Commons Sitting of 11 April 1892

QUESTIONS.

  TELEGRAPH RATES TO INDIA AND AUSTRALIA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the fact that the telegraph rate from England to India is 4s. a word, and the telegraph rate from England to Australia vià India, but double the distance, is also only 4s. per word; whether he is aware that this latter concession was brought about by the Telegraph Companies and the Australasian Governments jointly agreeing to share any loss arising from the reduction of rates from 9s. to 4s. per word; whether he has ascertained that the joint loss has on the first year only amounted to about £12,500 aside, and is expected to involve no expense after the second year; and whether he has taken any steps to recommend the giving of a similar guarantee by the British and Indian Governments, whereby the rates to India may be reduced from 4s. to 1s. per word?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The lately-reduced telegraph rates to Australia and Tasmania may be said to be about 4s. a word. To Queensland and New Zealand they remain at about 10s. To India the charge is 4s. The reduction was brought about by the Governments concerned and the Eastern and Eastern Extension Telegraph Companies agreeing to bear jointly any loss that it might entail. Her Majesty's Government were not parties to the agreement, and we are not aware what the consequent loss has been. I have not any intention of proposing a similar reduction and guarantee in regard to India; and I have reason to believe that the conditions of commercial life in India would not produce any increase of business commensurate to, or approaching, the loss of revenue which would be the result.

  INDIAN REVENUE FROM INTOXICANTS.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a statement in "Abkari" for this month to the effect that the revenue from native intoxicants in Bombay has increased from Rs.38.82,966, as the average of five years ending 1881–2, to Rs.75.19,911 for the year ending 1889–90; whether he can state what was the increase in the quantity consumed; whether he will draw the attention of the Bombay Government to the Resolution passed by the House of Commons in March, 1889, against giving undue facilities for the sale of strong drink in India; whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the Government of Bengal raises an annual revenue of £240,000 from the sale of bhang and other preparations of hemp; whether he has any evidence to show that these drugs are the cause of much of the lunacy in India; and whether he will call the attention of the Government of India to the dangerous character of these drugs, and the necessity of restricting their sale?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): (1) The Secretary of State has seen the statement which is taken from the published Abkari Report for 1889–90. (2.) The consumption in the Presidency cannot be stated as a whole for the earlier period, when the farming system, under which the statistics were not ascertained, prevailed in some districts. (3.) The Secretary of State does not think it necessary to communicate with the Bombay Government in the manner suggested. The hon. Member is aware that during the period named in the first paragraph of his question, the rate of duty on native spirit has been greatly raised. For instance, in Bombay City, of which we have full statistics for the last ten years, the duty on moura spirit was raised from R1 to Rs1¾ in 1876; to Rs.2¼ in 1878; to Rs.2¾ in 1886; and to Rs.3 in 1889, at which rate it stands at present. The consumption in 1881–2, with a population of 773,000, was 639,975 gallons; in 1890–91,

  1087
  with a population of 804,000, it was 564,190 gallons. (4.) The Bengal revenue from drugs in 1890–1 was not £240,000, but Rs.236,000. (5.) The Reports of Lunatic Asylums attribute some 25 per cent. of the cases treated to the abuse of ganja. (6.) A Report on the subject of the consumption of narcotic drugs other than opium has been called for, and has been promised by the Government of India. Until it is received, the Secretary of State does not propose to take any action.

  REGIMENTAL MESS AND BAND FUNDS.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, in relation to Orders which were issued by the Indian Government on the disbandment or conversion of certain regiments in India that the mess and band funds of the regiments mustered out of service should be handed over to the newly-constituted or substituted regiments without compensation, and to the statement made in this House last year by the Under Secretary of State that there appeared to have been some irregularity, and that the Secretary of State had called for a Report, whether such Report has been received, and whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House; whether the Secretary of State is aware that, in the Orders lately issued for the conversion of the 30th and 31st Madras Infantry, the "band, mess, colours, and other regimental properties" belonging to the officers of these regiments have been ordered to be handed over to the "newly-constituted" regiments, without compensation to the officers of the old regiments; and whether the Secretary of State is aware that in similar cases in the British Service the highest military authority has invariably recognised the right of the officers of a disbanded regiment to the property in their mess and band funds?
  MR. CURZON: No, Sir; the Report of the Government of India has not been received. A despatch was sent to them in July, and another to remind them of the matter in February of this year. Till the reply is received, the Secretary of State is not in a position to express an opinion. As regards the
  1088
  30th and 31st Madras Infantry, the General Order says that the mess, band, and other property of the regiments, together with the colours, will remain with the regiments as re-constituted. The answer to the third paragraph will no doubt be given in reply to the question on the subject addressed by the hon. Member to the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the recognised rule or custom in the British Army with regard to the disposal of the mess, band, and other officers' funds of a regiment which is disbanded or re-constituted; and whether His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief has officially declared that these funds were the private property of the officers, and that it was never thought desirable or advisable for the authorities to interfere with their disposal?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): There has been no recent case of a British regiment being disbanded; and His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief does not remember making the official declaration attributed to him. At the same time, the practice has been to regard the mess and band funds of a corps as its private property.

  LICENSED METROPOLITAN CABS AND CAB DRIVERS.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state what is the registered number at the present time of licensed cabs and licensed cab drivers within the Metropolitan Police District?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I am informed by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police that the number of hackney carriage proprietors' licences is 11,062, and of drivers 15,024.

  "REGINA V. HURLBERT."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

  1089
  whether, in view of the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions states in his Report, which has been presented to the House, that he found great difficulties in taking action in "Regina v. Hurlbert," owing to being refused permission to take copies of the impounded documents, owing to a Rule of Court, and that the refusal
  "Caused great difficulty and delay in prosecuting the inquiries that he had set on foot with the object of ascertaining whether evidence was procurable which would justify a charge of perjury against the defendant,"
  and that a correspondence between the Director and the Court of Queen's Bench took place in regard to this matter, he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of this correspondence, in order to enable the House to decide whether legislation is necessary in the interests of justice?
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also say if he has any knowledge of the means by which the defendant was enabled to evade apprehension?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware. As to the question on the Paper, I should be glad, first, to obtain the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. If he sees no objection, I shall be ready to lay this correspondence on the Table. The Lord Chief Justice is now on circuit, but I will apply to him without delay.

  THE CASE OF FANNY GANE.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, considering the great difference between the sentence of one year's imprisonment recently passed upon Mrs. Montagu for the manslaughter of her child, three years of age, and the sentence of death, since commuted to penal servitude for life, upon Fanny Gane for the murder of her newly-born illegitimate child, he will consider whether Fanny Gane might be released from imprisonment, or if he would state what course it is proposed to take in her case?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have twice this Session informed the hon. Member that I am not prepared as yet to announce the ultimate reduction of sentence in the case of Fanny Gane. The hon. Member may feel sure that it will not be overlooked.
  MR. COBB: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when an announcement can be made?
  MR. MATTHEWS: It is usual to wait and see the effect of prison discipline before announcing the ultimate decision. The reduction of the sentence is always very considerable.

  POSTMASTERSHIP OF LIMERICK.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if the postmaster of Limerick is yet fully retired under the 65 Rule; and, if so, has his place been filled, and by whom?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes; the postmaster has retired, and the vacancy has been gazetted; but the applications have not yet been all collected.

  THE ORPHANS FLANNEGAN, MOTHERWELL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Mr. James Muir, Inspector of Poor, Parish of Bothwell, who has in his charge two orphan girls, Rose and Mary Flannegan, now respectively 14 and 12 years of age, has removed the children from the Motherwell Workhouse, and refuses to inform their next-of-kin—namely, Mathew Flannegan, their uncle, and Elizabeth Flannegan, their grandmother, where the children are at present; and whether the uncle and grandmother, being desirous to bring up and educate the children, are entitled to have the custody of them?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I learn that the grandmother of the children has herself petitioned the Supreme Court in Scotland for their custody. This being so, and the statements made in the question being more or less nearly related to that litigation, I must respectfully decline to give the hon. Member any opinion on the subject. It may, however, allay the hon. Gentleman's anxiety if I add that, according to my information, the elder girl is in domestic service in Scotland; that neither of them has ever seen either the grandmother or the uncle; and that the guardian ad litem of the younger child

  1091
  has reported to the Court, after an interview with her, that her determination not to go to Ireland is so strong that in his opinion nothing short of force would induce her to go.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman will see there is no question of going to Ireland. Is there any reason why the relatives—the grandmother and uncle—should be denied access? May I ask whether the question of the right of the relatives to an interview must depend on the result of litigation, or whether such can be granted?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: That is a totally different question, of which I must ask the hon. Member to give notice.

  BOARD SCHOOL MASTERS' APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the following advertisement which appeared in the issue of the Schoolmaster dated 2nd April, 1892:—
  "Willand School Board (Devon).—Wanted, Midsummer next, Certificated (Married) Master and Mistress, Mixed Board School, Willand, Collumpton, Devon. Wife, Infants, Needlework. Average 63 children. Harmonium in church. Drawing";
  and whether it is the duty of the district auditor to surcharge the members of the Willand School Board, who sign the cheques for the salaries of teachers, with any amount which may be paid out of the school fund for work other than that directly connected with the office of schoolmaster?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,(who replied) said: My attention had not been previously directed to the advertisement referred to. I have no doubt that the district auditor will duly consider any question which may arise as to the legality of any payment which may appear in the accounts of the School Board; and if the Local Government Board are called upon in the exercise of their equitable jurisdiction to determine any appeal which they may receive against his decision, the facts will be fully considered by them.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the following advertisement which appeared in the issue of the Schoolmaster, dated 2nd April, 1892:—
  "Willand School Board (Devon).—Wanted, Midsummer next, Certificated (Married) Master and Mistress, Mixed Board School, Willand, Collumpton, Devon. Wife, Infants, Needlework. Average 63 children. Harmonium in Church. Drawing";
  whether he is aware that the income of the Willand School Board is entirely derived from Government grants and local rates; whether he will instruct Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools for the district to inquire at his next annual visit to the school whether, in the Form IX. presented to him, the amount returned thereon as expended in salaries includes any payment to the master for playing the "harmonium in church"; and whether he is yet prepared to take any steps to prevent the masters and mistresses of elementary schools being compelled to undertake work for which they either receive no payment, or else receive payment out of public funds provided solely for educational purposes?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): Such advertisements as that referred to in the hon. Member's two questions are, I believe, not uncommon; but a note has been introduced into the manager's Return which makes it the duty of the Inspector to see that the salary paid to the teacher does not include any sum paid in respect of services in any other capacity, and will thus prevent any misapplication of the school income. I must, however, demur to the terms of the last paragraph of the second question, as teachers can always discover, on applying for an engagement, whether it involves distasteful duties.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has seen in the Schoolmaster, of 27th February, an advertisement of the Painswick School Board for a certificated assistant

  1093
  master, which advertisement states that "the post of organist at the Parish Church is vacant, salary £20 a year. Assistant would be eligible;" whether it forms any part of the duties of a School Board to advertise for a Parish Church organist; and whether, in view of the fact that such an intimation is calculated to deter all but members of the Church of England from becoming applicants for the assistant mastership, the Department will take steps to prevent a repetition of such proceedings?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I cannot undertake to review the advertising columns of the Schoolmaster, but it does not appear to me that the School Board limited its choice to persons who were competent to undertake the duties of organist. There is, however, no power in the Department to interfere, and I cannot accept what appears to be the doctrine of the hon. Member that such an advertisement is in the nature of a religious test.

  BOARD SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with reference to the correspondence which has taken place between the Education Department and the School Board for London on the subject of an application of the School Board for authority to provide additional accommodation for 420 children in connection with the Burghley Road School—namely, a letter from the School Board dated 30th October, 1891, and a letter from the Education Department dated 25th February, 1892, whether the Department have receded from the position taken up in their letter to Mr. Ambrose Goddard, published in the School Board Chronicle of 20th July, 1889, and in their letter to the managers of the National School, Luton, dated 17th June, 1889, to the following effect:—
  "My Lords consider that for the purpose of determining whether the application of a School Board under Section 10 of the Act of 1873 should be granted, the existing accommodation for older children should not be taken at eight square feet per child, which is the minimum allowance under the Code for the purposes of annual grants, but should be calculated at ten square feet"?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: It is obvious that the application in any particular instance of the principle to which the hon. Member refers must largely depend upon local circumstances; and looking to the grave responsibility attaching to any new departure in calculating a deficiency over so large and populous an area as that of London, I am of opinion that the Department should proceed with the greatest deliberation and upon the fullest information which the Board can supply.
  MR. SUMMERS: Then in this instance the Department do not adhere to the position taken up in 1889?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: We have not receded from that position as to the general application of the principle, but there may be exceptional cases. I can assure the hon. Member the matter is not definitely closed. The Permanent Secretary, unfortunately, who has been dealing with the matter, is absent from illness, and I have not been able to consult him.
  MR. SUMMERS: I will put a further question on the subject.

  LAND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. MACNEILL:: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why have the Registrar and Assistant Registrar of the Irish Land Commission, after an official experience of 20 years, in which they have efficiently discharged their duties, been deprived of their posts; on what ground has a salary of £1,000 been given to Mr. Porter; on what ground has the salary of Mr. Lynch been raised at one bound from £300 to £800 per annum; why has Mr. O'Farrell been made Registrar to the Land Commission on a much larger salary than that drawn by the late Registrar and Assistant Registrar, who have filled those posts for upwards of ten years; and over the heads of how many officials have Mr. Porter, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. O'Farrell respectively been promoted?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The Registrar's Department in the Land Commission had, under its old constitution, assigned to it merely duties connected with the settlement of judicial rents; but on the re-organisa-

  1095
  tion of the whole Commission, pursuant to the Land Purchase Act of last Session, more difficult and important duties arising under the administration of the Land Purchase Acts were combined with the other duties. To this combined office Mr. O'Farrell, who had already held an important position in the Commission and was a barrister of standing, was appointed as the officer best qualified for the discharge of these duties. Mr. Porter had been an Assistant Commissioner in receipt of a salary of £800 a year. On appointment as the permanent head of the Agricultural Department he obtained the higher salary mentioned. Mr. Lynch was not at the time of the re-organisation in receipt of a salary of £300 a year, but of £490, proceeding by increments to £550, as Chief Clerk in the Examiners' Department. On appointment as First Assistant Examiner he was, in consideration of his previous services, awarded a personal salary of £800 a year, the normal salary of the post of Assistant Examiner being fixed at £700. Neither Mr. Porter nor Mr. Lynch has been promoted over the heads of any official, while Mr. O'Farrell, as already explained, has been appointed to practically a new office.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When was this Agricultural Department created, and what are its functions?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member desires a detailed answer as to the duties of the Department, I am afraid I must ask him to give notice of his question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely, if an appointment is made of £1,000 a year for the head of an Agricultural Department, we ought to know what that Department is. We hear of it now for the first time. Does the Department undertake the publication of the Reports of the sales of live meat and the weights? Does it take £1,000 to publish these market Reports?
  MR. JACKSON: Oh, no; there are many very important duties, and I may say none of these appointments were made until after very careful investigation by the Irish Government and the Treasury.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What was the date of the creation of the Department?
  1096
  The Commission has gone on for ten years without it.
  MR. JACKSON: I am speaking of the appointments made from 1st January.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was the Department only created then?
  MR. JACKSON: It was not then created, but I referred to these appointments.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: But when was it created?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member will give notice of his question I can give the precise date.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us, is not Mr. Porter the son-in-law of one Commissioner and Mr. Lynch the son of another? Is not this a family job?
  MR. JACKSON: Mr. Lynch may be the son of a Commissioner, but I believe Mr. Porter is a bachelor.

  POOR LAW ELECTIONS, MOHILL.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board has been informed that, in the recent Poor Law election for the Caltan Division, Mohill Union, numbers of voting papers were wilfully spoiled by persons who visited the houses of the electors and obtained possession of the papers by threats, and many others were spoiled after they had been given to a constable for delivery to the Returning Officer; and whether a new election has been ordered?
  MR. JACKSON: Complaints of the nature referred to have been received by the Local Government Board. Careful inquiries on the subject are being made.

  DISPENSARY DOCTORS, BELFAST UNION.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the population within the area of the Belfast Poor Law Union, the number of dispensary districts and dispensary doctors, the population in each dispensary district, and the salaries paid to the doctors; whether there is any other district in Ireland where dispensary doctors have such large popu-

  1097
  lations within their district; and whether, in the interest of the poor of Belfast, the Union will be divided into a larger number of dispensary districts, and additional dispensary doctors appointed?
  MR. JACKSON: The population of the Belfast Union in 1881 was 239,283. There are two dispensary districts, Belfast and Castlereagh. The first-named has ten medical officers, the latter three. The population of the Belfast district in 1881 was 203,000, and of Castlereagh 36,000. The salaries of the medical officers of the Belfast district amount to £1,009. These officers receive salaries varying from £100 to £125. In Castlereagh the three officers receive £145, £135, and £115. While the population is larger than in any other district in Ireland, it should be borne in mind the area of the district is small. No representation has been made to the Local Government Board as to the necessity of subdivision of the district and the appointment of more doctors.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that, though the area of the district is small, the growth of the population of Belfast has been so exceptional that these medical officers, in proportion to the work done, are the worst paid in Ireland?
  MR. JACKSON: I am sure if any representation is made to the Local Government Board it will be carefully considered.

  DISTRESS IN THE RUSKEY ELECTORAL DIVISION.
  MR. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Ruskey Electoral Division of the Strokestown Union has been scheduled as a congested district; whether any, and what, steps have been taken to put the Act into operation in the district; whether there is at present a property, consisting of several thousand acres of unclaimed bog, in the district suitable for planting, drainage, &c.; and whether, considering the poverty and overpopulation of the division and the high poor rate (varying during recent years from three shillings to six shillings in
  1098
  the pound), he would recommend the purchasing of this property, with the view of giving employment by planting and draining it, and, where practicable, migrating a portion of the population?
  MR. JACKSON: The Electoral Division mentioned is scheduled as a congested district. The other matters referred to will be considered by the Board when they receive Reports of the inquiries that they have directed to be made.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. SHEEHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the last sitting of a Sub-Commission for the hearing of fair rent applications took place in the County Kerry; and when there will be another sitting?
  MR. JACKSON: The Irish Land Commissioners report that a Sub-Commission sat in the County Kerry during the month of October and November last. The date of the next sitting in that county has not yet been arranged.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if any, and, if so, how many, fair rent applications from the County of Cork served prior to the 29th September, 1887, are still unheard?
  MR. JACKSON: The Land Commissioners report that there are 25 cases in the County Cork still undisposed of in which the originating notices were received in their office prior to 29th September, 1887. Every one of these cases, however, has been already listed for hearing, but adjourned for various reasons.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the existing number of Assistant Land Commissioners, legal and lay, appointed by the Land Commission; into how many Circuits they are divided; whether they have been sitting as Sub-Commissioners continuously since

  1099
  October last; and in what Circuit the County of Cork is, and how many counties are included with Cork in the Circuit?
  MR. JACKSON: The Land Commissioners report that there are four Legal and 24 Lay Assistant Land Commissioners employed on Sub-Commission duty. These are divided into four Sub-Commissions, each consisting of one Legal and six Lay Commissioners. These gentlemen have been continuously engaged in the disposal of fair rent cases since last October, excepting the Christmas vacation. The Counties of Waterford, Kerry, Queen's County, Carlow, Kilkenny, Cork, Tipperary, Clare, Limerick, and a portion of King's County are included in the Circuit allotted to Sub-Commission No. 2.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH JAMAICA.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a message of the Governor of Jamaica to the Legislative Council of that island, enclosing a letter to His Excellency from the Halifax and Bermudas Cable Company, asking for an annual grant from the island of £2,000 per annum, as a condition of laying a cable to the Island of Jamaica viâ Turk's Island, and stating that it is proposed to ask the Imperial Government to grant an annual subsidy of £8,000 per annum; and whether Her Majesty's Government has any intention to grant this subsidy?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Secretary of State's attention has been called to the message in question; but it is premature at present to make any statement on the subject.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Do I understand that there is an assurance that before such a subsidy is granted it will be submitted to the House?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: That is a question which should be addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the question now, but I do not see the right hon. Gentleman in his place.

  ENFIELD SMALL ARMS FACTORY.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state what amount was paid in wages at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, day work and piece work respectively, on the last pay day in March and first pay day in April, 1891; and what amounts for the corresponding periods this year, and the number of men engaged piece and day work on these dates respectively?
  MR. BRODRICK: The figures are being prepared. I shall be glad if the hon. Member will repeat his question to-morrow.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will explain why the notice which was posted at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, on Friday last, intimating that the factory would be closed on Saturday until further orders, was cancelled on the following day; whether any further discharge would take place in consequence of the cancelling of this order; and, if so, would he take the opinion of the employees at the factory as to their willingness to work short time for the purpose of obviating further discharges; and what number of men were at work on Friday and Saturday last at the factory?
  MR. BRODRICK: The notice posted at Enfield, intimating that the factory would be closed until further orders, was cancelled by order of the Secretary of State, who, while hoping to carry out the necessary discharges, by a temporary resort to short time, as gradually as possible, was not prepared to approve the order as it was issued, as its effect would have been the establishment of short time for a long period. Its cancelment will have but a small effect on the number of discharges, and is a question of administration on which it seems scarcely desirable to consult the employees. The number of men at work on Friday last was 1,943, and on Saturday 1,906. This does not represent the whole number on the books, some being absent from temporary causes.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I rather think the hon. Gentleman has not given me the information I want. Surely a week ago there were not so many as 1,900? My question refers to the Friday and Saturday before I gave notice of my question.
  MR. BRODRICK: I am speaking of last Friday and Saturday.

  CARBINE CONTRACTS TO THE HENRY BARREL COMPANY.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what contracts for carbines have been given to the Henry Barrel Company, when were such contracts given, and how many have been delivered up till 31st December, 1891; and if the firm have asked for the assistance of Enfield to turn out this order?
  MR. BRODRICK: The only contract under which deliveries could have been made before the end of last year was given in 1890, and was for the conversion of 12,000 carbines to ·303 bore. Under this contract 800 had been delivered at the date named. The only other contract with the Henry Barrel Company for carbines was made in the present year for 30,000 carbines for India. Assistance from Enfield has not been asked for.

  WASTE WORK STOPPAGES—OLD FORD RIFLE WORKS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the practice of stopping men for waste work, which exists at the Rifle Works, Old Ford, is a breach of the Truck Act; and whether the discontinuance of this practice at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, has had the result that less waste is made now than previously?
  MR. BRODRICK: We have no information as to the practice at the Old Ford Rifle Works in regard to stoppages for waste work. Whether such stoppages constitute a breach of the Truck Act is a legal question, on which I would prefer not to express an opinion. The practice was discontinued at Enfield some four years ago. The amount of waste is dependent on so
  1102
  many circumstances that it is scarcely possible to determine the result of any particular measure.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: May I ask, is not the waste attributable to defective machinery?
  MR. BRODRICK: No, I do not think so. As a matter of fact, it is almost impossible to arrive at an exact result.

