrowly scanned. He had been struck by the altogether insufficient, and he might almost say the absurd reason given by the Attorney General for reverting to the practice of trying Election Petitions with one Judge only—a practice which had been condemned by the House so recently as in the year 1879. This was a question upon which he desired to address the House, and he accordingly appealed to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) to consent to the adjournment of the debate, the Motion for which, he was quite sure, was made without any intention to delay the progress of the Bill, which he was as anxious as any Member of the House to see passed, amongst other reasons, because it struck at the rich parvenus who spent money corruptly in order to obtain seats in the House. Feeling that the question ought to be fully discussed and ventilated, he suggested that the debate might be adjourned with advantage until to-morrow.
LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he hoped the Government would reconsider their objection to the adjournment of the debate, because he had understood that a Morning Sitting was to be taken to-morrow for the especial purpose of discussing the Bill. The hon. and learned Attorney General, having courteously invited Members who had experience in electioneering matters to suggest to him Amendments by which the Bill might be improved, he would

1361
ask him how it was possible that those Amendments could be properly considered by him unless he allowed hon. Members an opportunity of giving reasons in support of them on the second reading? As he understood that the noble Marquess in moving that the House should meet to-morrow at 2 o'clock indicated that it was for the purpose of discussing this Bill, he hoped the noble Marquess would adhere to the arrangement he then made.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Certainly it is the intention of the Government that the Morning Sitting shall be devoted to the discussion of the Municipal Corporations Bill, and there is not the slightest desire on the part of the Government to shorten the debate if it appears to be the desire of a considerable number of Members to take part in the further discussion. What we have asked the House to do is to continue this debate a short time longer—say for an hour—and if there then appears to be a still unsatisfied desire on the part of a considerable number of Members to take part in it we should not feel justified in our opposition to the adjournment of the debate. All that we have asked the House to do is not at this somewhat early hour to adjourn the debate, but to continue to a reasonable time, and then, if it seems desirable, to adjourn the debate.
MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the noble Marquess, in speaking of this as an early hour, had forgotten that the House was bound by his Resolution to meet at 2 o'clock. He did not think the Government would gain any advantage by continuing this debate any further this evening. The Budget speech had been able, as it always was; but it proposed very few changes, and there was no reason for discussing it further now.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: There is nothing more difficult than to decide whether a debate should close or not; but I think, on the present occasion, we should save time by agreeing to an adjournment for one or two reasons. In the first place, considering the understanding there undoubtedly was that tomorrow was the day on which there would be a continuation of this discussion, we must bear in mind that those who are now present may be ready to go to a division; but there may be other
1362
hon. Gentlemen who have expected that the debate would be further continued. I must point out also that there is a general opinion throughout the House that not only should some measure be passed this Session for the restraint of corrupt and illegal practices, but also that the Bill of the Government furnishes a basis upon which such legislation should be founded; although, on the other hand, there may be some Amendments which it would be desirable to discuss. Those may, of course, be discussed in Committee; but I always find that a discussion on a second reading gives a good opportunity for bringing forward points that have to be considered, and I think that if there is any considerable number of hon. Gentlemen who wish to bring forward such points, it must be remembered that it was the expectation of the Government, when they first proposed a Morning Sitting for to-morrow, that this Bill would not have made such progress, and it would be necessary to go on with it to-morrow; and many Members have taken it for granted that the Business for to-morrow will be the discussion of this Bill. I think some who are not present might have reason to complain that they had not an opportunity of making speeches and suggestions which they wished to offer if that is not so. But the noble Marquess fairly says that if after another hour's discussion the House wishes to adjourn the debate he would have no objection to adjourning. According to my experience of the conduct of Business, I am of opinion that we should save time by adjourning now and seeing if we could get on with other Business. At the same time, I think the House will do well if it can come to a decision on the second reading of this Bill, because I feel that it is a Bill drawn with considerable care, and one which furnishes ground for legislation of an important character; and it is in no spirit of hostility to that Bill that I make this suggestion.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he hoped the Government would not consent to an adjournment. Much had been heard this Session about the extraordinary waste of time and the amount of Business to be got through. No argument had yet been brought forward which might not have been equally well advanced in Committee; and it seemed to him that

1363
now was the time for taking the second reading. The hon. Member for Hertford had expressed some surprise at the opposition to the second reading, and he agreed with the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had given his support generally to the principles of the Bill, and the points which the right hon. Gentleman had raised referred entirely to matters which might be brought forward in Committee. Many of those points were of considerable importance, and it might be well for the Government to consider them; but they were not directed against the second reading of the Bill, and he hoped the Government would press for a division.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, the noble Marquess stated that undoubtedly a Morning Sitting was asked for for Tuesday to take this Bill, and it was on that understanding that hon. Members consented to the proposal. If the Government did not accede to the adjournment of this debate he wished to know whether, if the second reading was carried tonight—though he did not suppose it would be—the noble Marquess would agree to the House meeting at the usual hour to-morrow?