  LONDON SMALL ARMS COMPANY.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what contract for the Lee-Metford rifle has been given to the London Small Arms Company; when was such contract given; and what number had been delivered up to 31st December, 1891?
  MR. BRODRICK: A contract for 75,000 Lee-Metford rifles was made on 17th February, 1890. To 31st December, 1891, there had been delivered under it 6,743 arms.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will take steps to put a stop to the system of sub-contracting which exists at the London Small Arms Company; and if there exists any arrangement between the foremen and the Company to lessen the cost of production?
  MR. BRODRICK: I have no special knowledge as to the arrangements between the London Small Arms Company and their workmen, but I believe that sub-contracting is more or less a custom in the gun trade.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether sub-contracting is discouraged in this case?
  MR. BRODRICK: It is forbidden, except in regard to those portions of a contract where sub-contracts necessarily have to be made.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: But what I want to find out is whether the conditions against sub-contracting is allowed by special arrangement with the Small Arms Company to be dispensed with?
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: May I ask whether the factory clause is inserted in this as in all other contracts?
  MR. BRODRICK: The clause is inserted in the contract. We have no knowledge of the sub-contracting referred to, but I believe it is usual, according to the custom of the trade.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I must press this matter of sub-contracting, of which there has been much talk of late. I should like to know if the hon. Gentleman will give some assurance that the grievance of the employees will be considered?
  MR. BRODRICK: I will make further inquiries if the hon. Member will put down notice of another question.

  SENTENCES ON DYNAMITARDS AND ANARCHISTS.
  MR. HARRISON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state to the House the official record of the crime of which the Walsall anarchists or dynamitards were convicted and of the sentences imposed; and also the official record of the crime of which the Irish "treason felony" or dynamitard prisoners were convicted and the sentences imposed?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have not copies of the records in these cases; and if I had, it would far exceed the limits of an answer to state the effect of all the counts of all the numerous indictments referred to. I may say, generally, that the Walsall anarchists were indicted under the Explosives Act of 1883, and received sentences of ten and five years' penal servitude. "Treason felony" prisoners, whether Irish, English, or Scotch, were indicted under the 11 and 12 Vict., c. 12, and received sentences ranging from transportation or penal servitude for life to penal servitude for five years.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of Egan, in whose possession explosives were not found; they were found in his garden?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member will perhaps put notice of his question on the Paper?

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FAMINE IN INDIA.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been directed to a letter appearing in the Echo of the 6th April, signed by Sir A. Cotton, R.E., K.C.S.I., that the prospects in the part of India now subject to drought seem quite as bad as in 1877, when four millions of people perished, and that, except in the Punjab, where some real grappling with irrigation is now evident, not one single thing has been done since the last famine to provide against another; whether it is the fact, as stated in Sir A. Cotton's letter, three populous districts in Madras—Godavery, Kistna, and Tanjore—had been effectually provided with water, and that in these districts there was sufficient food for the sustenance of the inhabitants, and for the export of provisions which saved millions of lives in the adjacent districts; and will an inquiry be made into Sir A. Cotton's charge, which he says calls for peremptory investigation, that, after the awful results witnessed, not one single step has been taken to extend these effective works to the rest of the country dependent on the North-East monsoon?
  MR. CURZON: The Secretary of State has seen Sir A. Cotton's statements. There is no ground for fearing that the distress in South India this year is as severe or as widely extended as at the same season in 1877. Then there were 783,000 persons receiving relief in Madras and Mysore; now the corresponding total is 39,500. The latest information received during the present week from the Governor of Madras does not justify any fresh alarm. As regards the allegation that,
  "except in the Punjab, not one single thing has been done since the last famine to provide against another,"
  the capital expenditure on irrigation works since 1877 has amounted to Rs.123·85,000; while, in addition to continued expenditure upon existing works, the following new irrigation works have been commenced since 1877:—North-West Provinces.—Betwa Canal. Madras.—Sangam Anicut, Barur Tank,

  1105
  Rushikalya Canal, Periyar Canal, Scinde.—Desert Canal, Unharwah Canal. The facts stated in the second part of the question were, broadly speaking, true of the situation in 1877, and not to the present scarcity, to which they refer. In view of the facts which I have mentioned, the Secretary of State sees no reason to inquire into Sir A. Cotton's allegations.

  THE BOARD OF TRADE RETURNS.
  MR. OCTAVIUS V. MORGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a leading article in the Daily Chronicle of 2nd April, suggesting possible improvements in the monthly trade and navigation statements of the Board of Trade; whether German goods shipped to England viâ Antwerp are classed in the Returns as Belgian, imports from Norway and Sweden viâ Hamburg classed as German, imports from the United States viâ the St. Lawrence classed as Canadian, and imports from Canada viâ Portland, Boston, and New York classed as United States goods; whether he will consider the possibility of obviating this inaccuracy by reference to the bills of lading and by a greater use of the Merchandise Marks Act, so that the real place of origin may be shown; and whether, with a view to increase the value of the Returns to the commercial community, he will follow the custom of the United States and other countries, and enter more into detail in the information given in these statements?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have looked at the article referred to. It does not accurately describe the present state of affairs. In the import and export statistics of the United States—referred to as superior to our own—no distinction is made at all as regards the countries from which imports are received, but the totals are lumped together from all countries, so that our monthly Returns already give more details than those of the United States. The suggestion contained in the question is one which has often been inquired into by Statistical Committees, with the result that the present practice has been adopted.
  1106
  German goods coming from Antwerp, are not classed in the Returns as Belgian goods, but are entered as coming from Belgium, as is the fact, and so with the other instances mentioned. It is easy to ascertain the country from which goods come to us, while difficulties, delays, and serious inaccuracies would probably be caused by the attempt to give the country of origin. The practice of other leading countries in the matter is not uniform; and some that have attempted to show the country of origin of imports, or the country of ultimate destination of exports, admit their failure. The subject, with others, will be again considered by the Revision Committee of the Board of Trade and Customs which annually considers all representations made for improving the accounts.

  RURAL POSTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. BARTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Petition has been received by him from the merchants of Portadown and inhabitants of the townlands of Ballinagore, Derryanville Derrycorey, Derrycarn, and Derrymacfal, near Portadown, asking for a rural post delivery to these townlands; whether the prayer of the Petition has been inquired into, and reported on by the Inspector; whether the result of such inquiry and report is favourable to the prayer of the petitioners; and whether, in view of the present serious inconvenience to persons residing in the locality, a rural post delivery will be granted for the district?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Such a Memorial has been received. The arrangement desired by the memorialists appears to be convenient, and I hope that it may be found practicable to adopt it.

  THE PLAGUE OF MICE IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, considering that the plague of field mice or voles continues to spread, and is doing most serious damage in certain districts of the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, Dumfriesshire, and other parts of Scotland, he will appoint a Departmental Committee to have a thoroughly

  1107
  scientific investigation of this scourge, and of the best methods of stamping it out?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I replied on Thursday last to a precisely similar question, and I am afraid I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion. I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I then gave.
  MR. MARK STEWART: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further investigations during the Recess?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to say that we have already made as full investigation into this question as seems to be possible, and there is nothing to lead me to believe that I should acquire any further information which would tend to throw any fresh light on the question. I frankly acknowledge that I do not see my way to any action on the part of the Board of Agriculture.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what progress the survey on 1/2500 scale of the six remaining Scotch counties is making; how long in each case is it expected that the survey will take with the present staff employed; and when is it anticipated that it will be completed?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The arrangement come to some time ago was to employ four out of the 18 Survey Commissioners in Scotland as soon as the Lancashire and Yorkshire surveys were finished. This arrangement will be adhered to.

  CAPTAIN BUTCHER AND THE MANIPUR DISASTER.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether Captain G. H. Butcher, whom the Indian military authorities have removed from the Army on account of his conduct during the recent deplorable events at Manipur, asked for a Court Martial; and, if so, why it was refused?
  MR. CURZON: On the receipt of the Report of the Court of Inquiry which sat at Manipur to investigate the circumstances of the disaster, Captain Butcher was furnished with the passages from the Report dealing with
  1108
  his conduct, and was requested to submit explanations. It was on those explanations that the Commander-in-Chief in India recommended Captain Butcher's removal from the Service, which was carried out by the Secretary of State. Under the Queen's Regulations, no officer is entitled to a Court Martial, and neither the military authorities in India nor the Secretary of State saw anything in the case to justify them in granting Captain Butcher's request for one.

  SORTERS IN THE POST OFFICE.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, on 5th February, the Lords of the Treasury sanctioned an increase of 49 first class sorters in the Circulation Department, and whether the sanction was dated 23rd January; whether a large number of second class sorters have been performing first class duties since the above was issued; and whether any appointments to the first class have been made; and, if so, how many?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The answer to the first two paragraphs is, Yes. No appointments to the 49 vacancies have yet been made, but they are under consideration.

  ENGLAND AND FRANCE IN WEST AFRICA.
  MR. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what date communications between Her Majesty's Government and Alnamy Sammory were first initiated; and whether at any time, and, if more than once, at what dates, Alnamy Sammory has expressed his desire to Her Majesty's Government, either through official channels or otherwise, to place his dominions, or any portion of them, under the protection of the Queen?
  BARON H. DE WORMS(who replied) said: The first occasion on which Sahmadoo sent messengers to the Government of Sierra Leone appears to have been in 1880 in reply to letters which had been sent to him and other Chiefs in the interior by Sir S. Rowe in 1879, for the purpose of encouraging trade between their countries and

  1109
  Sierra Leone. The next visit was in 1885, on which occasion Sahmadoo's messenger made a statement to Major Festing to the effect that his master wished to ask the Queen to take the whole of his territories under her protection. In reporting this statement in June, 1886, Sir S. Rowe stated that he did not attach much importance to it, but looked upon it as a mere expression of politeness. In March, 1886, Sahmadoo had already concluded a Treaty with the French Government by which, as they have informed Her Majesty's Government, he placed his countries under the Protectorate of France. He also made further Treaties with the French in 1887 and 1889. Sahmadoo has on subsequent occasions repudiated his Treaties with the French, and asked for British protection; but Her Majesty's Government were of course, under the circumstances of his engagements to France, debarred from complying with his request.
  MR. LAWRENCE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me in what month of 1885 the first application was made to Her Majesty's Government?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot say without notice.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Figaro of 23rd January, 1892, that, by an arrangement of 26th June, 1891, England recognises French possession of the sources of the Niger on the eastern frontier of Sierra Leone; what is the nature of the arrangement referred to; and whether, considering the publicity already given to the matter in France, he is prepared to lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): My attention has been called to the statement referred to. The arrangement mentioned is one for the purpose of delimiting a portion of the boundary between Sierra Leone and the French Protectorate, and also for delimiting a portion of the
  1110
  western boundary of the colony of the Gold Coast. Papers relating to the Agreement will be prepared and laid.

  THE GIBRALTAR SANITARY BOARD.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the reason for the change made in the constitution of the Sanitary Board of Gibraltar by the Order in Council of October, 1891?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The reasons will be disclosed by the correspondence about to be laid; but it may be stated briefly that, looking to the interests at stake, Her Majesty's Government considered that they should have more control over the Sanitary Board than they had before October, 1891.

  EXCISE OFFICERS' PETITION.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what reply has been made to the Petition of the Excise officers sent in May last to the Board of Inland Revenue for transmission to the Treasury?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): I must ask the hon. Member if he will put off this question, as I have not had an opportunity of conferring with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject.

  LETTERS TO MEMBERS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in view of the near approach of the Easter Recess, he will consider the propriety of directing that letters addressed to Members of this House shall be re-directed to their addresses in the country?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I presume that the hon. Member means gratuitous re-direction. I have no power to remit the usual charge to Members of Parliament; but the whole question of charges for re-direction is under consideration.
  MR. MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to the Post Office officials of the House to put our letters into large envelopes? I sometimes have to pay as much as 1s. a day for my letters.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Post Office is using the powers given to it last Session with respect to the posting of letters?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: In answer to that, I can only say that we are using the powers.

  THE DUBLIN POST AND TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if higher scales of pay and higher positions have been abolished or reduced anywhere else in the Kingdom but Dublin by the recent revision of sorting offices generally; and, if so, to what extent as compared with Dublin; on what grounds the abolition has been made, in face of the immense increase of the quantity and quality of the things carried by the Post Office; when and why the abolished or reduced higher scales of pay and higher positions were established or last raised; and whether, and, if so, how, it is proposed to compensate those officers whose prospects have been injured by this revision?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Dublin postal and telegraph establishment has recently been revised in order to bring it into line with other establishments of the same class in the United Kingdom. The old establishment at Dublin was irregular and anomalous—e.g., the chief supervision of the telegraph duties being relegated to officers belonging to the postal branch, and in other respects. Under the changes of classification thus carried out, the staff generally have obtained material advantages in pay and propects of promotion; and everything possible has been done to preserve the interests of the few officers who received no immediate benefit from the revision by allowing them to retain their old scales. Of course, no reduction has been made in the pay of any officer in consequence of these changes.

  THE DELIVERY OF POST PARCELS.
  MR. FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if in the ordinary course of transmission a parcel for Cork posted in London early on
  1112
  Wednesday should have been delivered before the following Friday; whether the Postal authorities are justified in saying that such delivery was within a reasonable time; and whether the Post Office officials are correct in stating that they are not obliged to deliver Parcel Post parcels promptly?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: If for Cork itself it should have been delivered on Thursday afternoon; if for a place outside Cork, on Friday morning. Such would be reasonable. The rule is that parcels are to be delivered without delay, provided that the delivery of letters is not impeded.

  THE CASE OF JAMES HUGHES, STRANRAER.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is the case that James Hughes, of Stranraer, who was nominated by the Lords of the Treasury as a Customs boatman, was refused admission to examination by the Civil Service Commissioners on the ground of unsatisfactory certificates as to character; whether, when applied to, the Civil Service Commissioners refused all explanations of the grounds of their decision, although the Provost of Stranraer and other respectable tradesmen certify to Hughes's good character; and whether the Order in Council authorises the action of the Civil Service Commissioners?
  SIR J. GORST: James Hughes passed his examination; but the Civil Service Commissioners having made the usual inquiries, were unable to certify that his character was such as to qualify him for public employment. The Commissioners have refused in this as in all other cases to make public the confidential communications which they receive in answer to inquiries as to character. I am not aware that the Orders in Council allow any appeal in such a case from the decision of the Commissioners.

  POSTAL DELIVERY IN COUNTY KILKENNY.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY(for Mr. CHANCE): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the letters for the district of County Kilkenny, between and

  1113
  round Hugginstown and Harristown Post Offices, lie there, until called for, often for a month; and whether he would take steps to remedy this inconvenience by having the delivery extended for two miles to Monroe School, which is attended by the great majority of the children of the locality?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am sorry I have not been able to obtain this information, and I am afraid I shall not be able to do so till after the holidays.

  THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he can give any figures showing the comparative volume of the mails transmitted between Dublin and Belfast, as compared with the mails transmitted between Dublin and Cork, including in the latter the American mails?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am unable to give the precise figures, but will have Returns made. I am sorry to find that I misled the hon. Member the other day in stating, in reply to his supplementary question, that the volume of mails on the Northern and Southern lines, of which I spoke, included all the through mails. I so read the information which I had received. The fact is, as I understand, that the volume of local mails carried by the two lines is not very different, while the American mails would render that over the Great Southern and Western much larger, and heavy mails are in addition carried to Belfast by the Stranraer route.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give me the information?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have directed that an account shall be kept. The letters are not weighed; they are only counted. After the holidays I shall be able to give the hon. Member the information.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can grant the Motion for to-day relating to the Irish Mail Service?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I will answer this question. I cannot give the Correspondence between the Post Office and a Railway Company. It is not usual to publish Correspondence relating to a
  1114
  Departmental arrangement, but the results are known to Parliament.
  DR. TANNER: Seeing that there is such a difference of opinion between the Treasury and the Post Office, will the right hon. Gentleman not afford us an opportunity of ascertaining where the blame lies?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have already given the House all the information I have on the subject. The House knows quite as much as I do about it.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTRATES AND DEPUTY LIEUTENANTS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what proportion of the inhabitants of County Donegal belong to the Roman Catholic religion, and what proportion of the Magistrates of the same county are Roman Catholics; and how many Roman Catholics in the said county have attained to the rank of Deputy Lieutenant?
  MR. JACKSON: As regards the religious persuasion of the inhabitants of County Donegal, the hon. Member will find all the information in the Census Returns when they are issued. There is no official record kept of the religion of gentlemen appointed to the Commission of the Peace, and it would be impossible to get the detailed information sought in that direction. No official record is kept of the number of Roman Catholics appointed to the office of Deputy Lieutenant; but, as I have stated in reply to previous questions, the Lord Lieutenant of a county is always ready to consider the names of Roman Catholics submitted to him for Commissions of the Peace, and the Lord Chancellor is always ready to give effect to his recommendations.

  ELTHAM WOODS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have signed a provisional agreement to sell the Eltham Woods to a private association?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether

  1115
  the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have entered into a provisional agreement for the sale of Eltham Park; whether the London County Council is trying to acquire the park; and whether the Government will prevent the sale of the property to private individuals until the Representative Authority of London has had full opportunity of negotiating for the purchase of it for the use of the people of London?
  SIR J. GORST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The answer to the first question is, No. The Commissioners of Woods have no knowledge that the London County Council is trying to acquire either Eltham Woods or the residence and land known as Eltham Lodge, or North Park, Eltham.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the public interest the County Council should not be given an opportunity of purchasing this land before any other Body?
  SIR J. GORST: No, Sir. I do not think the Woods and Forests Commissioners can give the right of preemption to the London County Council. I am not aware that any negotiations on the subject have been entered into by them.

  OVERTIME IN THE POST OFFICE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that the uniform rate of overtime payment allowed by the Treasury for clerks of the Second Division and paid to officers of that class in Departments other than the Post Office is 1s. 6d. per hour; and, if so, why are the Second Division clerks in the Post Office not paid at that rate; and whether sorting clerks, postmen, and other classes of the minor establishment of the Post Office are paid for overtime at a rate and a quarter with a maximum of 1s. 7d. per hour; and, if so, will he extend this principle of payment to the major establishment, in so far as it is covered by the present limit allowed by the Treasury?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: In the Post Office, subject to a prescribed maximum, Second Division clerks are paid for overtime rateably upon their salaries. The practice could hardly be
  1116
  altered in the case of Second Division clerks without a similar alteration throughout the Post Office generally; and this would involve a very large outlay. An application to that effect has, however, been received from some of their number and it is under consideration. It is not proposed to extend the principle of paying for overtime at a rate and a quarter beyond the classes which now receive it.

  DRIFT FISHING IN THE SUIR.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY (for Mr. CHANCE): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the evidence taken by the Irish Fisheries Commissioners at Waterford on 3rd August last, when they refused to amend the bye-law of 15th July, 1884, prohibiting drift fishing in the tidal waters of the Suir above Drumdowney Point, or to revert to the previously existing bye-laws permitting drift fishing up to Fishertown Point and Glasshouse Quay; whether he is aware that since the passing of the bye-law of July, 1884, the drift fishers at Ballinalaw and Glasshouse have become impoverished, and the number of amateur rod fishers on the Suir largely increased; and whether the Government intend to make any provision for protecting public rights on that river, and for repairing the quay at Glasshouse, now ruinous and dangerous to the working fishermen using it?
  MR. JACKSON: I find that the shorthand writer's notes of the proceedings in Court before the Inspectors of Fisheries in the case referred to are, together with the evidence, available, and if the hon. Member thinks it of importance and desires to move for it I shall not oppose it. There are no funds at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of repairing the quay mentioned.

  LETTERKENNY DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Catholic members are on the Donegal District Asylum Board, and how many Protestant members; and whether, having regard

  1117
  to the fact that the Catholic population of the county far outnumbers all other denominations in it, he would recommend the appointment of other Catholic members?
  MR. JACKSON: The Board of the Letterkenny District Asylum consists of 18 members, of whom nine are selected from nominations made by the Grand Jury, and nine are nominated by the Lord Lieutenant. There is no official record of the religions of the gentlemen so appointed.
  MR. MACNEILL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many are Catholics and how many are not?
  MR. JACKSON: No, I do not, and I suppose there is no record of it.

  ALLEGED VIOLENCE BY THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there has been any inquiry by the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary as to the circumstances under which Constable Millar of that Force fractured the skull of a man named Francis Coogan by a blow of his baton, in Belfast, on the night of the 10th ultimo; and whether Coogan's life is or has been in danger?
  MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary Authorities report that the constable alleges that he was attacked by the man referred to, and that he struck him in self-defence. The man's life does not appear to have ever been in actual danger. It is understood that legal proceedings are contemplated against the constable by the complainant, when the circumstances will be fully investigated on oath.
  MR. SEXTON: If there are no legal proceedings will there be an inquiry?
  MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member will see that if proceedings are going to be taken it is desirable that the case should not be prejudiced on one side or the other.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Has not the constable his remedy at law?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think I can go into that matter.

  THE SCARIFF DOCKS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the ruinous condition of the Scariff (County Clare) Docks and the roadway leading thereto has been brought under the notice of the Irish Board of Works, in whom the control of the docks and the Scariff River navigation is vested; whether it is a fact that there is neither a crane nor a weighing machine on the pier, although there is a regular service of twelve steamers plying to and from the dock weekly; and whether, in view of the great importance of this quay to the trade of the surrounding neighbourhood, he will give instructions to the Board of Works to have the necessary inprovements immediately carried out?
  SIR J. GORST: I am informed that the Scariff Quay is in fair order, and the road up to it within the Board's boundaries is in good order. I am advised that the traffic would not justify the erection of a crane by the Government, and there is no weighing machine at any quay on the Shannon. The approach road from Scariff is a County road, and the Board cannot spend money in improving it.
  MR. COX: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether there is not a weighing machine at Killaloe?
  SIR J. GORST: If the hon. Member will repeat his question I shall be able to give an answer.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many dockyard employees are now working at Haulbowline; what is the nature of their employment; and whether any skilled dockyard artificers are now employed at Haulbowline?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Excluding men employed under the Works Department, there are at present 21 men working in the dockyard at Haulbowline. These men are at present engaged in the repair and maintenance of caissons, yard machinery, pumping engines, steam launches, boats, yard plant, &c. Among these men are included six skilled dockyard artificers.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I should like to know how the machinery comes to require repairs, considering that it has never yet been set in motion?
  No answer was given.

  THE GLENBEIGH ARTILLERY RANGE.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the artillery practice carried on at Glenbeigh seriously interferes with the salmon fishing and the gathering of cockles at low water in Caran Estuary, County Kerry, which are sources of livelihood for the poor people of the neighbourhood; and whether he will give directions to have a stop put to this artillery practice?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The case of the Glenbeigh range will be considered by the Committee on Target Practice Seawards. Bye-laws have been recently framed, after a public inquiry, but they will not be promulgated till the Committee has reported.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reports have been made that this place is seriously affected by the artillery practice?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am not aware, but if the hon. Member will give me any evidence on the point full inquiry shall be made.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Target Practice Committee will hold sittings in Ireland for the purpose of making local inquiries, as they have done at different places in England?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: That question will lie entirely with the Committee, and if evidence is tendered I have no doubt they will accept it.

  ILLEGITIMACY IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he would be willing to support a Bill to confer on the mother of a child born out of wedlock the same rights and obligations towards that child as if the child had been born in wedlock, and to confer on the person acknowledging himself to be the father of a child born out of wedlock, or against whom a bastardy order has
  1120
  been made in respect of a child, the same rights and obligations towards that child as if the child had been born in wedlock?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: I cannot give the hon. Member my decision on this question until I have seen his proposals put in the form of a Bill.

  THE CONFIRMATION OF ASYLUM INMATES.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that certain inmates of the Starcross Idiots Asylum have recently been confirmed by the Bishop of Exeter, whether any of those who were confirmed are still in the asylum; and whether any steps will be taken to ascertain their mental condition with a view to their release?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have no official information as to the facts referred to by the hon. Member. The Lunacy Commissioners inform me that they will inquire whether any of the inmates of the Starcross Asylum are fit for discharge. It does not follow from the fact that they have been, no doubt most properly, confirmed, that it would be expedient to deprive them of the care and training which the asylum affords.
  MR. COBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bishop gave as the reason for confirming these idiots that the weakest minds were most open to religious influences?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Oh, no, Sir; I have no information of that sort.

  A SCHOOL BOARD FOR HANDSWORTH.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having had sufficient opportunity to consider the representations which the Education Department have received from Handsworth, Staffordshire, he is now prepared to take steps, under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Education Act of 1870, in order to constitute a School Board for Handsworth?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: The case was not so clear as to justify the Department in acting under Section 12

  1121
  (2) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, and notices are in course of preparation for the supply of the deficiency in the manner prescribed by Section 9, but if the feeling of the inhabitants is strongly in favour of a School Board being set up immediately they cannot do better than pass a resolution to that effect under Section 12 (1).
  MR. MUNDELLA: I should like to ask whether in this and all other cases the rule applies with respect to applications?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have fully answered that question in regard to the application of the section in this particular case, and I am not sure that I know what exceptions the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it does not apply to London.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Oh, no, Sir. Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to a previous question?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I do not know whether I am in Order in referring to a previous question, but if I am I can only repeat that the particular case is before the Department, and a final decision has not been arrived at. I have already stated that the Permanent Secretary is away, and I have not been able to confer with him in the matter.

  THE IRISH EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a copy of the resolution passed at a meeting of the Bishops and Archbishops of Ireland on the subject of the Irish Education Bill, and which called upon the Government to
  "Give effect to the recommendations of the Powis Commission in the matter of religious freedom in unmixed schools;"
  and whether these resolutions of an important body will be taken into consideration by the Government?
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; by the courtesy of the Catholic Bishop of Galway I received copies of the resolutions referred to, and the hon. Member himself sent me a newspaper cutting. I do not think I can add to the statement
  1122
  I made during the introductory stage of the Education Bill?
  MR. FLYNN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give no consideration to this resolution?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think the hon. Member must draw any conclusion of that sort, but he must bear in mind that the Commission sat as long ago as 1868 or 1870, and since then there has been a reasonable amount of time.

  THE SENATE OF LONDON UNIVERSITY.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken to fill up the vacancies on the Senate of London University caused by the deaths of the Duke of Devonshire and Dr. Hirst?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have submitted to Her Majesty the name of a gentleman to succeed the Duke of Devonshire in the Senate of the University of London. When Convocation has nominated their list of those persons to supply the vacancy caused by the death of Dr. Wood, I shall in due course submit to Her Majesty the name of a gentleman to succeed Dr. Hirst.

  THE DISTRICT MESSENGER SERVICE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are exacting a charge of 5s. per annum from the District Messenger Service and News Company for premium to maintain any attachment, for the purpose of carrying a wire for telegraphic communication, to the chimney stack of any house of which the Crown is the ground landlord; and whether he will consider the expediency of urging on the Commissioners of Woods and Forests the desirability of allowing their tenants to become subscribers to companies providing means for telegraphic communication without exacting from the companies this rent?
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I see no ground for urging the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to alter the arrangement.

  ORNAMENTAL GARDENING IN THE GREEN PARK.
  MR. SEAGER HUNT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will consider the advisability of planting with flowers the Piccadilly side of the Green Park in a manner similar to that in which the Park Lane side of Hyde Park is planted?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): The Piccadilly side of the Green Park was formerly planted with flowers, but the planting was discontinued some years ago owing chiefly to the fact of the trees having grown so much at that time that they shaded the beds and spoiled the flowers; and this difficulty, in the way of making such planting successful, would be greater now by reason of the further growth of the trees. I think we must apply such funds as we can afford for this kind of ornamental gardening in those places where it can be carried out to the best advantage.

  THE CORK COURT HOUSE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whom the costs of the Act passed last Session for the rebuilding of the Cork Court House was defrayed; whether he is aware that all the criminal business of the County and City of Cork is done in the building in question, and that, in addition to this, the Winter Assizes for the whole of Munster is frequently held there, and large numbers of criminal cases from all parts of Ireland have been, at the instance of the Irish Executive, tried there within the past ten years; whether the Government propose to contribute anything to the rebuilding of the Court House; and whether there is any distinction in principle between this case and that of the Green Street Court House, in which the Government offered to contribute a large sum towards the costs of rebuilding?
  MR. JACKSON: The cost of the Act referred to is presumably to be paid by the Local Authorities. I know of no intention on the part of the Government
  1124
  to make any contribution towards rebuilding the Court House.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second and fourth paragraphs.
  MR. JACKSON: I presume that there is a certain portion of criminal business done in the Court House, but I have no knowledge of the circumstances which led the Government to give in this case a contribution to the cost of the Green Street Court House in Dublin. I see nothing to distinguish Cork from the other counties of Ireland.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Cork should be differentiated from the other counties of Ireland. I asked him whether Cork was differentiated from Green Street?
  MR. JACKSON: I have no knowledge of the circumstances.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I will put it on the Paper.
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer, I will say that I have no knowledge of the circumstances which led the Government to promise a contribution in the case of Green Street in Dublin, and I know nothing which differentiates Cork from the rest of the counties of Ireland.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I shall repeat the question, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will then have the information.

  MR. JOHN HOOD.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of Mr. John Hood being deprived of his means of livelihood through having given evidence before a Committee of this House, and therefore under the protection of this House, he will receive at the hands of Her Majesty's Government compensation for the loss he has sustained?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not know any precedent for the course proposed by the hon. Gentleman, nor do I think it would be convenient to make one.

  ALLOTMENTS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in a Bill this Session to make provision for conferring on Scotland the same powers which are in operation in England and Ireland in regard to allotments?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The conditions in Scotland differ very much from those in England, and there is not the same desire or necessity in Scotland for a Bill of this kind; but, at the same time, the Government are perfectly ready to extend these powers to Scotland, if there is any wish for them.

  RURAL POSTMEN IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLYNN (for Mr. MACNEILL): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that James M'Carthy, a rural postman, walks with the mails every morning from Money-more to Miscarn, a distance to and fro of 14 miles, for the salary of 9s. per week; and whether, having regard to the great distance this man goes on foot in all weathers, he will be able to see his way to making some increase of his salary?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Attention has already been called to this case, and it is intended to raise the postman's wages.

  THE CHICAGO EXHIBITION.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in considering the question of an increase of the grant for the Chicago Exhibition, the Government will also consider the question of allocating Ireland's share of that grant to a committee of Irishmen; and how soon he will be in a position to state whether an increased grant has been sanctioned; and, if so, to what amount?
  SIR J. GORST: The Government cannot possibly at present say when the question of the increased grant will be considered.

  TELEGRAPH STATION FOR FENIT, COUNTY KERRY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General how soon the
  1126
  promised telegraph station will be opened at Fenit, County Kerry?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am sorry that no time can be fixed, as a difficulty about a way leave has occurred.

  THE COST OF THE POWIS COMMISSION.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government would have any objection to furnish a Return showing the total cost of the Powis Commission?
  SIR J. GORST: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to answer this question. I beg to refer the hon. Baronet to pp. 24–25 of the Parliamentary Paper No. 426 for 1888, which shows that the total cost of the Powis Commission was £17,185.

  THE REBELLION IN PAHANG.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he is in possession of any further information respecting the rebellion in Pahang?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: On Saturday the Secretary of State telegraphed to the Straits Settlement for full particulars as to the late events in Pahang. He telegraphed to Singapore; and meanwhile a telegram was received yesterday from the Governor, who was at Pahang, in the following words:—
  "Two Englishmen, employees of Timber Company—Harris and Stewart—separately murdered at Pahang by petty chief from Pekan. No reason to think that murder was connected with other disturbances."
  This morning a telegram was received from the Colonial Secretary at Singapore in answer to the Secretary of State's inquiry. It is dated yesterday, and runs as follows:—
  "3rd April, British authorities at Pekan warned that Panglima Muda, River Jempul, intended mischief. Threat verified by murder Stewart, Harris, employees of Exploration Company, at work in forest. 6th April, Magistrate of Pahang in expectation of attack, all safe up to 9th April. Her Majesty's ship Hyacinth proceeds immediately for Pahang. Disquieting rumours from Raub. Possibility of hostilities there and Lepis. Rogers in safety with Sultan up country, 6th April. Officers' families arrived at Singapore."

  1127
  I may add that Raub, one of the mining centres in Pahang, is in telegraphic communication with the colony.

  THE GRESHAM UNIVERSITY.
  MR. BARTLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now give us any information in reference to the composition of the Commission appointed to inquire with regard to the Gresham University?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am afraid I am not able to give my hon. Friend any information on the subject yet; but if possible I shall do so before the House rises.

  COLONEL SAUNDERSON AND HOME RULE.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether his attention has been drawn to the report of a speech delivered by the hon. Member for North Armagh, in Belfast, in which, anticipating the establishment of an Irish Parliament, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is reported to have said—
  "We intend to oppose by every means God has given us the creation of such an Authority in Ireland, and we intend to defy its authority; we intend to undermine and destroy it"?
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act does not contain a clause empowering the Crown to prosecute persons suspected of an intention to commit, or to induce others to commit, a crime; whether it is any crime to attempt to undermine or destroy by any means any institution by law established; and whether it is intended to institute any prosecution in this case; and, if not, are Irish Members at liberty to declare that they would refuse to obey the County Councils if by law established in Ireland, and thus to set the law at defiance?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The hon. Member was good enough to give me private notice of this question, but I must point out that it is founded upon an erroneous
  1128
  assumption as to an essential matter of fact. There is not in Ireland a Parliament by law established, and, therefore, the question does not arise.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury if he intends to fulfil his promise to visit Belfast, and if he goes there will he endorse the statement of the Member for North Armagh?

  PEERS AND THE ELECTION OF COMMONERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any rule of etiquette which prevents the English Lord Chancellor from attending public meetings in favour of a candidate of any Party, and if such a rule exists why does it not apply to the Irish Lord Chancellor?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was not aware that there was any such rule as that to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers. If he will put a question on the Paper, I will make inquiries in the proper quarter, and ascertain if it is so.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there any rule preventing Peers from interfering with the election of Commoners?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Oh, yes, Sir. I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it has his sanction that this particular Peer has been intermeddling with the election of a Commoner?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a fact that has to be proved yet.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I will have to call the attention of the Government to-morrow to a report in reference to this matter which appeared in the Times newspaper.

  VICTUALLING STORES.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if a reply has been sent to the letter of the Comptroller General, dated 31st December last, re the "establishment" of stores at Sierra Leone

  1129
  and elsewhere; and whether he can give the House an assurance that such losses as have occurred at Sierra Leone will not be permitted in any of the victualling yards, by supplying them according to a fixed "establishment," without reference to "issues," seeing that £1,100 of stores sent to Sierra Leone have been condemned, on return in June, 1890, as only worth £105, and regarding which the Comptroller adds that

  "Other condemnations of victualling stores returned from the same yard may be expected to be found in later accounts of the Royal Victoria Yard."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): The letter referred to by the hon. Member for Sunderland has been answered. Stores at depôts are fixed on an "establishment" based on the estimated demands. This "establishment" has to be varied from time to time, and reductions were found possible at Sierra, Leone, which accounts for an unusual amount of depreciation on the stores returned to this country. The condemnations and losses on account of victualling stores from all sources in the year 1890 barely exceeded ½ per cent. on the value of stocks in the depôts and on board ship, and this small loss on perishable stores exposed in trying climates is a satisfactory testimony to the care exercised as regards the extent of stock and its custody.
  MR. GOURLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the figures?
  MR. FORWOOD: Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat the question to the Financial Secretary.
  MR. GOURLEY: I will repeat it.

  ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.
  SIR J. PULESTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, through dearth of engine-room artificers, the number of this class has been reduced in Her Majesty's ships recently commissioned and additional chief stokers are being employed?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No. The changes alluded to are the result of a careful investigation and revision of existing and past complements, and are not in any way influenced by the numbers of the existing lists.

  THE HARBOUR OF SAN QUINTIN.
  COLONEL HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a telegram from San Diego, California, which appeared in the New York Herald of the 24th March, stating that there was a scheme on the part of Great Britain to secure the harbour of San Quintin for a coaling station, and that the Mexican International Company was being used as a cloak for the same; and whether there is any truth in these allegations?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: My attention has been called to the telegram in question. There is no truth whatever in either of the specific allegations referred to in the hon. Member's question.
  MR. BARTLEY: Arising out of this answer, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will send a copy of his reply to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Yes, Sir; there is no objection to that course being taken.

  THE PRISONER HANDLEY.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the prisoner Handley, convicted at the recent Wicklow Assizes for a murder committed in the County Wicklow, is to be executed in Wexford; whether there is a county gaol in Wicklow where the execution could take place; and, if that gaol is not convenient for the purpose, why the execution should not be carried out in Dublin, or some other place nearer the scene of the murder than Wexford?
  MR. JACKSON: The Lord Lieutenant's Order of 6th April, 1880, closing Wicklow Prison, directs that Wexford Prison shall be the legal place of detention for prisoners from the County Wicklow. His Excellency has been advised that the sentence referred to cannot legally be carried out in any prison other than Wexford.

  JURORS AT CRIMINAL TRIALS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in view of

  1131
  the remarks made at the trial of the Walsall Anarchists on the hardship of criminal jurors having to wait during the hearing without remuneration, when he is reported to have promised to take note of the matter as a great hardship, he will consider the desirability of amending the law at an early date in order to give reasonable allowances for loss of time, and travelling, and other expenses to jurymen at Assizes, Quarter Sessions, and Coroner's inquests?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): Her Majesty's Government are fully alive to the burden which is imposed upon jurors in criminal cases by the fact that no allowance is made for their expenses, and the matter is receiving consideration. It is, however, a question of considerable difficulty, and it is necessary that accurate information should be obtained as to the probable charge which the amendment of the law suggested by the hon. Member would entail upon the Exchequer.

  MR. JUSTICE ROMER.
  MR. DUNCANI beg to ask the Attorney Genera whether, in the event of Mr. Justice Romer being unfortunately prevented by the continuance of illness from resuming work in Court immediately after the Easter Vacation, any, and what, arrangements will be made for the transaction of business in his Court?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I am not in a position to say what arrangements will be made if, unfortunately, Mr. Justice Romer should be unable to sit after the Easter Vacation. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice will, if necessary, take the matter under their consideration. I hope, however, that the speedy recovery of the learned Judge will prevent the necessity for any action being taken in the matter.

  ROAD CONTRACTORS IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. J. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, at the Wexford Spring Assizes, the tender of a man, named John Smith, who tendered to keep in repair a road in the Barony of
  1132
  Ballaghkeene North at the rate of 5d. per perch, was rejected, and the contract given to a man, named Tomkins, at 7d. per perch, although Smith and his sureties were perfectly solvent; and if he will explain why Smith's tender, which was the lowest, was not accepted, having regard to the provisions of the Irish Grand Jury Act and the cases decided thereon?
  MR. MADDEN: The facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question. I do not know, and I have no means of ascertaining, why Smith's tender was not accepted.

  THE INCIDENCE OF TAXATION.
  VISCOUNT CURZON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government would assent to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the incidence of taxation generally, and especially of local taxation, with a view to ascertain whether there are certain classes of property now exempt which ought to contribute to such local taxation, and whether certain properties now rated are unduly burdened?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my noble Friend, I have to say that the Government see great advantages in an inquiry into some of the points mentioned in his question. There is no doubt a great deal of ignorance prevailing upon the subject of the incidence of taxation, especially of local taxation, in the public mind; and an investigation by some competent body into the complicated facts of ownership in London, and problems arising therefrom, would, I think, be useful. It would be impossible to find the material for a Commission like that now inquiring into labour, even if the proposed investigation could conveniently be entrusted to such a body. Probably the best way will be to appoint a small body of experts with instructions to examine and analyse the facts, though not necessarily to make recommendations as to the public policy which ought to be based on the facts.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether by experts he means professional valuers and surveyors; and

  1133
  whether he is aware that a great number of expert witnesses on every side of the question have given evidence at great length on the subject before the Town Holdings Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: By experts I do not necessarily mean those professionally engaged in surveying or valuing land. I meant persons who have an acquaintance with practical economic investigation, which often lies at the root of all these matters. I am aware that a variety of evidence has been given on the subject before the Town Holdings Committee.

  THE SCOTTISH SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state in what manner it is the intention of the Government to give effect to the Resolution recently passed by the House with regard to Scottish sea fisheries; and whether the Government will consent to allow the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill to be read a second time, and then to be referred to a Select Committee?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand it is the intention of my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland to bring forward a proposal in the House of Lords to carry out the Resolution of this House with regard to Scottish sea fisheries. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will find it convenient to await that proposal before he proceeds with the Bill mentioned in the final paragraph of his question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When the Bill comes down here I shall oppose it, or any Bill of the kind, unless the same powers are applied to Ireland in accordance with the undertaking to abolish Irish trawling as well as to abolish Scotch trawling.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION.
  Lords Message [7th April] considered.
  Ordered, That Mr. Howell be added to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint their Lordships that this House has added One of its
  1134
  Members to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision, as requested by their Lordships.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS—COMMITTEE.

    FINANCIAL STATEMENT, 1892–3.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Mr. Courtney: it frequently happens that when a traveller finds himself in a mountainous country and is ascending a slope he fancies that the point which he sees above him is the highest point of the hill, only to find when he reaches it that it is not the top, and that he has still further slopes to climb. We have had a similar experience during the last few years, as we have been ascending the curve of financial prosperity. For two or three years running we thought that the top was in sight; we thought that we should soon reach the table land, and have no further heights to scale, even if we did not actually find a decline; but still the curve led happily upwards. Time after time, Estimates framed on the theory that the top was in sight have been exceeded—happily exceeded I think for the benefit of the country. Last year we really thought that the top had been reached, and I think I may say, on the whole, that the forecast was justified. I am again, however, permitted by fortune to submit a surplus to the Committee—a surplus of £1,067,000, which I owe, as I say, to good fortune; partly also, I hope I may say, to the moderation of the spending Departments. That surplus is not due-to any great extent to any expansion of Revenue. I do not think any of the great sources of Revenue show any considerable excess over the Estimates which I submitted to the Committee last year. Except with one striking fortuitous exception, the Estimates have been generally exactly realised. I will not conceal from the Committee that there have been times—aye, there have been months—when I have felt very considerable anxiety as to the final result.

    1135
    It is a very anxious period for a Chancellor of the Exchequer when he finds that any of the great sources of Revenue are hanging fire, even for a few weeks. During January and February, I admit, the prospects did not look bright. March was a better month; and I am now able to submit what I hope, as regards the past year, will be a not unsatisfactory result to the Committee. I will, according to custom, deal, in the first instance, with the Expenditure of the last year. The Budget Estimate of Expenditure for that year was £90,264,000, and the actual Expenditure was £89,928,000—a saving of £336,000, which is a contribution to the surplus I have mentioned. The Committee will remember that there were not unimportant Supplementary Estimates submitted to them. Assisted Education, with the concomitant grants made to Scotland and Ireland, was put down in the Budget at £920,000; but ultimately £1,006,000 had to be voted, showing an additional charge of £86,000. When we come to the Estimates for this year, it will be seen that the excess of this charge over the original estimate is considerable, for the Committee will remember that during the progress of the Education Bill the age was lowered in one direction from five to three, and raised in the other from 13 to 15. It is, therefore, not unnatural, from a fiscal point of view, that as the result of that operation my Budget Estimate was exceeded. Well, then, with regard to the Post Office, there was a very considerable Supplementary Estimate. A sum of £362,000 additional was asked for the Post Office, including a tremendous haul, if I may say so, of £175,000 for the site of the Liverpool Post Office alone. I shall have some consolation during the course of my speech to give to those who think that the Revenue derived from the Post Office is too large. There are Members who think that the profit is excessive; but the expense, on the other hand, is rapidly diminishing the margin which hitherto the State has received. Of that £362,000 additional for the Post Office, increased salaries and wages accounted for a great deal. For Irish distress, and for some works connected with the
    1136
    Crofter districts, the Budget Estimate was £125,000, but £237,000 was voted, which gave an excess of £112,000. There were also further miscellaneous Estimates which amounted to £100,000. The total was £660,000 for Supplementary Estimates, which raised the total estimated Expenditure to £90,924,000. But there were savings on the other side. In the Budget it was estimated that the War Office would require £500,000 for the re-construction of barracks, but it was only able during the financial year to spend £325,000, so that there was a saving of £175,000 on that head. The other savings, which hon. Members will be able to trace if they look at the Paper in their hands, scattered over all the various Services, amounted to £821,000, so that the total savings on the total grants were £996,000; and deducting from that the Supplementary Estimates, amounting to £660,000, the saving compared with the Budget Estimate is £336,000. Again, I wish to call the attention of the Committee, as I have done once before, to the remarkably small difference there is in the final Expenditure compared with the Budget Estimate over such a mighty sum as £90,000,000 sterling. If I put the last three years together, on a total Budget Estimate of Expenditure of £264,000,000, the total difference between the Estimate and the Expenditure is only £137,000. There is much that may be said against our fiscal system, and I am not wishing now to claim for the Government or for myself one tittle of credit; but I doubt whether, not only in any State, but in any great financial concern, any similar results could be produced in dealing with that vast number of millions estimated to be spent—results showing so great a control over expenditure and so small a difference at the end of three years. There is only one point more which I will mention in connection with the Expenditure of last year. The £400,000 taken for restoring the gold currency has been, in accordance with the Act of Parliament, invested in Consols. The Proclamation for withdrawing the light gold coin has been issued, and is now in full working order; and though as yet we have