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he hoped the Government would consent to what was really inevitable—namely, to put off the further discussion on the second reading of this Bill until to-morrow. A fair discussion on the second reading really shortened and facilitated the discussion on the clauses in Committee; and in a Bill of this character, with so many clauses, it was exceedingly difficult when in Committee to discuss some of the clauses and, in the light of other clauses, keep within the limits of Order. It might continually happen in discussing the clauses that it was necessary to refer to other clauses, and in that way Members might run themselves against the Rules of Order, which were drawn somewhat tightly on some occasions. It would be impossible to discuss those clauses when there had been no preliminary discussion on the joint working of the clauses. He was certain the Government would lose no time by consenting to adjourning the debate until tomorrow. On the contrary, they would very likely lose time if they tried to force on the Committee stage of this Bill. The Irish Members took very
1364
great interest in the Bill for the repression of corrupt practices, because corrupt practices had been the main enemy of nationality in the Irish elections; and therefore it was from no objection to the Bill that they asked for further time, not only for the discussion of the clauses, but for the consideration of the general scope of the Bill, taking the clauses together. That was a matter upon which they claimed to have a right of speech; and although he entirely appreciated the great zeal which the Attorney General had shown in this matter, and though he was certain that it would be much appreciated in the borough of Taunton, yet he hoped that out of consideration for other boroughs, which, perhaps, did not take so great an interest in the prevention of corrupt and illegal practices, the Government would kindly consent to the adjournment of the present discussion.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I should like to assure the House that the Government have no desire to prevent the fullest discussion of this measure. The information which has been given to the House is rather scanty, and the desire to prolong the debate appears to be attributed to some hon. Members who are not here now. But enough has been said to convince the Government that considerable opposition will be offered to the progress of the Bill; and as we do not wish to have the appearance of desiring to limit the discussion of so important a measure, we shall offer no opposition to the adjournment of this debate. The Bill will be taken at the Morning Sitting to-morrow, and I hope it will not be necessary to occupy the whole of the Sitting with it, but that, after the second reading, we may be able to utilize the remainder of the Sitting. The second Order will be the Municipal Corporations Bill; but that is only on a formal stage, and I hope we shall be able to proceed with the third Order, which relates to the Ballot Act.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the House would assent to the suggestion of the noble Marquess that if this debate was adjourned the whole of the Sitting to-morrow would not be taken up by the same Bill. He should not have risen except to thank the Attorney General for the way in which he had received the suggestion he himself

1365
had made; and he should give his earnest support to the Bill.
MR. W. H. SMITHasked if the Budget Resolutions would be taken to-morrow?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it would be convenient to take them to-morrow.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

ARKLOW HARBOUR (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
[BILL 137.] COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 (Charge upon baronies. Payment to Wicklow Copper Mine Company. Transfer of Harbour to Board).
Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, to leave out the words "and other buildings."
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 (Special meeting to consider as to charging town rates with expenditure in excess of estimate).
MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, the Bill stipulated that if, from any unforeseen cause, the estimate was insufficient, the Government should be authorized to advance by a further loan whatever might be wanted. Clause 5 proposed that in such an emergency a special meeting of the Arklow Town Commissioners should be called to consider it. Suppose they came to the conclusion that the whole money was thrown away, and that they would not charge the rates with any further sum, what would be the condition of affairs then?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, this provision was only inserted to meet a contingency of which it was believed there was no danger. The estimates had been most carefully considered; but, from experience of all estimates, they could not be absolutely certain that no further cost could possibly be incurred. If there was such a necessity,
1366
it was intended to be met by this clause, which had been framed with every possible care.
MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of the Bill; but he was satisfied that more consideration ought to be given to the subject involved.
MR. W. H. SMITHagreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Williamson) that there was a real danger to apprehend; but he had no doubt his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had taken great pains to satisfy himself that the estimates were correct and sufficient. He believed that if the noble Lord had to meet the House two or three years hence he would have to propose an additional Vote, and that it would not be met by the Town Commissioners of Arklow.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the estimates were made by their Predecessors, and the Government had taken every possible care to guard against the risk incurred by their Predecessors.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 87.]
(Mr. Barran, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Edward Clarke, Mr. Monk.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. BARRAN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did not forget that in the very able speech which was delivered by the President of the Board of Trade during last Session upon Bankruptcy Law the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed a Bill which was of very great national importance; and it was in no spirit of opposition to the measure of the right hon. Gentleman that he now asked the House to read this Bill a second time. The Bill was promoted by the Associated Chambers of Commerce; it was approved of by all the Chambers of Commerce in England; and he might also state that the Association of Bankers,

1367
Merchants, and Traders of the United Kingdom had passed a resolution supporting almost fully the Bill which he now moved should be read a second time. This was a question which affected the whole trading community of the Three Kingdoms, and it was one which demanded the attention of Parliament. They had been promised, from time to time, that a Bill should be introduced meeting the requirements of the Chambers of Commerce; but unfortunately the state of the Business of the House had been such as to preclude the possibility of the President of the Board of Trade introducing his Bill. Those hon. Gentlemen whose names were at the back of the Bill now under consideration were not at all anxious to in any way intercept the President of the Board of Trade. On the contrary, if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the second reading of the Bill to-night, they would be quite disposed to postpone the Committee stage until such reasonable time as the President of the Board of Trade might wish to be allowed him for the purpose of introducing his own Bill. There were very considerable questions involved, which traders deemed of the utmost importance. They had known in the past what had been the very serious objection to too much officialism. The trading community generally were anxious to avoid undue officialism, and this Bill proposed to give to the creditors such power that they might have both the responsibility and direction in matters which affected very largely their own interests. At that late hour (1.10) he did not think it right to go into any particulars as to the merits of the Bill; but he asked the House to read the Bill a second time, in order that they, as Representatives of large commercial interests, might take up a position befitting them when the President of the Board of Trade should see fit, and have the opportunity of bringing forward the measure which he foreshadowed during the last Session of Parliament.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Barran.)
MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was sorry he could not assent to the proposition which had just been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran); and he thought that, upon con-
1368
sideration, the hon. Member would feel it was hardly fair or reasonable to ask the House of Commons to commit itself to the principle of a Bill on so important a subject as the present at that late hour. The hon. Member had said that, in consequence of the lateness of the hour, he did not feel justified in trespassing upon the House; and, consequently, the House had not had the advantage of hearing any explanation of the clauses of the Bill, or of the general principle it proposed to carry into law. If they passed the second reading with the assent of the Government they would be committed to the principle of the Bill. He could not undertake to pledge the Government to the Bill. It was an extremely inadequate measure for dealing with a great subject; and if he thought the present a fair opportunity he should explain to the House that there were many objectionable features of the Bill which would tend to increase the scandals of the existing system rather than remove them. His hon. Friend talked about the importance of the creditors possessing the power to prevent anything like extensive officialism. The present Bill would tend to sustain the system under which there had been a quasi-official management; but there was no efficient supervision to prevent abuse. Officials of the Trade Protection Societies had, in many cases, had the management of bankrupt estates; and the control, if properly looked after, answered well. Of course, in some cases there had been great abuse. He supposed it was of no use to ask his hon. Friend to withdraw the Bill; and, therefore, it was his duty to move that the debate be adjourned. If his hon. Friend would take another, and a fitting opportunity, he should be glad that his Bill should be discussed. He hoped he would be able, at a later period of the Session, to introduce the Bill, which was promised in the Queen's Speech, for dealing with the subject. In that case he supposed it might be the pleasure of the House to refer the Bill to a Grand Committee, if the proposal for Grand Committees on Trade and Commerce should meet with the approval of the House; and he should not see any objection to the Bill of his hon. Friend, as well as any other Bill dealing with the same subject, going before the same Committee. That, however, should only be done after the House had had a

1369
full opportunity of discussing the principle of the Bill on the second reading. He would move that the debate be now adjourned.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, there was an ominous tone in the right hon. Gentleman's voice when he spoke of the prospect of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Barran) getting another opportunity for discussing the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade said it would be his duty to move the adjournment of the debate; but if his hon. Friend could get another opportunity of bringing forward the Bill, possibly he might enter into the merits of the measure. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that this was a late hour to discuss matters of this kind; but the opportunities that private Members had of bringing in Bills was so very limited that they were glad to avail themselves of any that presented themselves. The President of the Board of Trade might have shown a little more respect to the opinions of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and to the other commercial bodies in the country, than to dismiss in so cavalier a fashion a Bill which had their unanimous support. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill contained many mischievous provisions, not one of which he had condescended to point out to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill would continue the present officialism, and then he said the officialism was that of the Trade Protection Society. If no other measure could be passed this year—and there was very little hope that the right hon. Gentleman himself would be able to pass any measure this year on the Law of Bankruptcy—if no other measure than this were passed, and if this measure contained but one of its clauses, it would be an enormous advance and improvement in the Bankruptcy Law of the country. If only that section of the present Act which allowed liquidation by arrangement could be repealed, it would be of great service to trade. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion for Adjournment. He had said that ultimately he would be prepared to consent to this Bill being submitted to the same Select or Grand Committee as the Bill he
1370
hoped to shortly bring forward. The Bill now under consideration would, before it could be referred to a Committee, have to be read a second time. It would not be fair to adjourn this debate and allow the right hon. Gentleman to bring in his Bill, with all the advantage of the Government authority for the arrangement of matters in the House, and very probably leave the hon. Member (Mr. Barran), and the other hon. Gentlemen who were acting with him, in the position of being unable to bring their Bill on again; and, therefore, precluded from having it submitted to the same tribunal as the Government measure. He hoped a division would be taken on the question of adjournment.
MR. MONKregretted to hear the President of the Board of Trade speak in so doubtful a manner as to the probability of his being able to introduce his own Bill on this subject this Session. The right hon. Gentleman was as well aware as they were that the commercial community were looking anxiously for some move on the part of the right hon. Gentleman; and he (Mr. Monk) and others had heard very serious complaints that the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman had not been brought in before this, and circulated in the country. The Bill which had been brought in by his hon. Friend had been carefully considered by the Associated Chambers of Commerce. It was an amending Bill; it was a Bill amending the Act of 1869. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade intended to bring in a Bill entirely repealing that Act, and altering materially the Law of Bankruptcy; still, as that Bill was in embryo, and as they did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be able to introduce it at all this Session, he hoped the House would not refuse the second reading of the Bill of the hon. Member for Leeds. As the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Edward Clarke) had said, the Bill must be read a second time before it could be sent to a Committee. He must confess he had very serious doubts whether the Grand Committee of which his right hon. Friend had spoken would ever come to anything. At all events, the Bankruptcy Bill would not pass into law, if it had to be sent to a Grand Committee, this Session. Under the circumstances, his hon. Friend was quite entitled to go to a division.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 37: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 71.)
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
House adjourned at half after One o'clock.