    1137
    not had a long experience, it appears as if the forecast of the loss on the sovereigns is not likely, on the whole, to be exceeded. I will now pass to what will probably interest the Committee more than the Expenditure. I pass to the Revenue of last year. Here, I think, it will be admitted, when I come to the conclusion of the story I have to tell, that there have been some remarkably close Estimates. I shall point out one or two exceptions, but I do not think they will mar the credit which should attach to those who are primarily responsible for framing the Estimates. The Customs were estimated to produce £19,700,000. The out turn to the Exchequer was £19,736,000, being £36,000 more than the Estimate. What are called the net receipts were larger—they were £19,838,000. There cannot be exact correspondence between the approximate net receipts and the amount actually paid to the Exchequer, for the net receipts are the actual sums collected all over the country, part of which may be in transitu and part in the collectors' hands. I may say, in passing, that it has been a neck-and-neck race all the time between estimate and fact. It appeared sometimes as if the fact would fall short of the Estimate; but after a prolonged race, which I am bound to say filled the breast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at times with some anxiety, the fact won by £36,000 over the Estimate. My calculation was made generally on the basis of allowing for an increase of 1 per cent. in the population, and 1 per cent. for the three extra days—due to Leap Year and to the fact that the last financial year had the peculiarity of containing no Easter. Therefore, I allowed 2 per cent., and that has been generally borne out in the result, though not, of course, in every detail. Spirits have sometimes been that item of Revenue which has saved the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I have something to say that may not be quite uninteresting to the Committee about spirits. But this year tobacco has been the feature, not alcohol. The Committee will wish that I should pass rapidly over some of the smaller items of Revenue.
    1138
    The coffee group has produced £331,000, being £2,000 less than the Estimate. There is a further decline in coffee, while cocoa, as usual, has gained to a slight extent. Dried fruit has done well. It has produced £347,000, an excess of £7,000 over the Estimate, and £23,000 over the receipts of the previous year. But that has not been due to the item of currants. They have been rather disappointing, though there has been a very large crop, and the price has fallen so considerably that the consumer has had the full benefit of the reduction that was made in the duty two or three years ago. It is held that currants would have done better but for the strong competition which fresh fruit made last year. Fresh fruit was extremely abundant, and was worked up in various shapes which competed with those articles of children's luxuries in which currants play so large a part. The House will remember the charge that (to adopt a phrase which was made use of at the time) I frittered away £200,000 in reducing the duty on currants from 7s. to 2s. per cwt.; but that reduction has borne good fruit, not only as regards the price of the article, but also as regards our trade with Greece. Though the Revenue last year was not so satisfactory as was anticipated, the importation of currants has increased 25 per cent.—certainly a satisfactory result from the reduction of duty. Comparing 1891 with the average of the three preceding years, we have an increase of 273,000 cwt., or 25 per cent. I only dwell on this small detail, because it shows how a small reduction of duty does tell upon the consumption and stimulate the trade. There are also substantial increases in the imports from Greece of silver ore, olive oil, and some other products; and our exports to Greece show a material increase. I think that is satisfactory evidence of the benefit which has resulted from the reduction of duty. But I pass to other and more substantial sources of Revenue. Tea has been extremely satisfactory. The receipts from tea were £3,424,000, against an Estimate of £3,400,000, and against the previous year's receipts of £3,412,000. But I must inform the Committee that the

    1139
    result is more satisfactory than it appears, because the receipts of the previous year were swollen by a considerable amount of duty paid at the beginning of the year in respect of tea that had been held back in consequence of the expectation of a reduction in the duty. The amount held back was pretty nearly known, and the real increase for last year is £150,000, which is nearly 4½ per cent. Of that increase 2 per cent. would be due to the increase of population and to there being more days in the year; but the remaining 2½ per cent. is a bonâ fide increase in consumption. I do not mean to say that, apart from fiscal considerations, our satisfaction with regard to the increase on tobacco ought to be so great as our satisfaction as regards tea, but from the fiscal point of view the receipts from tobacco are extremely good. They amounted to £9,952,000 against the estimate of £9,730,000, and against the previous year's receipts of £9,534,000—thus producing £222,000 more than my Estimate, and £418,000 more than the year before. That is, I estimated for an increase of 2 per cent., and, like tea, it has increased nearly 4½ per cent. Hon. Members will remember that it was said that wages had fallen, that there was a certain depression of trade, and that there was gloom in many directions; but in these two items of tea and tobacco, each of which has increased 2½ per cent. clear, after making all deductions, hon. Members will see some reason to hope that wages have not fallen, and that there is still a widely diffused prosperity among the working classes of the country. I do not know whether I may start a theory as to one cause of increase which may not be so satisfactory as an increase of wages. Are our young men taking earlier to smoking? Is there a development of that precocity which we can see in so many directions in the civilisation of the present day—is that development showing itself also in tobacco? I am afraid that many of us in our villages see little urchins becoming taxpayers as regards tobacco at far too early an age. If we remember that in 1890–91 the increase on tobacco was more than 5 per cent. over the year before, the
    1140
    continued rapidity of growth will appear the more remarkable. The present amount of duty, £9,952,000, is nearly £600,000 higher than the highest point the duty reached before it was lowered a few years ago; so that, after making allowance for the whole loss of £600,000 due to that reduction of the duty, it yields now £1,200,000 more than it did at that time. I now approach with the awe which the subject always inspires in the breast of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the taxes upon alcohol—alcohol, which is so important to the Revenue that about £30,000,000 out of the total £90,000,000 of Revenue is paid by that one article. Let me make this one preliminary observation—that there has not been in the past year that general rush in the country to alcohol which characterised past years. Wine no longer shows that toasting of prosperity to which I have alluded in a former year. It seems that wine is the one article which first begins to feel the effect of commercial depression—I presume because during the times of extensive speculation gentlemen fill their wine cellars in advance, but when the bad times come they hold their hand for some time before they replenish their stores. Brandy and rum have not followed, as they did before, an identical course. The consumption of brandy has increased; that of rum has fallen. Hon. Members may possibly recollect that some time ago all spirits were rising together, and here we see some of the effects of the changing times. Beer has been hanging fire, I do not know quite for what reason, but I compare it with the movement which is taking place in regard to home spirits. The interest of the race of which I have spoken in former years between the various forms of alcohol has ceased. Home spirits have won easily with an increased percentage of 6¼. Brandy is a good second with 5¾ per cent. increase, but beer has lagged behind, while rum, and wine, and miscellaneous foreign spirits have been entirely driven out of the race. With regard to wine, I estimated £1,332,000, and the receipts were £1,291,000—a decrease of £41,000 as compared with my Estimate, and of £27,000 as compared with the receipts.

    1141
    of the previous year. In foreign spirits there is a decline, for a very obvious reason, and that is through the high price of potatoes which followed upon the famine in Russia. Thus the foreign spirits have been dearer, and have not been able to compete with home spirits. I find that rum has given £2,334,000, which is £36,000 less than my estimate, while brandy, with a receipt of £1,423,000, has given £53,000 more than I estimated. I can give no explanation why brandy has been increasing in consumption, while rum and wine have fallen, except that it is said that the vine-growers in the Charente are getting over the troubles caused by the phylloxera, and are producing a better article. I give that explanation for what it is worth; otherwise I cannot account for the difference. In Geneva and other foreign spirits there was a large falling-off from my estimate, due to the Russian famine as I have pointed out; it is a deficiency of about £84,000. I add some unimportant items in the Customs Revenue—namely, £65,000 for other articles; and I sum up as I began, with regard to Customs, with a total of £19,838,000 net receipts, of which £19,736,000 has been paid into the Exchequer. I now pass to Excise, where I am met at once by British spirits. Here there is a very large increase—an increase of £922,000 over the year before, and of £543,000 over my Estimate;—yet it was thought at the time that the Estimate was somewhat sanguine. British spirits realised £15,693,000. Taking Customs and Excise together, I estimated a total Imperial Revenue from spirits of £19,645,000, an exact increase of 2 per cent. over the year before, and practically it will be seen that the total is £20,121,000—an excess of £476,000, which makes an increase of about 2½ per cent. over and above the 2 per cent., which is an increase due to the normal growth of the population and to the increased number of days in last year. I wish to mention one point more with regard to spirits, because I think it is not uninteresting, and it is that the increase in the consumption of home spirits has taken place to a very much larger extent in England than in Scotland or in Ireland.
    1142
    For the calendar year ended 31st December, 1891, the increase in England is 6·53 per cent.; in Scotland 1·62 per cent.; and in Ireland it is only 1·05 per cent. Of course we must make allowance for the fact that the increase in population is not the same in all three parts of the United Kingdom, but still those percentages show that the real increase in the consumption of spirits has been due to the English, and not to the Scotch or Irish consumers. I asked myself whether possibly that may account to a certain extent for the fact that beer has not advanced with home spirits or other forms of alcohol. I wondered whether, owing to climatic or other considerations, possibly more spirits might have been consumed in England in the place of beer. I estimated that beer would give £9,580,000, but it only gave £9,459,000—a decrease of £121,000. It is an increase over the previous year of about £70,000, but that is less than 1 per cent., whereas the increase ought to have been 2 per cent. That concludes what I have to say with regard to alcohol for the past year. The total Revenue was £30,871,000, an increase of £900,000, or 3 per cent., on the year before, and of £314,000, or 1 per cent., on my Budget Estimate; and this latter figure represents the real addition due to increased average consumption. Before passing to the other forms of taxation, I hope the Committee will not think I am detaining them if I give them in conclusion—with regard to these articles of great consumption—the following contrast between what is now consumed per head of the population, and what was consumed per head 50 years ago, because it throws a very considerable light upon the spending powers of the population. In 1841 each individual of the population consumed, on the average, 13 oz. of tobacco in the year; in 1891 they were able to consume close upon 26 oz. each, which is double. Coffee and tea are often contrasted as regards their consumption in Great Britain to the disadvantage of the former, and here is this very curious fact. We are said not to be a coffee-drinking people; but if we look back half a century we shall see we were almost as much a coffee-drinking people then

    1143
    as we were a tea-drinking people. In 1840 we each consumed 17½ oz. of coffee against 19½ oz. of tea, so that the consumption of coffee at that time was almost as great as the consumption of tea. To-day we only use 12 oz. of coffee for each person against 87 oz. of tea. But the interest is when you put the two articles together. What an increase of comfort do we find! In 1840 we could only afford 37 oz. of tea and coffee for each person; whilst at the present day each person uses close upon 100 oz. of the same articles. That means that the great bulk of the population are able now to enjoy these non-alcoholic beverages to the extent of three times what they were able to do 50 years ago. I venture to think that while we survey the state of the Exchequer we also see side lights thrown by these figures upon the prosperity of the people and the comfort of different classes. Again, taking raisins and currants, we could only afford 1¾ lbs. weight for each person in the year 1841, while in 1891 each person used very nearly 5 lbs. As regards spirits, they bring in an Imperial Revenue of 19¼ millions now, as against 7½ millions half a century ago. But here the increase must not be set down to the increased use of the articles by individuals, as was the case with the non-alcoholic beverages. We used about seven-and-a-half pints of spirits per head in 1841; we now use a mere trifle over eight pints, so that the great increase of Revenue is not in consequence of any appreciably greater use of spirits per head; it is due to the increase of population and higher Excise duties. But while we see that as regards tea and coffee we use 100 oz. compared with 37 oz. used half a century ago, in the case of spirits there is no corresponding increase in the consumption. Surely the reflection is most encouraging to us. Leaving these great articles of consumption and noting that the railway and other small duties gave £560,000 as against £563,000 in the year before, I put the total Excise receipts at £25,610,000, as against my estimate of £25,300,000. I pass now to the subject of the Death Duties, and here, as is well known, I come to one of those sources of Revenue which show a
    1144
    very considerable increase over the estimate which I submitted for the receipts of last year. The Probate Office was never, I believe, more active than it, unfortunately, was during the months of February and March. The influenza epidemic has told most severely upon the population, and the consequence is a very considerable excess under the head of Probate and of Estate Duty—not so much upon Legacy and Succession Duty, because there the effect generally takes place some months or sometimes even a year later. But as regards Probate Duty the effect is almost instantaneous. Probate Duty, one-half of which goes to the Imperial Exchequer, amounted to £2,808,000, which is £358,000 above my estimate and £395,000 over the receipts of the previous year. Estate Duty amounted to £1,398,000, which was £204,000 over the receipts of the previous year, and £178,000 above my estimate. Legacy and Succession, Duty yielded £4,033,000, being £153,000 above my estimate, and £198,000 above the receipts of the previous year. The total of the Death Duties, therefore, was £8,239,000, an increase of £689,000 over my estimates. This general increase was due to a fortuitous circumstance which must modify any estimate; but, speaking generally, the estimates of the Death Duties have been remarkably regular. I pass now to the General Stamp Duties, which are interesting from the point of view of what I may call commercial activity; and if the story which I have had to tell with regard to articles of consumption points to the activity and employment of the working classes, so the Stamp Duties seem to afford some clue of what is going on in the City and other departments of business. On stamps there has been a considerable decline. Their total yield of £5,501,000 fell nearly £400,000 short of my estimate. Perhaps the Committee would like to know what light this result throws upon the present state of business. I should like to give just a few of the details to show where the Stamp Revenue has fallen off, because there are very significant facts to be learned from it. The total falling-off as compared with the year before

    1145
    is £470,000. That fall is mainly due to the transactions, I think I may say, on the Stock Exchange and in Lombard Street. Deeds and instruments, which I presume pass through the hands of lawyers, show a decline; so that the lawyers, in that particular, share to a certain extent in the depression of trade. The fall in stamps on these instruments amounted to £264,000. In stamps on Bonds to bearer there is an extraordinary falling-off. In the last half of 1890 the yield was £163,000, while for the last half of 1891 it was only £85,000; but there was a recovery in the March quarter. Then again in the transfers of Foreign Securities to Bearer—fugitive stamps—there is an immense falling-off. They started at £27,000 in the first quarter of 1890, but fell to £11,000 in the fourth quarter of 1891. Company promoters had a very bad time. I do not know whether they were on strike or whether there has been a lock out, but the amount received in respect of new companies has been extraordinarily small as compared with former years. The amount received for the first quarter of 1890–91 was £89,000, whilst for the quarter ending March, 1892, it was only £33,000. On contract notes there is not the same decline; there is, in fact, a much smaller fall than I anticipated. There is nothing particularly alarming in those facts which I have related with regard to stamps so far. Perhaps the more important question is, Is there a great falling-off in bills of exchange, which represent international business and a great portion of the home trade? I am glad to say there is no such corresponding decline in that item, which represents so much of what I may call the normal business of the country. It has only fallen from £755,000 to £717,000. Let the Committee therefore note this, which is important if we are going to take an estimate of the future: that the decline has mainly been—though we have heard so much about the depression of trade—the decline has mainly been in what may be called City transactions. The usual business of the country has not fallen off to the same extent. The receipts from 1d. stamps on receipts, drafts, &c., have not fallen, but give a small increase of £10,000. In the course of the year the total of stamps has, I have already
    1146
    said, fallen to the extent of £470,000, as compared with the year before. The Stamp and Death Duties together give a total of £13,740,000 approximate net receipts, of which £13,700,000 have been paid into the Exchequer. This total of £13,740,000 is £326,000 more than last year, and £290,000 more than my estimate. Land Tax and House Duty together have yielded £2,482,000, or £2,000 more than my estimates. Now I come to the Income Tax for the year, that mighty tax which accounts for so large a proportion of our Revenue. I confess that I have had my anxieties with regard to the outcome of that tax, because during a considerable portion of the year I could not see how the increase I had assumed and calculated upon, as compared with last year's Estimates, was going to be realised. But as the time passed by and the end of the year came, I am glad to say that my fiscal hopes were realised to the extent that, while we had estimated for an increase of £500,000, having hoped to get £13,750,000, the ultimate result was receipts of £13,810,000 paid into the Exchequer and £13,843,000 approximate receipts—again a very remarkable piece of estimating. Here I would say that, in the preparation of these Estimates, Sir Algernon West has been my most responsible adviser. He has now placed his resignation in my hands, after a period of service extending over 40 years; and I should not be doing my duty to a very eminent public servant if, in my place in this House, I did not heartily express to him the acknowledgment which I feel, and which I am sure my predecessors feel, for the valuable services he has rendered to successive Governments of this country and to the State. The total of the Inland Revenue net receipts for the year is £55,777,000, showing an excess of £800,000 over the Estimate and £1,940,000 over the receipts of the year before. The amount actually paid over to the Exchequer was not quite so large—£55,604,000, or an increase of £624,000 over the Estimates. I have still to deal with the Non-Tax Revenue. The Post Office and Telegraphs yielded a gross revenue of £12,630,000, which is £30,000 more

    1147
    than the Estimate. Again, that is a remarkably close Estimate. Crown lands yielded £430,000; interest on advances £222,000; and miscellaneous revenue yielded £2,373,000. The total of non-tax payments into the Exchequer during 1891–2 was £15,655,000 as compared with my estimate of £15,750,000—a decrease of £95,000. I deduct this decrease from the excess of the Customs and Excise, which together is £660,000, and I find that £565,000 has been contributed by the Revenue as a whole to the surplus which I have in hand. The total Estimate of Revenue was £90,430,000, and my Estimate of Expenditure £90,264,000, which left a margin of £166,000. To that I add a saving on Expenditure of £336,000 and the amount by which the Revenue has exceeded the Estimate — namely, £565,000, and I arrive at the realised surplus of £1,067,000. I cannot complete my history of the past year without stating what Expenditure has been incurred under the head of borrowed money in connection with the Naval and Imperial Defence Acts. As the Committee is aware, we have borrowed nothing under the Barracks Act during the last year. In respect of the Imperial Defence Act, we have borrowed £440,000, and under the Naval Defence Act £1,300,000, making altogether £1,740,000, which is the limit of our borrowing during last year. As regards the total borrowed up to date during the last four years, since the Imperial Defence Act was passed we have borrowed in round figures for the Australasian Squadron £800,000; for ports and coaling stations we have borrowed £2,170,000, and under the Naval Defence Act we have borrowed £2,000,000 — altogether £4,970,000, or, in round figures, £5,000,000. I do not wish in the present statement to be argumentative to any extent, but I do venture to point out to some of my more ardent critics, who said that millions and millions would be borrowed under these Acts—£20,000,000 was once suggested—that the transaction is one of far smaller dimensions than they could ever have imagined. If they had looked carefully into the matter they would have been differently advised; at all events, Sir,
    1148
    the sum of £4,970,000 is the total sum that we have borrowed up to the present. But I will not pass into an argumentative mood, when my intention is to be historical and explanatory. Now, Sir, as regards the Naval Defence Act, on ships built by contract we have spent up to date £6,800,000. We have raised from taxation three instalments of annuity amounting to £1,429,000 each, which together gave £4,300,000, and £500,000 we transferred from the ordinary Estimates for the Dockyard work, which gave £4,800,000. The remainder—namely, £2,000,000—is the total borrowed for contract-built ships. As regards dockyard-built ships we have borrowed nothing. We have spent seven millions on our Dockyard ships and armaments out of the programme of 11½ millions. Towards that not only have we not borrowed anything, but we have raised sufficient Revenue to enable us to transfer £500,000 temporarily from the Dockyards to the contract ships, so that the whole case stands thus—we have spent 14 millions on this Naval Defence Programme, and out of that sum twelve millions have been raised by Revenue, and only £2,000,000 have been borrowed. We shall have to borrow, perhaps, £1,000,000 in the coming year, and the amount borrowed under the Naval Defence Act will then stand at £3,000,000, the highest point, I believe, that will be reached. Well, now, right hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to know what figures I mean to present to the Committee as regards future borrowing. I have asked my right hon. Friends at the Admiralty and the War Office to give me as precise and definite figures as they could. The Admiralty placed certain figures in their Estimates in November last, but the labour troubles which so constantly interfere with the progress of ships that are being built under contract have again prevented the payment of the instalments which were expected to be paid, and now the prospect of utilising as much money as was originally anticipated has declined. Accordingly all we shall require in the coming financial year will be about £900,000 instead of £1,400,000, which at one time was expected. That is under the Naval Defence Act. Under

    1149
    that part of the Imperial Defence Act which deals with ports and coaling stations we expect to borrow and spend £320,000. Under the Barracks Act we expect to spend £650,000, and this sum we shall borrow, according to the precedent of the Military Forces Localisation Act. The total we may have to borrow will be something under £2,000,000 in the present financial year under all three Acts together. As regards the Naval Defence Act, I have stated to the House the highest point of loans will have been reached. I may now state to the House, as to the expenditure under the Imperial Defence Act upon ports and coaling stations, that the day is not so far distant when we shall have begun to pay off what has been borrowed by the dividends on the Suez Canal Shares. After the 1st July, 1894, that splendid asset of the nation will assume a tangible shape, and the Committee will be interested to know how that asset stands. It cost this country £4,000,000; it has brought in £200,000 or 5 per cent. up to date. The 176,000 shares which belong to the State will from the 1st July, 1894, carry interest and dividends, if the present rate be maintained, to the amount of £625,000; or, if we take the present value of the shares in the market, the value of the asset of these shares will be £19,000,000 sterling on the 1st July, 1894. I envy the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that day if I should not be here. I should envy the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who then will be able to enter this asset not as £4,000,000, where it modestly stands now, but as £19,000,000, and who will be able to say that he has reduced the national liabilities by no less a sum than £15,000,000 sterling. I should like to do it now. I should like to anticipate some right hon. Gentleman perhaps on the other side of the House, but I am too modest to make this entry at the present moment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not think I am wrong in placing before the country the existence of this valuable asset, which, if it were realised, would far more than cover all the loans under the Imperial Defence Act, the Naval Defence Act, and the Barracks Act. This one asset would pay for the whole of these.
    1150
    I must ask the Committee now to follow me for a few moments into what is always considered the driest part of the Budget Statement—namely, as regards the Debt. Approaching the question of the Debt, I think the Committee would like to know exactly how we stand; and, in the first place, how we stand as regards winding up the Conversion operation, which has left, to a certain extent, a legacy of Floating Debt. I had first of all to meet an expenditure amounting to £3,052,000, due in part to our having to pay a fifth dividend, and in part due to the payment of a bonus of 5s. to the holders of a portion of the Consols, and to commission and Bank remuneration. That was a sum of £3,052,000. Then I had to pay off in cash £24,378,000 to holders of Consols who did not convert. Thus I had to find cash amounting to £27,430,000. I charged against Revenue £2,052,000; I took out of balances £1,837,000, and I borrowed £23,541,000. Of the sum borrowed £4,711,000 has been repaid, leaving £18,830,000 outstanding. Of that sum, however, the State owes to the public only £5,830,000. The National Debt Commissioners have assisted me to an extent of £13,000,000, and therefore £5,830,000 only remains owing to the public. But out of this sum £530,000 represents Consols, leaving £5,300,000 as the real increase of Floating Debt in the hands of the public due to Conversion operations. I will say a word or two presently upon that sum of £13,000,000 owing to the National Debt Commissioners, as I have a proposal to submit with regard to it; but now I must pass from the subject of conversion to the question of the general Debt. The reduction of capital liabilities under the heads "Funded Debt," "Terminable Annuities," and "Unfunded Debt," has been £6,463,000, the respective reductions being £1,527,000, £4,109,000, and £827,000. As regards other liabilities, the Imperial Defence Loan annuity has been reduced by £57,000, so that I should show a diminution of our gross national liabilities under these heads of £6,520,000. But owing to the Conversion operations there is an increase of nominal liability to the

    1151
    Savings Banks of £1,000,000. This increased liability I have to deduct from my diminution of liabilities, and the diminution therefore stands at £5,520,000. But there is a decrease of assets amounting to £73,000, and of balances amounting to £116,000—about £190,000 in all—so that the net reduction of capital liabilities, counting balances, is £5,330,000. Out of the taxation of the country we have devoted during the past year £7,400,000 to the reduction of Debt. I need say nothing more to the Committee on the reduction of the Terminable Annuities and the Funded Debt, but I should like to say one word more upon the subject of the amount of the Unfunded Debt. The total Unfunded Debt has decreased by £827,000, the figures being £35,313,000 as against £36,140,000 on the 31st March last year. Out of this sum of £35,313,000 there is due to the National Debt Commissioners £18,323,000, and the amount in the hands of the public is £16,990,000. Last year the total amount of Floating Debt in the hands of the public was £22,239,000. As on the 1st April this year the amount stood at £16,990,000, there has been a diminution of £5,249,000. I would call attention to the various forms in which the Floating Debt is in the hands of the public. On 31st March, 1887—that is, before the Conversion brought its attendant increase of the Floating Debt—the amount of Treasury Bills in the hands of the public stood at £8,681,000, and I have reduced it to £8,350,000, so that there are now fewer Treasury Bills in the market than before the Conversion operations took place. The reduction in respect of Exchequer Bills has been from £5,061,000 to £3,340,000. But, on the other hand, there are Exchequer Bonds—a new security—in the hands of the public to the amount of £5,300,000. The total increase of Floating Debt in the hands of the public, comparing the present time with the year 1887, is only £3,248,000, and this notwithstanding the payment in cash of £24,000,000 of the Funded Debt and all the borrowing under the Defence Acts. I will now state what we owe to the National Debt Commissioners. The total amount they hold on short securities is £18,323,000. They have
    1152
    provided me with £13,000,000 of this amount for the purpose of carrying out the Conversion scheme, and with regard to that sum I intend to follow the precedent set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian when—I think it was in the year 1863 or 1864—he converted 24 millions of securities belonging to the Savings Banks into a permanent Book Debt. I propose to turn the floating securities now held by the National Debt Commissioners in connection with the Conversion operations into a Book Debt, or, as the right hon. Gentleman called it, "a passive charge," carrying, of course, 2¾ per cent. interest. That will not only simplify the general transactions between the State and the National Debt Commissioners, but will render the accounts more intelligible. There is another fact concerning the Unfunded Debt to which I must allude. During the past year the average rate of interest at which we borrowed money on Treasury Bills was considerably less than we pay on Consols—namely, £2 9s. 6d. I have only one more announcement to make on the subject of the National Debt to the Committee. It is this: I have been able to come to an agreement with the authorities of the Bank of England with regard to the remuneration of that establishment and the interest on its Book Debt of £11,000,000, by which a saving of about £50,000 a year will accrue to the State. It is a considerable sum, and it will go, not in diminution of Estimates, but to increasing the new Sinking Fund. The Book Debt will bear 2¾ per cent. interest instead of 3 per cent., and other arrangements will be made reducing the remuneration for the management of the Debt, and securing other advantages to the Exchequer. I am confident that, when I submit my proposals to the House, it will be seen that I have carefully safeguarded the interests of the State, while fixing on equitable terms the remuneration of that great institution, the Bank of England, to which at all times in our financial history we have owed so much. I shall take the earliest opportunity to submit a Bill to the House to carry out this matter. One word more as regards the past year, and I shall then be free to approach the

    1153
    consideration of the figures of the present financial year. Those Members of the Committee who take an interest in the ratepayers' point of view and in the share which Local Authorities derive from Imperial finance would like to know how these Local Authorities have fared during the past year; and perhaps they will have thought, when they heard of the increase in the Probate Duty, that the result to the Local Authorities would not be unfavourable. The figures are as follows:—They will receive in the present financial year £2,808,000 from Probate Duty; £1,400,000 from beer and spirits; £3,390,000 from licences — a total of £7,598,000; and if you add the special contribution to Ireland of £40,000, you find a total relief of rather more than £7,600,000. I hope I have not been led away by the interest with which the history of the past financial year has inspired me personally to detain the Committee longer than I probably should have done upon matters which I venture to think are of considerable financial and national importance. I feel relieved at coming to the second and more important part of my task—namely, the forecast for the future of my Expenditure and my Revenue at a time which I think all will admit to be one of considerable importance, looking to the doubt which exists with regard to the continuance of our commercial and manufacturing prosperity. The Committee is acquainted through the Estimates which have been laid on the Table with the total requirements for the Supply Services, including the Scotch and Irish Equivalent Grants. The amount is £61,941,000. The Committee are further acquainted with the recurring items under the Consolidated Fund Service—£25,000,000 within the fixed charge; £200,000 outside the fixed charge. Then there is the Naval Defence Fund, £1,429,000, and the other Consolidated Fund Services, £1,683,000. That will bring the total of the Consolidated Fund Services to £28,312,000. Adding the total Supply Services, the total estimated Expenditure is £90,253,000. Curiously enough, though I shall show in a moment that it is only a coincidence, and that the amount is differently constituted,
    1154
    this sum is almost identical with the Budget provision of 1891–92, which was £90,264,000. But in order to place a fair Estimate before the Committee, I have to take into account the additional cash receipts which are now appropriated in aid of Votes, and which, of course, I ought to add to my Expenditure, in order to show a fair comparison with the Expenditure of last year. These cash receipts were £925,000, which, if treated as they were last year, and paid directly into the Exchequer, would have swollen the Expenditure. If I add that sum to the £90,253,000, it brings up the total Estimate to £91,178,000, an increase of £914,000 over last year. That will not be the Budget Estimate for this year, but that is a comparison which I think it right to make with the Expenditure of last year. I would say at this point that while we (so to speak) gain £925,000 on the Expenditure, we do not lose the whole of that amount on miscellaneous Revenue, because the system has been this—that the receipts of one quarter are not paid over till the next quarter, so that we lose only three-quarters of that amount of miscellaneous Revenue, the loss being a little under £700,000. Now I would analyse very briefly the increase of £914,000 in the Expenditure. Under the Civil Services there is an increase for Assisted Education of £1,477,000. Here I am met, of course, with this large increase over last year, when we only had to provide £900,000. This year we have to meet a full year, and not only a full year as originally estimated, but a full year with those additions to the charge which were introduced into the Bill in the course of its passage through Committee. Knowing the uncertainty of Revenue, I took care last year not so to dispose of the surplus as to have to find the whole of that increased charge this year by means of increased Revenue; and I have to the good £500,000 provided for barracks last year; and £400,000 for gold coinage, which gives £900,000 charged last year upon Revenue, but which will now be dropped. I am relieved by these items, so that I have only £577,000 as the increase I really have to find as

    1155
    regards assisted education. But the ordinary Estimates for Education continue to rise, and they account for another £233,000. There are other services for which increased provision has to be made—Miscellaneous Consolidated Fund Services, £18,000; Army and Navy, £111,000; Miscellaneous Services, Customs and Inland Revenue, £86,000, all not very heavy increases in one year. Lastly, but certainly not least, there is a tremendous increase in the Postal Services of £611,000. That is balanced to a certain extent, of course, by increased Revenue; but the increased Revenue does not make up for that enormous increase. These items together amount to a total of £1,636,000. On the other hand, I have some advantages. We have paid for Irish railways so far out of Revenue. We took £600,000, which we were going to pay in cash out of Revenue. Of that £600,000 we have spent £510,000, and the remaining £90,000 we shall spend this year. But last year we spent a great deal more than £90,000 out of cash, and so this year I have less to provide for Irish railways by £355,000. For the remainder we shall borrow money on Terminable Annuities, as provided for by the Act of last Session. This is a modification of the principle introduced by the Act of 1883, from which we inherit a portion of the sums we apply to Irish railways. I have £130,000 less to provide for Census expenses; and, owing to the administrative vigour of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture as regards pleuro-pneumonia, it has been possible to take this year £70,000 less for that Estimate. There is less for Scotch and Irish relief by £85,000, and on sundries £82,000, so that I am relieved of £722,000 to set against the £1,636,000, giving a net increase of £914,000. I trust that the Committee will see that in these increases there is nothing wasteful. The increase is not in the Army and Navy Estimates, nor the Civil Service Estimates generally, and not in the civil government of the country. Where is it? It is in two directions, both of which will commend themselves to the House. It is in the
    1156
    direction of education and of the Postal Services of the country. Education and the Postal Services account for an increase of £2,000,000 in the Expenditure of this year. As for free education (in which I include, for the sake of brevity, the Scotch and Irish Equivalent Grants), my last year's estimate of the additional cost was £1,100,000; but the additions made to the Bill in its passage through the House have raised the amount to £1,420,000. And it is not only free education, but education all round which, to the satisfaction of the country, but of course somewhat to the despair of the Exchequer, continues to swell our Estimates; for, as I mentioned, there is a further increase of almost £250,000 on the ordinary Estimates for education. The Post Office increase is £611,000, of which £490,000 is due to the increase of salaries and wages, including increase of establishments. That is how our Estimates are swollen; and, while the Government have been anxious to meet the fair and equitable claims of those who are employed in those services, we have endeavoured to deal with the subject at the same time in a spirit of proper economy. As regards the telegraph service, one observation I would commend to some of the postal reformers. The average profit on every £1 of telegraph receipts during the last five years has been 3d. The expenses have been 19s. 9d., and the profit 3d. But during the five years from 1880–81 to 1884–85 the expenses swallowed only 18s. 6d., and the profits were 1s. 6d. There is already a deficit of some £90,000 on the net telegraph revenue for last year, and of some £60,000 expected for this year. In fact, we have now come down to this: that the increase of telegraphic communication and the further facilities as to addresses, so eagerly pressed by postal reformers, must all be given at the expense of the general taxpayer. The increase of postal revenue, which may be called £350,000, is far more than balanced by the increase of the expenses, and the margin of revenue for the Exchequer is rapidly being diminished. One figure more about the Estimates of Expenditure, and that is that the total amount now spent on elementary education

    1157
    amounts to £8,000,000. That is a large item which no one will grudge; but when we talk about our expanding Expenditure, it must be remembered that it is not an expenditure due to extravagance, but to the appreciation by Parliament and the country of the expanding wants of the children of the country. I come now to the Revenue with which we propose to meet the Expenditure. And, first, this year will be a peculiar year. Last year we had no Easter, and we had Leap Year. This year, of course, we lose Leap Year, and we have an Easter; and we have half of another Easter, because Good Friday in this financial year will fall on the 31st March, a most inconvenient and despairing day for Revenue purposes. Let me put this point to the Committee. We may calculate on an increase of one per cent. due to the normal increase in the population, and we ought to take off one per cent. for the loss of those days, which I count as equivalent to three days for Revenue purposes. It has been estimated by careful observers that we ought to take off £900,000 from the Revenue for the loss of those three days, but I think they have made two mistakes. They have taken that loss on the whole of the Revenue, whereas it is not the whole, but, roughly speaking, only two-thirds of the Revenue which is affected by the longer or shorter number of days in the year, and they do not allow for the normal increase of population. These two items will balance themselves. We must count upon the normal progress of the population as one per cent., and allow one per cent. for the loss of the three days. I start with the view that we must compare with last year without any addition for increase of population, and without any deduction for the loss of the number of days—the two factors mutually correspond. I think the Committee will agree that, looking to the general situation, the framing of the Estimates for the present year is a matter surrounded with considerable difficulties. The Bankers' Clearing House Returns for 1891 have been very unsatisfactory — they are not only less than 1890, but they are less than 1888—a significant symptom. The exports, again, have
    1158
    fallen. Many hon. Members in this House will know to what extent trade profits have fallen. I believe there are many painful experiences on that subject. On the other hand, Railway Returns are not unsatisfactory. There was an increase in the Railway Returns as regards passengers, parcels, goods, live stock—in fact upon every head. Their expenditure, however, was higher, and consequently their net profits were not greater; but in their gross receipts under every head there was progress. I have shown that the consumption by the people of duty-paying articles during the past year has been at an increased rate, but that is not enough for the Committee to know. The Committee will want to know whether that increase took place during the commencement or the second part of the year. Has it been declining during the year or not? I am happy to say the second part has not fallen off as compared with the first part. I am told that in the manufacturing districts the banking transactions have not been unsatisfactory; and, looking at the situation as carefully as I can, I see ground for caution, but I see no ground for alarm. I have examined some most interesting diagrams to see in what order the articles of consumption began to fall off in a former period of declining prosperity, and I find this—wine and spirits are the first to fall, tobacco holds out longer than spirits, and tea has never materially gone back. The working man it seems, if his wages should diminish, first reduces the amount of his beer and spirits, he clings longer to his tobacco, and as regards the tea for himself and his family, he does not reduce it at all. That is an interesting social fact which I believe to be absolutely proved by the statistics which I have carefully considered. We had a great time of prosperity in 1874 and again in 1890. We must study the events which followed 1874 to see on what articles we must expect a fall in consumption if we are really entering upon the descending curve after 1890. In 1875, I think it was, the Clearing House Returns began to fall as in 1891. Probably the highest point of prosperity we have ever reached

    1159
    was in 1874, and not long after there was a rapid decline. No great article of consumption showed an immediate decline, but rum toppled first with extraordinary rapidity in 1876; wine and brandy followed in 1877, and descended a precipitous curve, full three years after the Clearing House Returns had begun to fall, and after the commercial and manufacturing world had entered upon a period of gloom. But the non-alcoholic beverages, such as tea, steadily progressed with hardly a check. Tobacco, too, continued to rise, up to and during 1877, and though it descended during 1878 and 1879, this may be chiefly attributed to the increase of duty made in the former year. Not only this, but there is an enormous difference in the amount of the fall. Tobacco only fell six per cent. altogether, while wine and rum fell 36 per cent., and brandy 51 per cent. The Committee will see the bearing of this upon the Estimates of the present year. Taking the Customs Revenue first, I put the coffee group at £330,000, or £1,000 less than last year, and dried fruits at £350,000, or £3,000 more than last year. Wine I put at £1,270,000, or £21,000 less than last year. When I come to foreign spirits—rum, brandy, and Geneva alike—I estimate for a decline, and I put the total at £4,350,000, or £78,000 less than last year. As regards tea, the article which I have shown does not decline, even if wages fall off, I put the total at £3,470,000, an increase of £46,000, or one-and-a-half per cent. I will not allow, because I wish to be cautious, for progress at the same rate as last year, but I believe that tea will follow the same upward course as heretofore. As regards tobacco, I have shown that it is not one of the sensitive articles—it is not an article which begins early to fall. Except tea, it is the least sensitive of all the articles on the list. Looking to the fact that for the last 30 years there has never been a fall in tobacco except in 1878 (when the duty was raised), and then only to a small extent, and looking to the percentage of increase, which after making every allowance for increase of population and extra days was two-and-a-half per cent. during the last financial
    1160
    year and five per cent. in the year before, I believe we are justified in assuming a further increase not at the same rate, but still some increase, and I put tobacco at £10,065,000, or £113,000 over the receipts of the past year. That is only one per cent. instead of the more rapid increase which has hitherto taken place. Other articles I put at £65,000, the same as last year. The total Estimate for Customs receipts is therefore £19,900,000, or £164,000 more than the Exchequer receipts of last year, and £62,000 more than the approximate net receipts. I pass to the Excise. Disappointed in beer during the past year, I feel bound to allow for some decrease in that item, which I set at £9,400,000—£59,000 less than last year's receipts. On British spirits I have more to say. I approach them with considerable caution. I put them at £15,500,000, or £193,000 less than last year's receipts, but in reality I allow for a much larger fall in their consumption, owing to a small administrative change on which I will detain the Committee for a few minutes. I have endeavoured to put a stop—and have put a stop in fact—to a system called "grogging," by which the Revenue is supposed to have lost some £200,000 a year. We have stopped the practice, and so we gain to that extent. The practice consisted in extracting spirit which had been absorbed by casks after those casks had left the bonded warehouse. It is a very interesting process. By filling those casks with water and letting the water stand for a certain time, the spirit left in the cask was drawn out by the water with which it became fused, and so an alcoholic liquid was produced on which no duty had been paid, and which was used for mixing with other spirits. In this manner it is calculated that a puncheon which had held 100 gallons of spirit yielded, through the process of "grogging," one and a-half, and sometimes as much as three, gallons of proof spirit. The Committee, therefore, will see that, as a member of the trade put it to me, this was a system of legalised smuggling. Over and over again these imbibing casks might pass out of the warehouse, carrying away gallons of spirits on which no duty had been paid, absorbed

    1161
    in their wooden sides and to be extracted afterwards by "grogging." They went in and out just as ladies used to pass in and out of the country with lace hidden under their petticoats. I say nothing with regard to the practice, because it was not illegal, but it did put some traders who did not practise "grogging" on an unfair footing as compared with those who resorted to this method. We have now taken steps to prevent those casks from leaving the warehouse except under proper supervision, and we have taken the trade into council on the subject. There have been some complaints, but I believe there will not be much friction, as everybody will now be on an entirely fair footing, one as regards the other, and the Revenue will gain the pleasant sum of £200,000 a year. I may calculate, then, on an increase of £200,000 a year from this source, but as I am anxious with regard to the fiscal future of spirits, I have put the decrease at £193,000 as compared with last year's receipts; and, therefore, with the explanations I have made, it will be seen that the actual diminution in my Estimate as compared with last year is £393,000—£200,000 for "grogging," besides the £193,000. There are some small items which I pass over—chicory and coffee, labels, licences, and Railway Duty. These I put at £552,000, £8,000 less than last year. The total Excise I put at £25,452,000, or less by £260,000 than last year. I now pass to the Death Duties. I shall not, of course, allow in this coming year for the same amount of Death Duty as in last year, as that owing to the influenza. I take £208,000 from the Probate Duty, putting it at £2,600,000, and £98,000 from the Estate Duty, putting it at £1,300,000; but, on the other hand, there is some compensation in Legacy and Succession Duty, which have not yet felt the full effect of the wills that have recently been proved, and for those increases I put £140,000 to Legacy Duty, making it £3,000,000, and £87,000 to the Succession Duty, making it £1,260,000. Upon the Death Duties as a whole I expect to lose £79,000. I again allow for a decline on general stamps, and reduce last year's Revenue by £101,000, putting them at £5,400,000. I am
    1162
    bound to say I consider that an extremely prudent Estimate, for during the last few weeks there has been distinctly a revival in some of the important sources of stamps. On the other hand, there is a possibility that in the general transactions them may be a decline, and that bills of exchange and other documents which are stamped, which have hitherto not yet felt the full fall, may continue to show some falling-off. I shall be prudent in this, as in my other Estimates. The total for stamps, including the Death Duties, I put at £13,560,000, a decrease of £180,000. House Tax and Land Tax I put at £2,450,000, a decrease of £32,000 as compared with last year. There remains under the head of Inland Revenue one great item on which I have still to speak—perhaps it is the most important of all. I have to tell the Committee how I propose to deal with the Income Tax, because it is upon the Income Tax that some persons may think great uncertainty might arise. If I were to judge simply by the statistical Returns, by the gossip of the City, by complaints, in Lancashire, or by the position of Yorkshire; and if I were to listen to, and the Committee were to be influenced by, the general feeling, they might come to the conclusion that there would be a very large gap in the Income Tax Returns of the year. I do not say there ought not to be such a gap, but we must look a little to the details as regards Income Tax, and what we have to ask ourselves is this—what are the proportions in which different classes contribute to the Income Tax, and what are the constituent factors of that tax? And again we have to inquire not only what might be the profits of 1891 assessed to Income Tax under Schedule D, but how the average of the profits will have to be calculated, because that is most important. Let me deal with the first of these two questions. The Committee must not forget that while, on the one hand, we are naturally influenced by the more striking industries of the country, while we see the great cotton industry, or the great coal industry, or generally the great manufacturing or productive industries

    1163
    of the country, yet apart from these there is a mighty trade going on; there is wealth being rolled up like a veritable river of Pactolus—wealth of which no published statistics exist, but which is, nevertheless, accumulating and adding to the wealth of the country. There is the great retail trade which permeates every village of the country—the great home trade which does not always strike our attention so much as the more important and visible trades—we have to bear that in mind. Our imaginations are so stirred by the sight of some industries which stand before us in all the activity of their enormous proportions, that we forget a great many of the constituent parts of our business community. I am not going to be so indiscreet as to place before the Committee figures as to the aggregate profits of the various trades and professions; but I have examined some of their relative proportions, and they are most interesting. These I think I may put before the Committee without indiscretion. I find this—it is astonishing how many quiet callings keep up the average, and how large a proportion is contributed under Schedule D by persons and professions who do not figure as bloated monopolists or rich men in the ordinary acceptance of the word, but who, nevertheless, have earnings which are very material to the general prosperity of the State. Take the cotton manufacture and productive industry, including spinning and weaving; the total profit of those engaged in that vast industry—I am not speaking of wages, but of profits—the total profit of the cotton lords and the cotton companies is less than the aggregate profit made by the medical profession. If I look at the profits of the coal mines—notwithstanding the enormous fortunes made therein—the Committee may be surprised to learn that the total profit from coal mines is less than the profits of the legal profession. The lawyer in his quiet office and the physician in his sombre consulting room are rolling up taxable material almost at the same pace—at a faster pace — than those engaged in the great industries I have named; and it appears to me that it is the ubiquity and steadiness of these professions
    1164
    which compensate for the lower scale on which their profits may be earned. Again, it is easy to leave out of account the immense profits of the distributors of the manufacturing and productive industries. If I take the total of these latter industries, including cotton, wool, silk, ready-made clothing, metals, and hardware of all kinds, shipbuilding, sugar refining, tanning, chemicals, brewing, distilling, and so forth; if I take the whole of these industries, which together cover so vast an area of our national prosperity, the profits only amount to one-half of the profits which fall under the head of distribution and transport. That is to say, that those who distribute and transport merchandise and the products of industry make, on the whole, twice as much profit as the manufacturers and producers of the articles. Of course, I must remind the Committee and the public that I am not alluding to the cost of manufacture or to wages, but dealing exclusively with profits assessed under Schedule D. I thought it my duty to go into these details and see what constituted the vast wealth of this country, and find out, in view of possible adverse times, who it is that keep up that steady flow of profit on which so largely the material prosperity of this country depends. One more illustration of this and I have done. The profits, if they may be called so, or rather the salaries, of employees of every kind, which are assessed under Schedule E and part of Schedule D, form an immense total, far beyond what the public would imagine, and a period of depression may easily pass without diminishing to any extent the productiveness of those heads. There are 350,000 employees assessed to Income Tax under these two Schedules; their aggregate salaries amount to £50,000,000 sterling. Reductions of establishment no doubt occur in bad times, but I doubt whether they more than counterbalance that constant tendency to increase salaries which is the general rule. I believe on no occasion has it been found that there was any backward movement under Schedule E. Now, Mr. Courtney, I pass to the other point I have mentioned—namely, the industries themselves under

    1165
    Schedule D. We have not only to look to 1891, but we have to see what year it replaces in the three or five years' average on which the profits are estimated. In commerce and manufactures the average is three years, and in the case of mines five years. Well, then, 1891 was a most unsatisfactory year in the City as compared with its predecessor. But it takes the place not of 1890 but of 1888 in commercial and industrial profits, and of 1886 in mining profits. The Committee will see that we must not be guided entirely by the impressions derived from 1891. As regards mining profits, 1891 does not show such phenomenal profits as 1890, but its profits are far beyond those of 1886. Thus, though 1891 shows a large decline as compared with 1890, the profits assessable to Income Tax for the coming year will be greater, because, though 1891 comes in, it replaces a year which was worse than itself. As regards iron and steel, those industries were far less profitable than in 1890, but far more profitable than in 1888; and so on these industries, too, there is an increase. The case is otherwise in the great Lancashire industry. Here 1891, speaking broadly, is much worse than 1888, and the average has to be put down. For wool, jute, silk, and other industries, 1891 was a distinctly worse year than 1888, and there is, therefore, a worse average to go on. But I must not survey any more of these great industries. I have gone through most of them in order to be able to form a reasonable estimate for the assessment of the Income Tax for the coming year; and, on a general review of the whole case, I am advised that the actual average of the three preceding years, upon which profits under Schedule D will be mainly assessed, will not fall very much below that on which the Income Tax was based last year. Some decline there may be; in some cases there is increase, and in some decrease; but, on the whole, I am informed—and this is confirmed by my own examination—that there is scarcely any serious decrease in the assessment of profits. Looking at all these considerations, I ask myself if I should be justified in putting down the Income Tax for the present financial
    1166
    year as likely to give the same amount as in the last financial year. I am distinctly of opinion that it would not be safe for me to assume the same amount. I have given many reasons on the one side and some on the other. I do not know that I should make much allowance for the following reason, but I am told it is one which should inspire caution. There is a tendency which is said to be implanted in human nature that when profits are bad, and are lower than the average profits of the three preceding years, there is not in the breast of the taxpayer such absolute impartiality in settling accounts between the Exchequer and himself as there may be under more normal circumstances; that a man's inclination on these occasions is to settle doubts in his own favour; that men are more ready to be generous in their estimate of what they ought to pay when they are making higher profits than the average. Then there is another consideration which inspires caution, and that is the point I have already mentioned—namely, that Good Friday is the last day of the financial year. I hope and believe that most taxpayers will wish to clear their minds and consciences by paying the last demands of the Income Tax collector before they go for their Easter holiday. But the last days of the year are very important, and it is possible, on account of the last day being Good Friday, we shall have to carry over more arrears into the next financial year. Looking into the whole case, I feel compelled largely to diminish my estimate of the Income Tax, and I put it at £13,400,000, or £443,000 less than the approximate receipts of last year. The total Inland Revenue I put down at £54,862,000, a decrease of £915,000 as compared with the approximate net receipts of last year, and of £742,000 as compared with the Exchequer receipts of last year. With regard to Non-Tax Revenue, I put the Post Office at £10,400,000, or £250,000 more than last year; telegraphs, £2,560,000, or £80,000 more than last year; Crown lands, £435,000; interest on advances, £220,000; miscellaneous receipts, £2,100,000. The last item I have to reduce by £700,000, owing to a transfer of receipts which I mentioned before;

    1167
    but, on the other hand, there have to be added several windfalls which accrue this year. The total Non-Tax Revenue is £15,715,000, to which I add the proceeds of taxes, £74,762,000, and I arrive at a total Revenue of £90,477,000. I deduct my Expenditure of £90,253,000, and I arrive at a margin of £224,000, a sufficient margin to make me think I am fortunate in not having to impose taxation, but unfortunate in that it will not place me in a position of being able to make any remission. The Committee will kindly bear in mind that last year and this year the sum—including the Scotch and Irish Grants—of £2,500,000 has been given for assisted education. This outlay has, of course, rendered it difficult to make any prominent reduction of taxation to any other class of the community; but, so far as the recipients of that boon are concerned, it is almost equal to, and is, in fact, a more palpable advantage than, any reduction of indirect taxes. With a margin of only £224,000 at my disposal, it would be unwise, especially looking at the circumstances of the time, to attempt any re-construction of our finances. There are two minor changes, however, which I shall propose to the Committee. The Committee will remember that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade informed the House of his wish to see the heavy fees charged for the renewal of patents reduced in the interests of the poorer patentees, and with the view of giving the fullest scope to the development of inventions, and small as my margin is, this is a reform which the Government do not wish to delay, and which they think they can afford. The primary fee of £4 for the first four years will remain, and from the end of the fourth year onwards large reductions will take place. At present the fees for the next four years are £10 a year; they will be reduced to £5, £6, £7, and £8 in the several years. In the ninth and tenth years the fee is £15, and it will be reduced to £9 and £10. In the next four years, the last before the patent expires, the fee is £20 a year; it will be reduced to £11, £12, £13, and £14. These reductions will, I believe, give extreme satisfaction to a very large class. They will ultimately
    1168
    involve a loss of £50,000 a year, but we should not ask that the new scale should come into operation before the 25th September, and on that period the loss would be £24,000 or £25,000, which will reduce my margin to £200,000. The other minor change I propose will not affect the Revenue—it is in connection with the tax on sparkling wines. Hon. Members may be aware that great pressure has been put on me to change the system on which that duty is levied. At present it is 2s. 6d. per gallon on wines above the value of 30s., and 1s. per gallon for wines below that value. I understand that even the importers of cheap wines themselves would prefer to pay a higher duty rather than go through what they declare to be an impediment to business—the discussions with the Customs as to the value of their wines. I have thought the friction has been exaggerated, and that, as a matter of fact, it would only arise in the case of that small portion of wines imported at the border line; and I may point out that the experiment of two rates of duty varying with value has not failed in respect of the continuance of the proportion of wine of higher quality to the lower quality. The champagnes above the value of 30s., which constituted two-thirds before the tax was imposed, still constitute substantially the same proportion; there has been no fraud, and the Customs have been extremely watchful. I prefer, I admit, the duty as assessed at the present moment; but if there is, as I am informed, considerable unanimity on the part of the trade in favour of a uniform scale I do not wish to be obstinate, and I shall be prepared to submit a Resolution that the duty be 2s. all round instead of 2s. 6d. and 1s. as at present. This will give a small addition to the Revenue. I do not do it with that object, but I am not prepared under present circumstances to have any loss whatever fall on the Exchequer by any change in the Wine Duties. Before I part with the Wine Duties let me note one point—it is not entirely of a fiscal nature and does not affect the present Budget immediately. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will remember the Spanish Treaty we

    1169
    made in 1886. The duty was then reduced in favour of the Spaniards, with a result which, I believe, has been beneficial to both nations. Spain improved its tariff in favour of this country and we improved our alcoholic scale in favour of Spain. Now, the Spaniards have denounced the Treaty which we obtained by the concessions we made in 1886. All I wish to say on the point is this—that there must not be the impression, either in Spain or elsewhere, that if the concessions which were given to this country in 1886 should be withdrawn, it will be certain that they will retain the fiscal advantages that were given with regard to their wines in 1886. There are strong fiscal reasons why we should put the higher duty on wine of alcoholic strength between 26 and 30 degrees. I do not propose this in the Budget, because I do not wish to force the hand, so to speak, prematurely of our Spanish friends, or put the wine trade into the excitement there would be if we were to impose a scale now which would not come into force for some months, because we could not change our duty before the end of June. But I think it is right, in the most friendly spirit, to say that if the concessions given for a certain quid pro quo are withdrawn, this country will have an open hand with regard to withdrawing the advantages given before. I sincerely trust that these negotiations may come to a satisfactory termination as regards both countries. Now, Mr. Courtney, I have finished my annual discourse. I hope that there may have been some interest in what I have had to tell; because, as I have said, there are many side lights thrown by these fiscal results on the habits and consuming powers of the people. I have had no startling facts to tell; I have had no surprises to reveal. Prudence seems to me to demand moderate Estimates, and I hope the Committee will think I have framed these Estimates with such prudence as was justified by the fiscal situation. I trust that when next year I stand at this Table—(Ministerial cheers, and counter Opposition cheers and laughter)—I do not say on which side—(laughter)—for, on whichever side of the Table I stand, I shall be responsible
    1170
    for the prudence of the Estimates—I hope when I stand at the Table next year these Estimates may prove to have been justified by the facts. The mighty river of our national prosperity, though it may not have been overflowing its banks, though it may have been running on at a more sluggish pace, still remains broad and full; and I trust that all the various watersheds of our national well-being may still continue to pour out their thousand streams with undiminished volume into a grand and mighty flood.

    TEA.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now chargeable on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-three, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say) on—
    Tea. the pound. Four Pence."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not yet acquainted us on what day he will ask the House to go into Committee for the purpose of considering the nature of the proposals he has made. I, of course, cannot undertake to control the discretion of individual Members, but the ancient practice of this House has been to refrain from detailed discussion of the finances of the country on the evening the Budget was proposed; and to that custom it is my intention to adhere on the present occasion. But I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us a proper and convenient opportunity shortly after the Recess of making such observations as his very interesting and comprehensive statement would appear to call for. If that old custom was justified in the circumstances of the country 20 or even 10 years ago, most certainly the reasons in its favour are fortified by the changes that have since taken place in our arrangements with regard to many portions of our system of finance. The right hon. Gentleman, who has had a serious task before him this evening, must be sensible that a greater degree of complication has been introduced into

    1171
    that system in consequence of much that has taken place in recent legislation; and the bearing of these changes on one another has to be carefully considered by the House, independently of the fact that it is far more difficult now than it would have been in previous times for Members to draw their knowledge of the subject entirely from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has entered into a very interesting statement with respect to the basis on which he has framed his Estimates of the coming Revenue from various branches of taxation in Customs and Excise, and from the various schedules of the Income Tax. I do not think that I have ever known that particular department of the statement of the Finance Minister so much expanded as it has been on this occasion by the right hon. Gentleman Undoubtedly it was not too much expanded for the interest of the House, which was entirely sustained, and would have been sustained probably even if the right hon. Gentleman had entered into still further details. And when I speak of the complicated statement, I do not in the slightest degree intend to convey that that complication was due to any want of care or accuracy or lucidity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman himself. But the facts and materials of the statement have been greatly enlarged, and the opportunity of considering them is one that ought to be carefully made use of. I am not quite certain whether I entirely understood what was said by the right hon. Gentleman at the close of his speech with regard to the Wine Duties. I understood him to say that a change was to take place at once with regard to sparkling wines which was to have no effect on the Revenue, but if it did have an effect it would rather be in its favour. The effect of this change would justify particular notice. After describing the change he meditates in the duty on sparkling wines the right hon. Gentleman proceeded to refer more generally and vaguely to some other changes in the Wine Duties, and to the possibility of a connection between the change in the Wine Duty and the communications
    1172
    that have taken place, or that may take place, with Spain, as to certain proceedings adopted by Spain in regard to its commercial relations with this country. It would not be right for me to touch on this subject, and even if I did attempt to touch upon it I should be likely to do more harm than good. I shall wait until there is a fuller exposition of the views of the right hon. Gentleman, which we may probably have on a future occasion; and all I will do now is to express the hope that in making any of these changes in the Wine Duty he will not confine his consideration to the effects of what may take place in Spain, but will also take into view any consequences that may be produced in other countries with which our commercial relations are in some cases still more extended. In the present state of opinion and sentiment on the Continent of Europe, with regard to questions of protection and freedom of trade, it is evident that the greatest caution ought to be observed in any measures of the British Government which may possibly cause any alarm amongst those interests abroad to whose improved and more enlightened opinions we have chiefly to trust—I do not say for preventing the introduction of changes in foreign countries in the wrong direction, but, at all events, for confining those changes within narrow limits, and for promoting, on the whole, an enlightened policy. The right hon. Gentleman said one word in the course of his speech which I am very desirous to echo. It was prudent as well as generous on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the services of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, who has just retired. For 20 years I have enjoyed the intimate friendship of that distinguished gentleman. For the larger part of these 20 years I have been in close personal or official relations with him. I have had ample opportunity of estimating the justice of the right hon. Gentleman's appreciation of his services, and I can thoroughly concur in the expression which he has used. I am only sorry that those services are brought to their public or official termination. I hope that the vigour which my hon.

    1173
    Friend the late Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue has applied to the discharge of his official duties at Somerset House may remain available for the service of the country in some useful and valuable capacity. It is the great happiness of this country—a happiness in which I will not say it exceeds all other countries, but certainly a happiness in which it is very remarkable—that we have so many public servants possessed of great ability and unsparing diligence, and even an enthusiasm for the public welfare. I do not believe there has been any occasion on which it was more warrantable and becoming to record the fact that we have enjoyed in the person of the late Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue the services of a public officer who was alike able, upright, and indefatigable in promoting every interest connected with this gigantic Department.
    MR. PICTON: The right hon. Gentleman says the money devoted to elementary education now amounts to £8,000,000. That is a sum in which we ought to take pride. At the same time I think we ought to take warning from the growth even of the most beneficent expenditure. It is an expenditure for the advance of civilisation, but if it grows at the present rate we shall have to reduce the expenditure on war, or the country cannot bear the cost.
    MR. BARTLEY: Considering that one-third of our taxation is now derived from alcoholic liquors — the great staple drink of the people — the incidence of taxation on the working classes is calculated to be in excess of what it ought to be. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will arrange that there shall be some definite systematic investigation, so as to put the whole subject of taxation upon a fairer basis. Another question to which I desire to call attention is the subject of the Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the very remarkable statement that £50,000,000 income was distributed over 350,000 persons. This fact he said showed the enormous growth of this branch of our income. This £50,000,000, distributed over these 350,000 persons, represented incomes averaging only £130 each.
    1174
    The enormous development of the Income Tax was a result of the increase in the number of those at the bottom of the scale coming into the Income Tax category, and that fact required very careful consideration with regard to the fiscal burdens of the people.
    MR. GOSCHEN: They do not pay on £130.
    MR. BARTLEY: I know there is a deduction of £120, but still the fact remains that the enormous proportion of the Income Tax payers are those who pay on incomes below £200 under Schedule D. There is no doubt that more than half the payers in that Schedule pay on incomes of an average of £3 a week. Of course they get a small rebate, but the burden of the tax upon the trading community is very great. I am glad that a larger number of persons are coming into the Income Tax class, but it shows that the time has come when we should make a difference between the rate of payment on the incomes of those who earn it by their labour, as compared with those whose incomes are on accumulations. There ought to be two different Schedules. I go so far as to believe in the French system, under which industrial incomes are not taxed. I believe that would be a wise step in this country. It would add to the amount of taxation upon the richer class, and put it upon the spontaneous income from past savings. I hope some complete change will be made in our system of levying Income Tax, enlarging the payment of those who have large incomes derived without industry. Although a graduated system of Income Tax could not be introduced, still we might do something to relieve those who make their incomes by their industry. I hope next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a more successful Budget, and be able to take this subject into consideration.
    MAJOR RASCH: As a humble agricultural Member, and not a financial expert, I wish to say that although we are very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the reduction he has made in local taxation, yet I regret he has not been able

    1175
    to go further. We in the Eastern Counties are working out a precarious existence, as land is going out of cultivation owing to foreign competition and the incidence of local taxation. I should like to indicate two methods by which you might relieve local taxation without putting a heavy burden on any other class of the community, and that is by taxing British wines, and by putting a tax on transfers of shares, to show the amount of money which actually passed on the completed transaction. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will remember that gratitude in agricultural industry, as in others, is only in anticipation of favours to come.
    MR. BRUNNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when the arrangement as to new patents will come into operation?
    MR. S. BUXTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the whole of the year's extra receipts have gone in the reduction of gross expenditure?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table before we come to the consideration of the Budget a tabulated statement showing the receipts and expenditure of the Post Office during the last ten years? Although a portion of this Revenue has been spent on increased postal facilities, on improvements of the Public Service, and on important additions to salaries, still there is a large surplus, much larger than was the case six years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman came into office. The surplus Revenue in 1885 was £3,119,000; in 1886 it was £3,008,000; whereas so far as I can make it out for the past year it was £3,316,000, after considerably increasing the salaries; and in the present year it will be £3,420,000. There has already been improvement, but there is room for more, and I think the surplus Revenue might be still further utilised. What I have to ask is, will the right hon. Gentleman give a tabulated statement showing for the last few years the surplus Revenue in each year, so that we may have the actual figures and be enabled to make comparisons?
    MR. BIGWOOD: I should like to ask
    1176
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, finding that his Revenue has increased by so large an amount, he will be inclined to entertain a proposal which I shall make later on when the Budget is discussed, for reducing the cost in some degree, or bringing some funds to the assistance of the County of Middlesex, who are paying so much more for their police than is the case in any other county in England. Having such a large sum at his disposal in the shape of the windfall to which he has referred, I hope he will be generously inclined.
    SIR J. LUBBOCK: There is one other question to which, perhaps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give an answer when he replies. In his interesting and lucid statement he has not said whether the amount put at the disposal of the County Council by the Wine and Spirit Duties will be retained. Several County Councils are about to hold their meetings, and will, no doubt, be glad to know whether any change is proposed. I presume that such is not the case, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say a word on the subject.
    MR. GOSCHEN: In reference to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), I find his own Return gives the best statistics on the subject of the Post Office that can be procured, and all I say is that the statement shall be brought up to date as far as possible. That would show the right hon. Gentleman what he desires; but, if not, I will give him the figures in manuscript. With reference to the increase in the Post Office Revenue, I think the figures he has dealt with only touch Post Office Revenue and Expenditure, without taking into consideration sites and buildings, and I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that sites are a large amount.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The sites are provided out of the Post Office grant, and the buildings out of another fund.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Speaking from memory, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Revenue of the Post Office will be £200,000 less than it was in the previous year because of the increased expenditure. With re-

    1177
    spect to the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University, I know of no change proposed in the allocation of the Wine and Spirit Duties. I think it is highly desirable that the County Council should devote that money to the purposes of technical education; but that is a matter which is entirely in the discretion of the Council, and I do not propose to legislate on that point. The matter for the present will remain precisely where it now stands. With respect to the question of the hon. Member for Poplar, I think I stated clearly that in the present year the whole of the cash receipts appropriated in aid of Votes are not lost to the Miscellaneous Revenue, owing to the fact that the receipts for each quarter are paid in after the end of the quarter. It is the case that, by a statistical coincidence, the amount of a quarter's receipts is about the same as the amount of my margin; but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the change to which he referred was made long before the Estimates arrived at such a point that I was able to foresee what the final balance would be. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Islington, it is a large scheme that he suggests, and I admit that no subject is more interesting than the general question of the incidence of taxation. The reconstruction of the Income Tax, which I know is an ideal of the hon. Member's, is a work of the most stupendous character, and it is certainly not a task to be taken up at the close of a Parliament. I was asked a question with respect to patents, and what was meant was that new patents taken out after the 25th September should enjoy the diminution in fees. It is now under consideration whether the diminution can be made in the case of those taken out before that day, and I shall be prepared to make a statement later on. I have now only to thank the Committee for the words they have used with respect to the statement of the Budget. Of course, we perfectly recognise that it is impossible to discuss the very large issues which are involved without full time being given to hon. Members to study the proposals when they appear in printed
    1178
    form. I have had a conference with the First Lord of the Treasury, and I think it is possible that the first Thursday after we meet again may be set aside for the further discussion of the Budget proposals. However, I will consider that point with the Leader of the House, and will make a communication on the subject to right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who are interested in the matter. With respect to the Wine Duties, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) would wish me to enlarge upon that point at present; but I will not forget the recommendations which he has made, nor have they been absent from our minds during the preparation of our proposals. I will take into consideration the other points that have been mentioned to me; and I would suggest that we should now take the Resolution with regard to sparkling wines, as that is a definite change on a definite date. I would also suggest that the Resolutions dealing with Tea and Income Tax should be put off till the Thursday after the Easter holidays at all events.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolved, That, instead of the Duty on Wine imposed by "The Customs (Wine Duty) Act, 1888," there shall be charged and paid the Duty following (that is to say):—
    Sparkling Wine imported in bottle . the gallon . two shillings.
    This Duty is to be paid in addition to the Duty in respect of alcoholic strength payable under "The Customs Amendment Act, 1886," and without reduction.—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday 25th April.

  SMALL AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL.—(No. 183.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 8th April.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 10, after the last word "Act," to insert the words "lease, hire, or."—(Mr. T. E. Ellis.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): When the Committee adjourned the other night I was explaining that I was willing in Sub-section 2 of Clause 3—I was prepared—to accept the Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). This Amendment would omit from the clause the words:—"But will be so able, if they are permitted, to occupy small holdings in the first instance as tenants." There are several reasons which I have already given why it is desirable, on the whole, to maintain as the first principle of this Bill that the new holders shall acquire their holdings by purchase rather than as tenants. There are three parties to be considered—the owners of the land, the new holders, and the ratepayers and the interests they represent. As regards the owners of the land, I may say at once that I see no objection whatever to the Local Authority acquiring land from them by hire as well as by purchase. They would have ample security, and I should not be disposed to interfere with what they might voluntarily wish to do. Then with respect to the new holders, again I see no objection—provided they have not the means of acquiring the land by purchase—I see no objection to their obtaining it by hire, subject to those reservations which I have already stated, and if they can find the money which will convert them into freeholders that they shall do so. But when I come to the third party, the ratepayers and the interests they represent, there are more serious considerations which deserve the attention of the Committee. In the first place, if the new holder is to be a tenant, the Local Authority loses at once the security of the deposit which is to be paid down in the first instance, and that is a condition to which I attach very considerable importance. This is probably the best security contained in the Bill. In the second place, if the new holders are merely tenants, it is obvious to the Committee
  1180
  that the Local Authorities will be converted into landlords, and I have very grave doubts whether they are best fitted to occupy such a position. The holdings will either be held upon lease or upon yearly tenure——
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. COURTNEY,): Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is now discussing Clause 3, which is not before the Committee, and if we continue the discussion in this way we shall get into considerable confusion. The question now is the acquisition of the land by purchase.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I was endeavouring to explain the grounds upon which I am prepared to make certain concessions, but if you rule it to be out of order I bow entirely to your decision. Perhaps it was premature on my part to make the announcement, but I desired to facilitate the discussion. With respect to the Amendment which is actually before us, I do not propose to accept it for the reasons I have stated. I wish the general principle to be maintained that the Bill is one for the creation of small holders who shall be purchasers rather than tenants, and perhaps I have said enough to induce the Committee to agree with me to retain that part of the clause in its present form.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I see the difficulty of reconciling the forms of the Committee with the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman, and it is only fair to him that I should also acknowledge that I perfectly understand his purpose. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should place upon the Paper the proposal as it will stand amended according to his views, and put it down for discussion, and we shall then see whether it falls short of the views entertained on this side of the House. That will be better than making an arrangement beforehand, and it will give us an opportunity of discussing the matter fully in its proper place.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I think the purpose will be attained by the omission of certain words in Clause 3, and that it will not require any words to be inserted.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he was prepared to accede to the proposition that the Local Authority should have power in future to hire land on a long lease as well as to buy it out. I rather gathered from him, by his using the word "feu" that he intended that the Local Authority should have the power of taking perpetuity leases, paying the rent in the nature of a rent-charge upon the land. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would explain what it is that he really intends in that respect.
  MR. CHAPLIN: What I intended to convey was that under the clause as it stands now the Local Authorities have the power of acquiring land by "feu"—that is, by the payment of a perpetual rent-charge—under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1844, Section 10, I think—I am speaking from memory. I cannot doubt, that being the effect of the Bill as it stands now, that no alteration in the Bill would be required for the purpose of getting rid of one of the main objections taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, namely, that for the purpose of additional purchase the Local Authority would be compelled to borrow and pay down a capital sum; the effect of the Bill being that they can acquire land by the payment of a perpetual rent-charge instead of by the payment of a capital sum. That objection is therefore removed, and it is unnecessary, so far as I know, to alter the Bill in any respect at all. I am unable to accept the Amendment for the reason I have already stated, and which I shall be able to enter on more fully when we come to Clause 3.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House must be gratified with the right hon. Gentleman's declaration that he will vary and multiply the forms and methods of letting land to labourers and others. That I consider a concession of very great value and importance; but I should like to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the interests of the working of the Bill, it would not be well to go one step further? The
  1182
  right hon. Gentleman must recognise, more especially after the rejection of the Amendment on Friday with regard to compulsion, that there are still difficulties, and great difficulties, in the way of any appreciable increase in the number of small holdings. The right hon. Gentleman would find that County Councils, with a choice of methods, would be able, in many localities, to make comparatively favourable terms with landowners, by which a farm, for example, that became vacant, could be taken on a long lease, and could then be let out in small agricultural tenancies varying, say, from 3 to 50 acres, thus carrying out the object at which the right hon. Gentleman is ultimately aiming—namely, the increase of small holdings. I rather agree with some of my hon. Friends on this side that the increase of small holders would be very much promoted by increasing in the first place the numbers having an interest in the soil—by having small tenants. These small tenancies being largely increased, there would be a desire on the part of the tenants of these holdings to acquire the land on some more permanent basis. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us a promise that he will accept this Amendment, or some Amendment drafted on the same lines.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: It seems to me that the County Councils might be very unwilling to run the risk of raising money for the purposes of land speculation, though they might be willing to hire estates for a term of years. I sincerely trust that the right hon. Gentleman will make a concession in the direction of this Amendment. I think the landlords might be very willing, especially at the present time, to let their estates to the County Councils at an easy rental, that land might be cut up into small holdings, and let again to small holders at an easy rent, and this tentative proceeding would be entirely in accordance with principles which the right hon. Gentleman laid down when he introduced this Bill.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: At first I was inclined to support this Amend-

  1183
  ment, but I am bound to say that I have come round to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman. In discussing this Amendment I think we may put aside entirely the question of future tenancies. It does not affect them one way or the other. I would be disposed to say that under the circumstances it would be better for the County Councils to acquire the fee-simple of the land outright. I do not see that landowners would be more likely to let land on lease than to part with it in fee-simple. There is one class of landowner, no doubt, which would be prepared to lease land—the owner of limited estates; but these are the exception. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite have failed to make out a sufficiently strong case to induce the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. As I have said, I had been originally in favour of the Amendment, but I have come to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman is right, and if hon. Gentlemen go to a Division I shall support the right hon. Gentleman in opposing the Amendment.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I take this opportunity of saying that the right hon. Gentleman has made a concession in regard to feuing or quit rent-charge which is sufficient for the purpose of my Amendment; and therefore it will not be necessary, for my part, to move the Amendment standing in my name. In regard to the present Amendment before the Committee I cannot help thinking that there is some confusion in the minds of hon. Members. We are not dealing now with the question as to how the County Councils are to let or hire land to those who apply to them. It seems to me there is all the difference in the world between the two Amendments, and they do not appear to me to have any connection whatever. I am rather surprised, after all that has taken place in regard to the position of leaseholders, that the right hon. Gentleman should be asked to re-introduce the system into this Bill. I want my hon. Friends to consider what difficulties will arise when the leases come to an end; and when you begin to deal with the proprietors respecting the improvements
  1184
  that have been made upon these holdings, I regret to say that I should have to go into a different Lobby, should this Amendment be pressed to a Division, from many hon. Members on this side. I shall support the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in leaving out leaseholders. As regards County Councils, I think it would be objectionable in the last degree that the County Council, after a term of 30 years, or any other number of years, should have to enter into a controversy with the proprietor of the ground as to the conditions on which a lease was to be renewed, or the purchase of the fee-simple effected. In Scotland for many years we have been seeking for fixity of tenure, and now, if we are to abolish that fixity of tenure, it will be impossible for the holders to hold their own with the proprietors. I think, therefore, it would be very much more useful to remove the difficulties which exist in regard to the sale of estates. If a remedy is to be applied, I think it ought to be by so altering the law as to render it permissible under any circumstances for a person in this country to sell any estate under an Act of Parliament. If tenants are to put up their own buildings there would be enormous difficulties as to compensation for improvements when the leases fell in. I shall support the Government against the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The true remedy is to make it non-permissible to sell any estate bought under the Bill. If a quit rent were provided for, the landlord would be able to retain his sense of proprietorship in the land.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The whole question is whether you will bind the hands of the County Council by shutting them out from one particular method of acquiring land for the use of smaller tenants. It is difficult to argue this question and yet to keep within the bounds of the ruling which has just been laid down. What we want is small quantities of land, say up to 10 acres, at a fair rent for the labouring classes. The greater the variety of tenure introduced into the Bill the greater will be the facilities for the County Council to provide

  1185
  small holdings for labourers. It has been said very truly that there is a good deal of sentiment connected with the ownership of land. There are many owners who, I am sure, will be very much more willing to let to the County Council any vacant land on fair terms than to sell one farm, or a part of a farm, out of their estates. I am not dealing now with the curmudgeon—the unreasonable landlord—I do not want to use strong language—but with the philanthropic, good landlord—and there are many of that description—who may be unwilling to sell a part of an estate which has been in his family for years, Besides, the landowner may reasonably hold the view that the experiment may not answer, for it is an experiment after all. He may say to the County Council, "Here is a farm of 50, or 60, or 100 acres. If the villagers in the neighbourhood of it come to you and wish to take it in small holdings, I am willing to let you have it for 20 years at a moderate rental, and at the end of that time it shall be valued. If it is then found to have deteriorated you shall pay me for the extent to which it has deteriorated, but if it has been improved, and I decide not to renew the lease on the old terms, I will pay for any improvements that have been made upon it." I think that in that way we are much more likely to obtain land in many villages of England than by being confined to buying it. Then, again, I hardly think the hon. Gentleman opposite appreciates the number of men who have mortgages and life charges on their land, who may be willing to let it, but not to let the public know the extent to which it is encumbered by attempting to sell it. There is also the important question of law costs in connection with the purchase of the land to be considered. I will now call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the advice given by one of his most powerful colleagues in this House. In a speech on this subject, delivered on 25th January, 1885, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham used these words:—
  1186

  "You cannot expect every landlord to do what should be done. It is not every one who has the capital to make the experiment. Well, then, they must give place to those who have. That is why I am anxious to call in the Local Authority of every district, and to give them power to take land with this object."
  He goes on to say:—
  "I do not think that the Local Authorities will go too fast in this matter, or that they will be likely to incur risk to any considerable extent; but I think that the experiments should be made in many districts, and under very many conditions."
  Now, this is one of the most important Amendments to the Bill, and what the Government are really saying in refusing to accept it is this: "We do not trust the County Councils sufficiently to let them take farms on lease to supply the requirements of the labourers." Compulsion has been, unfortunately, ruled out of the Bill, and the leasing advocated in the Amendment is a voluntary and not a compulsory one. By tying their hands in this manner the Government is preventing this Bill from being used by the County Council in the one way in which labourers want it to be used.
  MR. CHANNING: I would point out that now that compulsion has been struck out of the Bill there will be a very large number of persons who will be unable to obtain land under it. Attention has frequently been called to the fact that land is wanted locally, in parishes scattered about the country, rather than in large blocks. I know it is perfectly possible for the County Council in the part of the country with which I am acquainted to obtain farms in the neighbourhood of towns and villages if they had the power to hire them for short periods. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture will see his way to accept the Amendment which has been placed on the Paper. It is essentially a practical Amendment, and it would assist the right hon. Gentleman to meet the vast and increasing demand for land in this country.
  MR. WHITBREAD: I would venture very respectfully to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of considering

  1187
  whether, with regard to land where no buildings would be required, a system of leasing might not possibly be adopted. Where buildings will be required I see the difficulty as regards the proprietor at the expiration of the lease. Are you going to compel him to take over at the valuation houses and buildings in the construction of which he has not had any voice? It is because the Bill contemplates such a widely different object that this difficulty arises. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will consider the suggestion; but it seems to me that the plan might answer well enough for large allotments, in preference to small holdings. As to the word "feus," I do not quite understand what the meaning of it is; I believe it is a perpetual rent, and I hope we shall not put the landlord in the position of being the receiver of a perpetual rent.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It is voluntary.
  MR. WHITBREAD: Yes, but I think it would be a bad tenure; in fact, I cannot imagine a worse tenure than for a man to draw a perpetual rent, he being at the same time divorced from all connection with the tenants, having no responsibility for improvements, discharging no duties, and being, as it were, a mere parasite eating up the value of the land. Whether it is voluntary or not, I sincerely hope that a large number of landlords will not be found willing to put themselves in that position.
  MR. CORNWALLIS: Hon. Members who have moved and supported this Amendment have not, in my opinion, followed it out to its legitimate conclusion. If the County Councils have either the power to lease or hire land for the purposes of this Bill, and if they do lease a farm from a landowner, they have power to re-let it, they will be only able either to lease it or to let it on a yearly tenancy. The effect of that will be that they will become nothing more or less than landowners, which, from a County Council point of view, I would very much deprecate. I will not go into the evils of this system, because it
  1188
  is not necessary to do so, and they are generally admitted on both sides of the House. But there is another point we might bear in mind as well. Supposing the County Council lease a farm of 100 or 120 acres and divide it into small holdings of a lesser quantity; and supposing the tenant of one of those plots dies and they are unable to find another tenant, the County Council must be placed in a very ridiculous position, because, having taken a lease from the landowner, the County Council cannot expect the landowner to take the ground back again before the expiration of the lease. And in that way not only shall we have the County Council resolving itself into a landowner, but into a farmer as well, and that last-named alternative is even more to be deprecated than the other. And not only would the County Council become a farmer, but it would become the farmer of the very worst part of the farm. More than that, they could not expect any cottar, in one of these small holdings to erect any buildings whatever on the land taken from the County Council when he would have no security whatever for the capital he has laid out, and which would probably be his whole available capital. The value of his own labour diminishes every year as he grows older, and therefore a small holder would be very unwilling to take a small holding on a farm leased by the County Council. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture will not in any way accept this Amendment which has been proposed. I believe it will not only not advance the prospects of the Bill, but that it will land us in a course of procedure which would be very dangerous and unacceptable to County Councils.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have previously endeavoured to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman what his intentions really were when he proposes to give the Local Authorities power to lease land; whether it is to be a perpetuity lease or a lease for a short period. I did not then express any opinion on the subject, and I should, therefore,

  1189
  like to express my view now. The Amendment is a very wide one, applicable to all holdings, and apparently contemplates the possibility of Local Authorities hiring land for a short period, and then letting it out in large quantities, and I am obliged, therefore, to vote with the Government on the matter. I agree that Local Authorities should be empowered to let for short terms, but there should be behind that the possibility of the tenants being converted into perpetuity owners, either leasehold or freehold, and if that possibility were not open, I think that a great deal of the advantage which might be derived under the Bill might be lost. I understand that it is the sense of perpetuity of tenure which the right hon. Gentleman desires to encourage, and it is most desirable; but if the Local Authority leased land for 21 years, and let it out in lots of from one to 20 or 30 acres, it would be impossible for the tenants to erect buildings, and they would lose all sense of ownership. If the proposal were confined to small holdings it might be another matter, but to extend it to all holdings would not be a desirable course, and, therefore, I cannot support the Amendment.
  SIR W. FOSTER: My right hon. Friend objects to the Amendment because it extends to large holdings, and, therefore, he would preclude its application to the smaller holdings. I think the most important part of the Bill is that which proposes to extend the Allotment Acts, and give to industrious and hardworking labourers, who have shown their skill on one acre, the opportunity to get possession of larger pieces of land up to ten acres, and I hope even beyond that limit. It is for their benefit that I want these leasing powers; to them it would be invaluable. We can understand the County Council buying land and cutting it up into large holdings and small ownerships, but We want them to go further in order to give that ladder to the labourers which the Select Committee intended, by which they might rise from one acre plots to larger holdings, and, finally, become the possessors of small
  1190
  holdings themselves. I take it that the prime object of the Bill is to prevent the depopulation of rural districts, but why should we restrict the County Councils in carrying out that object? They are to create small yeomen, but I would beg the right hon. Gentleman not to put obstacles in the way of the creation of hired holdings up to ten acres, which I believe could be better done under the leasehold system than under the purchase system. Land acquired by purchase would probably be of a higher price, and could not be let to pay in one or two acre lots, whereas land acquired on lease could probably be let out at £1, £1 10s, or £2 an acre. We do not want the system of small holdings to be confined to remote rural districts. Outside many of the small boroughs which came under the Bill, of 20,000 or 25,000 inhabitants, where land is of considerable value in view of prospective building, it would be out of the power of the County Council to purchase, as the land would be too dear. But they might be trusted to lease 100 or more acres, and let it in ten, 20, or 30 acre lots. During the period of the lease the tenants would have security of tenure, and would use the land not only to their own advantage, but also to the advantage of the town to which they were contiguous. We want that kind of tenant in the neighbourhood of small towns. I think the Bill would be better if we extended its provisions so as to trust the County Councils to do what is best in the circumstances of each case. No County Council is likely to use the Bill for a wasteful or injurious purpose. We can trust them to take advantage of the purchasing clauses, and of leasing clauses, if inserted, and in that way to do the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of people in the district.
  MR. BARCLAY: I am surprised that my hon. Friend should propose to perpetuate the system of land tenure which has broken down in Ireland, and is breaking down in Scotland and England. It would be objectionable for the County Council to take land for a limited period, and also for them to let it for a limited period. I am entirely in favour of the County Council disposing of the

  1191
  land on a perpetual tenure, which would induce the agricultural labourer to make the most of the land, which he would not do if he knew the landlord would retake possession at the end of 21 years. I hope the Government will not give any countenance to the proposal to take land on lease. It would be all very well for the County Council to let by the year land which they cannot sell or let on perpetual tenure. Some provision should be made for this, but it should only apply to such land as I have indicated. The labourer will only settle himself down to improve the land and make the most of it if he has it on perpetual lease or in fee-simple.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I agree with a good deal that the hon. Member for Forfarshire has just said, but I cannot go quite so far as he did. I have not been able to find out exactly what the tenants are to gain by this Amendment. A perpetual tenure is the only inducement for an agricultural labourer to put his money, enterprise, and labour into the soil. Under the Amendment he only changes a private landlord—who may be good, and generally is good—for a corporate body, which is the worst kind of landlord possible, because they have to make their profit out of the land, and have no bowels of compassion; they are harsh and very often cruel, living as they do at a distance. If you are going to bring the people back to the soil, and make it worth their while to put their energy into the land, you can only do it by giving them some idea of fixity of tenure, so that everything they put into the soil will come back to them, and that there will be no possibility of their being turned out, or of the rent being raised on their own improvements.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I appeal to the Committee and to the hon. Member whether the time has not come when we can go to a Division on the Amendment, if it is intended to press it to a Division? I think I have shown that I have not been unwilling or backward in trying to meet the views of hon. Members. I quite admit that more than one argument
  1192
  has been advanced from that side which is deserving of consideration. It has been suggested that the Amendment might be made to apply to those cases where no buildings are required. It is also suggested that it might apply to cases where the landlord might agree to let land for a period, but might be unwilling to sell. On these two points I am quite willing, without committing myself to any pledge, to consider the question when we arrive at the point where I think they ought to be inserted, in Clause 3. I shall then have an opportunity of explaining to the Committee the great objections I have to making the Local Authorities great landlords.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: The right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with the question on Clause 3. That clause deals not with the relations of the County Council and the persons from whom the land is to be obtained, but with the relations of the County Council and the persons by whom the land is to be obtained. I do not wish to anticipate the discussion on that clause, but I would submit these points to the right hon. Gentleman. He said that one of his reasons for objecting to this Amendment is that it is possible for the County Council to feu land under the Bill. Perhaps it would be more satisfactory if the Attorney General would tell us that it is possible under Clause 1 for the County Council to feu land. I would also point out that this Amendment does not propose to introduce the leasing tenure as an alternative proposal, it only proposes that in certain cases in which it is impossible for land to be bought by the County Council, the system of leasing should be adopted. It is an unsatisfactory and inferior mode of obtaining land, but in certain cases, and especially on the outskirts of small towns where it is impossible for land to be got on any other system, it might be adopted. As compulsiou has been left out, I think the Amendment should be adopted to meet such cases as those I have referred to.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I can only say what my right hon. Friend has said, which I believe would be accepted by any lawyer. Under Sub-section 1 of Clause 2, in which the Lands Clauses Acts are incorporated, and the amending Acts of 1863 and 1864, land can be purchased and acquired under a perpetual rent charge, and there is not the slightest doubt that under the Bill as it stands these Authorities can buy land and sell it under a perpetual rent charge.
  MR. WHITBREAD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that, in the event of the Amendment being withdrawn, the question can be again raised on another clause.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: This Amendment simply refers to the method in which the County Councils shall acquire land. I cannot see the advantage of the County Council hiring land, because the rent would be much the same as the interest on the purchase money they would have to pay in acquiring it. This opens up a large number of difficult questions, such as the question of buildings. The County Council cannot put up buildings on land simply acquired under lease. The only case in which County Councils should be permitted to hire land would be in the vicinity of large towns, where the land was absolutely too high for anyone to purchase for agricultural purposes. I have put an Amendment down to Clause 3 to carry out that object. I think in such cases it would be an advantage if County Councils were allowed to hire land either on lease or in any other way in lieu of purchase. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed to a Division, or, if pressed, that it will not be carried.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM:: I would join in the appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for
  1194
  Bedford will be given by the right hon. Gentleman. I think the Minister for Agriculture has intimated clearly enough that he is willing to consider the matter. I think it is a fair compromise. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has shown that there are cases in which the powers of the County Council to hire land may be very useful. The compromise sketched by the right hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, is this: that it must be land where there are no buildings; land which is practically limited to Sub-section 2 of Clause 3; land for letting in lots of not more than ten acres. I think, in these circumstances, we might very well be saved a Division, and I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I am afraid the subject could not appropriately be raised on Clause 3.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I think I can give that assurance. It is in Clause 3, in the first instance, that letting under any circumstances is provided for. The questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Bedford and other hon. Members are questions as to limitations in the power of letting. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division raises the question of the power of the Local Authority to take land on lease. It is perfectly clear, I think, that these questions can be raised again; and, under these circumstances, I would ask the Committee to postpone further discussion until we have arrived at Clause 3 of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bedford, in his opening statement on this question, rather sympathised, as I understood him, with the proposal to introduce leasing powers where no buildings were required, but he said it was impossible to go beyond that. Then the question has been raised whether these leasing powers can extend to holdings over ten acres. These two proposals, I may point out, are rather inconsistent in themselves. On many holdings of ten acres it might be desirable that buildings should be erected. I take it to be the general understanding of the Committee that leasing powers should be included in

  1195
  the Bill in respect of holdings where no buildings are necessary. I shall be perfectly willing to fairly and fully consider that point without absolutely pledging myself upon it.
  MR. CHANNING: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to accept the Amendment.
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: I moved this Amendment in the hope that it might lead to an enlargement of the scope of the Bill. It has been shown to-night by several speakers who have disagreed with the Amendment that there is need of some such provision as this. The hon. Member for Bedford thinks it would be well that the Government should accept some such provision. But after the appeal of the Minister for Agriculture, I will withdraw the Amendment in the hope that he will bring forward some provision to meet the various demands that have been made from this side of the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that the most appropriate occasion on which to bring the question up again would not be on Clause 3, but in the form of a new clause. Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: Can it be brought up in any way, or can it be discussed before we come to Clause 3? It is important we should know the mind of the Government before we come to the discussion of the clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BARCLAY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the words "for persons who are resident in the county and desire to buy and will themselves cultivate the holdings." I think these words would be rather an embarrassment to the County Council, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to strike them out of the clause. I do not think we ought to confine purchasers to those resident in
  1196
  the county. I think the County Council ought to have an opportunity of bringing in persons from outside the particular county where small holdings are provided; and I appeal to the Government not to take the narrow parochial view of confining purchasers to those resident in the county. I agree that the owners of these holdings should cultivate themselves, but I do not think this is the clause in which these words should be inserted. I would propose, when we come to the proper clause, that land acquired for small holdings should be cultivated by the holders themselves.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the words from "for persons," to "holdings," in line 13.—(Mr. Barclay.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CHAPLIN: My difficulty in accepting the Amendment is this: that unless there is some limitation to the power of a Local Authority to provide small holdings within their own area, they may be called upon to provide them anywhere. It is obvious that the operations of every Local Authority should be limited to their own district, and that they should not be called upon to buy small holdings in all parts of the country. The limitations are these: residents in the county, who desire to buy, and who will themselves cultivate the holdings. About the last proposition there is, I believe, no difference of opinion. So far as the Government are concerned, we have never concealed our opinion that we are anxious to put in the forefront of this Bill that the holdings should be for purchasers rather than tenants, subject to those limitations which I have undertaken to consider at a later period of this Bill. With regard to the question whether the purchaser should be resident in the county, I do not take so much objection if that is omitted; but as to the other provisions I must retain them.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I quite agree that the benefits of this Act ought to be confined to the

  1197
  people who are cultivators themselves, and that there is no reason why the taxation of the country should be applied to acquiring holdings for any others except the real cultivators. We are specially anxious to bring back to the land the people not only who want small holdings, but the people who want to have small holdings and also to hire their labour out in the district. There is great need for bringing back people to the land who will get a home on the land near the labour at which they are engaged. If this is to be done; I see no reason why it should be limited to the county, and therefore I will support the view of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). I see no advantage that there could possibly be in confining the benefits of the clause to those who are resident in the county. I think one of the objects of the Bill is to keep the agricultural labourers on the land, to stop the depopulation of the counties and the aggregation of labour in the centres where it is not wanted. I think it would be better for us to consider this matter fairly before we tie the hands of the County Councils.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Clause 4 deals with this matter to some extent. If the right hon. Gentleman leaves out the words suggested, the position will be that the County Councils, if they have land to spare, may let it to a person from outside, but the person from outside would not in any way be able to compel the action of the County Council.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I think if the words "resident in the county" were left out that would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. BARCLAY: As the clause at present stands it is necessary that the demand should be in the county itself before the County Council can acquire land. I think it would be better that the Council should acquire the land and be free to dispose of it to any comer. I can easily see that in many counties this would be a great advantage to farmers and small cultivators.
  Amendment amended, and agreed to.
  SIR W. FOSTER: In view of the conditions that have been made by the President of the Board of Agriculture, I do not wish the County Councils to be limited entirely in their proceedings to persons who desire to buy, and with that object I move to leave out the word "buy" and put in the word "occupy." We want the people to occupy the land. We do not want this Bill to be limited simply to persons who are in a position to buy, because there are a large number of people who are not in such a position, but whom we desire, nevertheless, to benefit under this Bill. If the purchase money is kept at a high figure it will exclude large numbers, and we wish to recognise that others beside purchasers are contemplated by the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, to leave out the word "buy," and insert the word "occupy."—(Sir W. Foster.)
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Do I understand that the words, "resident in the county," are in the Bill, or are they struck out?
  THE CHAIRMAN: They are struck out.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I rose three times to speak in favour of those words.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I put the Question and the Committee agreed.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: There are several Members round me who desired to vote against it.
  MR. CHAPLIN; I desire to point out that if the words remain in the Bill they will not prevent the attainment of the object which the hon. Gentleman wishes to secure, because at a later period of the Bill the consideration of the facilities to small holders will be taken. But for reasons which I have before explained we are anxious to retain the principle of purchase as what I may call the first principle of the Bill. It will not in the least interfere with the desire of hon. Members who are anxious about let-

  1199
  ting, upon which, I may say, we have already come to a general understanding; but it will retain the principle in the interests of the ratepayers, and on no other grounds, that purchase should be the first principle rather than a secondary principle. The power of letting, to a considerable extent, will not be prevented, and I hope the hon. Member will allow the clause to remain as it is.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right. This is the only clause which enables the County Council to buy, which, of course, is the preliminary proceeding. The County Council by this clause are to buy subject to certain limitations. They are to buy for a limited class. I understand that the words "resident in the county" have been knocked out, and it now remains that the only power the County Councils will have to acquire land is for persons who desire to buy. It is quite clear that there is no other power. They will have no power to acquire land for people who desire to occupy but do not desire to buy. The power to acquire land is in the 1st clause, and I say that if we pass this clause as it is the power will be limited. [MR. CHAPLIN: No, no!] It is limited in this clause, which says that they may buy suitable land for persons who desire to buy, and thus cultivate the land. That cannot be for everyone, and it does not fulfil the conditions which my hon. Friends desire. It is perfectly clear and plain. If these words are not altered it will be perfectly idle for us afterwards to introduce provisions which the 1st clause has formally prohibited. You must use some larger and more general words.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman labours under the disadvantage that he has only this moment come into the House, and has not been able to hear the previous discussion.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That has nothing to do with it. I have read the Bill.
  MR. CHAPLIN: We have been discussing the matter now for the best part of an hour, and I am happy to think that the Committee have come to a general understanding. The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for stating this fact, of which he was in ignorance. The right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a mistake. He is confusing those persons who desire to buy with those who are unable to buy. It is laid down in the Bill that the Local Authorities shall buy these small holdings for those who desire to buy. If the people who desire to buy are unable to buy, which I imagine will be a very common thing, when the Bill comes into operation the Local Authorities may let to these persons. But for reasons which I have stated over and over again in Committee, we do desire—and I hope we shall retain the confidence of the Committee—to retain in the Bill as its first principle rather than as a secondary principle that the land shall be provided for those who are able to buy, so as to make them owners of the land rather than tenants. I have been prevented by the very proper ruling of the Chair from stating all my arguments on this point; but if the right hon. Gentleman will look fully into the question, he will see that there are very grave and serious considerations, which can be advanced chiefly in the interests of the ratepayers—not the least in the interest of the landlords or of the holders—which make it extremely desirable that people who are in a position to do so should purchase rather than hire the land.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given has made it more obvious than before that the alteration should be made, and I am more confirmed than ever in my view that these words are not the proper words to have here. Now, what is proposed in reference to this matter? That people should go through the preliminary process of desiring to buy; that though they have got no money to buy, yet they should appear in the character of people desirous to

  1201
  buy land. I do not think anybody could fail to see the absurdity of a clause framed in such a manner as that. If it means that there are people who desire to hire, and that the people who desire to hire are those people who have got no money to buy if they did desire to buy, I think the expression of that desire would be a farce, and I might say an imposture, under the circumstances. If it means to furnish a declaration that people who are desirous of holding land should be enabled to hire land, it would be just as well to say so. Surely it would be much better at first to make the first enacting clause enable the Councils to buy for all purposes for which they shall desire to buy.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I think that this Bill, as it stands now, ought to be entitled "A Bill to Enable Landlords to Dispose of their Estates in Small Farms with the Guarantee of the County Councils." That, I think, would be an accurate description of it. An incursion of hungry Scotch farmers are to be allowed to come down upon any county to buy the estates of impecunious noblemen in 50 acre lots, with the guarantee of the unhappy ratepayers on whose behalf you say that you have brought forward this Bill. I thought this was a Bill for providing poor labourers with a chance of getting a bit of land in their own county on fair terms. I object to the word "buy." The object of the Bill is to "provide" small holdings for the agricultural population, and to keep them on the land. If that is not the object, let us understand it at once; but it has been stated over and over again that that is the main and primary object of the Bill. Well, then, this word "buy" has no right to be put in the 1st clause of the Bill. If this word "buy" is put into the Bill it will certainly convey to the mind of any authority that has to construe it that the primary and chief and main object of the Bill is to buy the holdings. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow the phrase "buy or hire" to be inserted then I am content, or if he will leave out "buy" I am content; but I object
  1202
  to his putting into that 1st clause the word "buy," to the exclusion of "hire."
  SIR W. B. BARTTELOT: I have read most carefully this Bill, and I find it has been very considerably altered lately. I am afraid that after what has happened we could not leave the word "buy" in. If we are to have letting in an extended form as well as selling, that will make a great difference in the Bill. Then we must conform in the 1st clause to what we are going to do afterwards. I venture to hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will consent to leave out the word "buy," or add, in addition to the word "buy," the words "for letting purposes," or any other words which may be more suitable. As the Bill stands now, I think it would not be workable in the way intended.
  MR. T. ELLIS: The right hon. Gentleman has made a concession to the House—namely, that he is willing that the County Council should let land as well as sell it; and yet, in objecting to this Amendment, he shirks the logical consequence of his own concession. It is quite clear, if these words are allowed to remain in the Bill without the addition of the words "or hire," the clause will be completely inconsistent with, or contradictory of, Clause 3, as it will stand after the Amendment, which the right hon. Gentleman says he is willing to accept, has been made. I trust he will not take away the value or grace of his own concession, which he will do by sticking to these words.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: If my right hon. Friend gives way on this point it is quite clear it will not in the least benefit the Bill. My right hon. Friend's object is to assert the principle in the 1st clause of the Bill, that land shall be bought and not let. I do not presume to say that the words he uses are the most strictly logical words he might; use; but, still, I am quite sure that it cannot affect in any way the 2nd clause, or any other clause, even if the alteration is made. If my right hon. Friend sticks to the words I shall support him.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It seems to me that these words are totally inconsistent with the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has made. If the right hon. Gentleman consents, as he says he does, to amend Clause 3 by omitting the words which I have given notice to omit, and these few words are permitted to remain, it will prevent the Local Authorities from letting land in any way. I think he should omit these words which are now objected to, as they appear to me to be wholly out of place.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: If the House agrees to insert the words "desire to buy," I think it should also agree to insert after them the words "or otherwise to become tenants under this Act." That is the suggestion I venture to make. The words "desire to buy" should thus remain, as indicating the spirit of the Bill, and immediately following would come the words "or otherwise to become tenants under this Act."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I object to putting words in a Bill which are, as it is said, to indicate its spirit. This is not only an enabling clause; but under this clause they are to acquire compulsory powers, and upon this clause the powers under this Bill will depend. This is rather a difficult question to be argued by laymen. I do not desire to submit it to the right hon. Gentleman—I would rather submit it to his Legal Advisers; and I submit that, whatever we insert in Clause 1, it will refer to the case of acquiring land for the purpose of small holdings. Even if Clause 3 is altered as suggested, I do not think that would help the right hon. Gentleman out of the difficulty at all. It means a litigation to settle the question. I think the Amendment to be made should be either the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston, "who desire to buy or to occupy," or to leave out the words "to buy or to occupy"; but I think the best course is to leave out the words altogether, thus simply leaving out all reference
  1204
  to either buying or hiring, and confining it entirely to the cultivation. I am unable to reconcile the clauses in the Bill as they at present stand. If this Amendment is rejected, the Bill will be practically confined to buying, and subsequently we shall have to go all over this question again.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I would join in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman that these words should be left out. No one has the slightest affection for them except himself, and surely the right hon. Gentleman must see that if they are retained they will undoubtedly prejudice the question when it comes to be discussed on a future occasion. Moreover, there was a general understanding in a previous discussion that these words should be withdrawn.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I will also join in the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman that the words in question should be omitted. I hope he will not insist upon retaining them, for they are not necessary in any way.
  MR. CHANNING: There is an anxious desire on this side of the House to facilitate progress in giving effect to the concession which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated in reference to Clause 3. I think it might be desirable to meet him half way by retaining, as he wishes to retain it, the word "buy," and by adding the words "or hire." I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to this suggestion being carried out.
  MR. BARCLAY: I hope, in connection with Clause 4, that County Councils will pay no attention to the petition of anyone to take land unless it is shown that he has sufficient money for the purpose.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I have been advised by my right hon. Friend the Attorney General that it is incorrect to assert that these words are inconsistent with the other clauses of the Bill. The Government desire persons to buy, if possible, rather than become

  1205
  tenants; but in the case of many who would undoubtedly be found unable to purchase, provision for hiring is made by Clause 3. Nothing can be more simple or more consistent with the double object which the Government wish to promote—namely, the primary object of the creation of small owners of land, and the further desire to meet a want which has been expressed on the opposite side of the House, and which is shared by myself and my friends, that where persons are not in a position to buy, facilities should be given them to acquire land otherwise than by purchase. I would, therefore, ask the Committee to sanction the retention of the clause.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: As the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious that these words should be retained, I would suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw his Amendment, and permit the hon. Member for Northamptonshire to move that the words "or hire" should be added to the word "buy." Then we shall be able to take a Division on the question whether or not persons who desire to hire should or should not have a place in the enacting and empowering clause of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the persons who will not be able to buy will be the majority, and, therefore, the Bill can be said to meet only the wishes of the minority It is impossible to reduce it to a greater absurdity. The primary object of the Bill—that of buying—will be availed of but by few, whilst the secondary object — that of hiring — would be availed of by many. Why should those who desire to hire be excluded from the empowering clause of the Bill? If we take a Division, as I have suggested, we shall come to an intelligible issue on the question.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I shall be happy to fall in with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend. I do not want the word "buy" to be put in to the exclusion of other words such as "hire." I will, therefore, withdraw
  1206
  my Amendment, in the hope that the words "or hire" may be added afterwards.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to move the addition of the words "to rent or buy," in order to enable those who do not wish, or are unable, to buy land to rent it. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to concede to the County Councils power to acquire land for the purpose of letting it and not merely for the purpose of selling it, this is the place to insert the word "rent" so that those desirous of cultivating may have the power to do so.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the word "to," to insert the words "rent or."—(Dr. Clark.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness will not persevere with his Amendment. We are all agreed upon the principle of hiring or letting under this clause, but we attach great importance to the prominence given to buying, therefore let us keep the word "buy." In any case the matter can be better raised on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after the word "buy," to insert the words "or hire."—(Mr. Channing.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  VISCOUNT GRIMSTON: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not listen to any Amendments of this class, which are a distinct danger. The object of this Bill is to provide, if possible, for the replacing of yeomen farmers on the land, and the acceptance of this Amendment could only have the effect of restricting that operation. If the County Council, having to find capital to buy land, retained that capital as landowners they would be very greatly hampered and restricted,

  1207
  owing to their capital being locked up in their efforts to place a large number of yeomen farmers on the soil. I, therefore, hope that the Government will not listen to this Amendment, which is proposed under a total misapprehension of the object of the Bill.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the position will be this—it will be a preliminary condition that any applicant for land should come with the desire to buy, a desire which he probably shares with 99 out of 100 persons, but which, in common with 99 out of 100 persons, he is unable to carry out. Not only are the words apparently inconsistent with Sub-section 2 of Clause 3, but they are absolutely inconsistent and incompatible if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford is accepted by the Government. No reply has been made by the Attorney General on that point.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It seems to me the words are right as they stand now. The object of the Bill is to enable County Councils to buy land in order that persons desirous of buying land should be able to purchase it, and under certain circumstances and conditions to hire it from them. Sub-section 2 of Clause 3 provides that the County Council may let the land if persons are unable to buy. I can see no inconsistency in the Bill. There is the fullest latitude and power given to the County Council, and anybody accustomed to dealing with language of this kind will know that the Bill is framed in the right language.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not see why the Attorney General should object to the words "or hire." It is only by a curious construction—by importing the words in Sub-section 2 of Clause 3, and bringing them to bear on the construction of Section 1, that he applies the section to hiring at all. The fact is, Clause 3 cannot be used for such a purpose at all. It has nothing to do with the powers under which the County Council is enabled to hire land. Therefore,
  1208
  the attempt to bring in Clause 3 to interpret Clause 1 is a contention that no Court of Law would entertain for one moment. The County Council is to acquire the land. For whom? For persons desirous to buy. These poor people are not desirous to buy. They cannot do it. They are desirous to hire. The right hon. Gentleman has, by the concessions he has already made, admitted that the majority of persons who will come under the Bill are small men who would wish to hire because unable to buy, and we want the Bill accommodated to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman. But when the right hon. Gentleman is asked to accommodate his Bill to his concessions he declines to do so. The Attorney General has not pretended that these words "or hire" will do any harm, and if it is really meant that when the land is acquired it may be let on hire, then these words ought to be inserted.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have already said that if these words are put in they will indicate an intention by the Bill to make the County Councils simply landlords, to let land to people who never had any intention to buy their land at all. We are all agreed that when a labourer desires to buy he should be enabled to do so. It is not simply a question of a person desiring to hire land from a fresh landlord. The intention of the Bill is that there should be an intention to buy and an inability to pay. It is in that instance that the power of the County Council to hire should come in. My objection to the insertion of the words is, that they would indicate an intention that the County Council should let land to tenants who never had the slightest intention of buying.
  MR. CHANNING: The position in which the Government find themselves is absolutely incomprehensible and absolutely absurd. What does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean by saying "an intention to buy," and how and in what manner are the class of men to whom he refers to signify their intention to buy? The County Council, by the concession

  1209
  which the right hon. Gentleman has announced, binds itself not to look into any security that these men will be in a position to buy later on; it is simply an expression of a desire to buy. There is no guarantee or practical security that these men will ever buy, or ever attempt to buy. The whole thing is absurd. A man may express his desire to go to the moon, and that also would be absurd. What the concession amounts to is that the Government are prepared to admit that County Councils should have the power to acquire small farms, and re-let them to persons who are not in a position to buy. Many labourers who are not in a position to buy may have a vague desire to buy, but it is simply monstrous to insist on their stating that desire as a condition of having land let to them when by your concession you have removed the only security that that desire is bonâ fide. Either we should do one thing or the other. Are we to append to this Bill a clause which will enable County Councils to carry on the Allotments Bill on a somewhat larger scale, or are we not to do so? I venture to say that, unless these words "rent or hire" are inserted, our position is simply reduced to legislating on the most absurd, ridiculous, and unjustifiable lines. Either we mean free holders, or we mean to append—and I understand the right hon. Gentleman means to append—powers to give somewhat larger allotments to those who are not in a position to buy.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to omit the words in question altogether. I hope, however, that the Government will make it clear that this is really a Small Holdings Bill for the creation of yeomen proprietors throughout the country, and I would further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not make that perfectly clear by the nature and scope of the clauses which come afterwards rather than by the adoption of the words referred to? For, while there is no doubt that the main object of the Bill is to create a class of peasant proprietors, yet it is generally admitted
  1210
  that there will be many men who will want to rent land under the Bill.
  LORD F. HERVEY: So far as the question submitted to the Committee is one of drafting it seems to me of very little importance. I do not think, if the proposed words are inserted, that the scope of the third clause will be extended. Nor, if they are omitted, will that clause be restricted. The real question before us is whether it is to be made a necessary condition that any person applying for the benefit of this Act should come forward with an already-formed desire to purchase the land. I know something of the agricultural labourers in Suffolk. They are very reserved, and they do not form their conclusions in a hurry. I am perfectly certain that, if this condition which the right hon. Gentleman seems determined to insist upon is imposed, the agricultural labourers of Suffolk will have no advantage out of this Bill. There are many of them who would be willing and desirous to hire land in order to see if they can make it pay; and, if so, they will afterwards have a desire to purchase the land. Is it not within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that what we are asking people to do is a thing which the late Sir James Caird declared that nobody but a fool would do? Sir James Caird's view was that a man could make a profit of 10 per cent. on his capital as a cultivating occupier, but only two per cent. as an agricultural owner. Why, then, deny agricultural labourers the opportunity of hiring small portions of land which they may be able to cultivate with advantage and insist that they should come to the County Council with a formed desire to buy the land before they know whether they can make it pay?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the question is one of considerable importance, and it is possible that some Members of the Committee do not see the full bearing of the proposal which has been made. I do not at all dissent from the view of the noble Lord who has just spoken with regard to agricultural labourers first hiring the land to see if they can make it pay, and, if so, then to endeavour to purchase; but I do not think that is an argument

  1211
  against the position taken up by the Government. The real question is, with what object did the Government introduce the Bill? The object they have in view is as far as possible to produce a body of prosperous cultivators of the soil which they own. Now, if the words proposed are inserted, you will make it clear on the face of the Bill that there is a second purpose in view wholly different, and in some respects radically inconsistent, with that object. What is that object? It is to make the County Council for all time an owner of land and landlord at a quit rent over a large body of tenants, and it appears to me that such a course as that would be disastrous to the County Council and most injurious to the tenants you are going to create. It must be borne in mind that the County Councils, if placed in the position of landlords, could not possibly make the concessions to their tenants that an ordinary English landlord could make. They will be bound by rigid rules, and must evict their tenants if the rent is not paid to the day. The noble Lord the Member for Bury St. Edmunds has admitted that it would be the desire of the labourer who acquired a holding on terms of hiring to become the owner of his land when opportunity offers. Let the Committee consider what hardship is imposed upon the labourer by the Bill as it stands. The labourer will take a holding with the desire of rising upon the ladder that is offered to him, and so attaining to some higher position in the social scale, and the main principle of the Bill is to enable such a man to use the power that is given him of becoming the freeholder of his holding independent of the County Council or anybody else. Is not that an ideal which should be on the face of the Bill? Is not that the ideal which the House has set itself to accomplish, and are we going to interfere with that by deliberately introducing words into the Bill which would make it appear as if one of the objects, and one of the chief objects, we had in view was to turn County Councils in this country not merely into instruments for the creation of small holdings, but into gigantic landlords of large districts of small holders holding at a
  1212
  rack rent? I cannot conceive that anybody would desire to see such a proposal as that carried out. For these reasons I hope the Committee will not adopt the Amendment which has been moved.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Now we have a distinct avowal on the part of the Government that the acquiring of land for the purpose of hiring is not even a secondary object of the Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not admit the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation. I say hiring land is an essential part of the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Then I cannot understand what the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is. The right hon. Gentleman said the purpose of the Bill was to buy, and that if you admit the word "hire" it becomes a secondary object.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: A co-equal object.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Very well, co-equal object. But he will not admit the word hire. Therefore, to obtain the co-equal quality, you put in one equal and leave out the other.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Either I must have failed to express myself with lucidity or the right hon. Gentleman cannot have exercised that discriminating criticism on this occasion which he usually gives to his opponents. We say that we regard hiring as a means towards small holders becoming freeholders. If you admit these words, that object would not appear on the face of the Bill, and we desire that it should do so.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We believe that if this Bill is to be of use, it must apply in the multitude of cases where there is no possibility of buying at all. The right hon. Gentleman has put a very plain issue before the House. I will tell him what we are afraid of. If a County Council did not wish to exercise the powers under the Bill, it could say that the majority of the applicants were not people in a position to buy, and those who could buy were so few that it would not be desirable for the Council to acquire

  1213
  land at all for the purposes of the Bill. What, then, becomes of the small people who only desire to hire, knowing perfectly well that that is all they can possibly accomplish? The noble Lord gave the Minister of Agriculture a fair warning as to the result of insisting that this is a Bill for buyers and not hirers of land. That is exactly the issue between us. The speech of the First Lord of the Treasury is a distinct condemnation of the clause as it stands. He wishes to make it clearly understood that the primary and almost exclusive object of the Bill is the purchase of freeholds, and if there is to be any hiring at all it is to be a very secondary object, and only to be regarded so far as it contributes to the primary object. That is a fair issue on which the view of the Committee can be taken.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I hope the Committee will now come to a decision on the matter. I regret that after the discussion had been conducted with such good humour, the right hon. Gentleman should have intervened at the time when the Committee were about to arrive at a decision. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the County Council might take the clause as it stands as an excuse for taking no action. How is it possible for the Council to do anything of the kind, when Clause 4 distinctly lays down that one or more county electors may petition the County Council, alleging that there is a demand for small holdings in the county—it does not say whether for purchase or hire—but, that petition being presented, the clause lays it down as the positive duty of the Council to forthwith appoint a Committee to inquire into the matter, and report to the Council? My right hon. Friend stated, as I have stated over and over again, without objection being taken to it, that the primary object of the Government has been, if possible, to create freeholders instead of tenants. When the proper time comes there are numberless reasons which will be given—reasons which led the Select Committee to agree unanimously with the view that on the whole ownership, however qualified, is preferable to any form of tenancy.
  1214
  That is the opinion which any body of gentlemen, which has made a full investigation of the question, must unanimously arrive at, if they have any regards for the interests of the Local Authority, and, above all, for the interests of the ratepayers.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I want to tell the Committee what the Minister of Agriculture told the labourers was the object of the Bill. The fact that the Government will not allow the words "or hire" to go into the Bill shows that they have reverted to the Exeter speech of the Prime Minister, that this was a Bill to create yeomen farmers, and that it was to be admitted that it would not do much good to the labourers. The question is, whether words shall be inserted which will enable the Bill to be used for the benefit of poor agricultural labourers, and whether the ladder which has been spoken of shall be the one they desire, or some lofty ideal set up by the First Lord of the Treasury? When the Minister of Agriculture was at Shrewsbury he used these words to the labourers—
  "The object of the Bill was to bring about by legislation a wider distribution of land among the people; to attach, if possible, more closely to the land the man who actually worked upon the land and extracted from it the produce which it grew, and to whose exertions the wealth it was made to render was actually primarily owing. It was an honest and genuine attempt to give the labouring classes greater facilities for access to the land than they had hitherto had."
  And then the Minister of Agriculture finished by saying—
  "It provided for those who had not been able to save money by enabling the Local Authority to procure the land and let it ont in small holdings of ten acres at a time."
  There was not one word to these labourers about yeomen farmers. The object of the Amendment is that agricultural labourers, in whose interests the Bill is avowedly introduced, should have, at all events, a place in the Bill.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The peaceful state of the Committee arose from the statement that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept in a broad and liberal spirit the principle of letting. But it was pointed out in

  1215
  dealing with the phraseology of the Bill that Clause 1, the acquiring clause of the Bill, is restricted to buying, and the Committee asked that that restriction should be removed and the clause made to agree with the promise and intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. The Attorney General admitted that the acquiring clause of the Bill, under which alone the County Council can acquire land, was for the purpose of buying. "But," said the Attorney General, "you can get in people who desire to let by a back door." They are to say "We desire to buy;" then, "We are unable to buy;" and then, "We desire to hire," and possibly under that they may come in. Then the First Lord of the Treasury comes in and smashes the whole thing at once. He says, "Our object is primarily, almost exclusively, to sell land to yeoman farmers."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Labourers.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yeomen labourers. He maintained that it was to create proprietors, and he would not admit as a secondary purpose the hiring of land except the persons meant ultimately to acquire it. We do not want that. It is an admirable Bill for creating yeomen farmers, but we want it to meet the case of those who wish to hire without the intention of purchasing. The first clause of the Bill is confined to buying the land; we want it to be extended to include the hiring of land, and that is what we are going to divide on.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It appears to me there is some misunderstanding on one side or the other, but I cannot see any principle involved. If I understand the position of my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), they approve of the proposal to facilitate the creation of peasant proprietors, but they desire that in addition facilities should be given for the creation of small tenancies. I do not understand that they propose that these small tenancies should be encouraged to the same extent as is suggested in connection with small holdings. When the matter was before the Select Committee—and I think the general sense of the House will be with us—we came to the conclusion that
  1216
  nothing could be worse or more injurious to any proposal of this kind than to put the County Council in the position of landlords. This is an important question, and when it was before the Select Committee we thought that nothing could be worse or more injurious than any proposal which would put County Councils in the position of landlords on a large scale. When bad times came they would be put under pressure to reduce rents, and they would not be in the same position as private landlords. It was, therefore, a risky undertaking for County Councils to enter into speculations of that kind. As I understand, it is the desire of hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House to confine the small tenancies to tenancies of not less than ten acres. This was the recommendation of the Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman, and it is really only an extension of the Allotments Act. It was felt that it was impossible that labourers could in any numbers avail themselves of a Bill for the creation of small holders, and it was therefore desirable to create tenancies of from one to ten acres. That is what is aimed at on both sides of the House, and in that case there is no question of principle to divide upon. It is a mere question of drafting, and whether the Bill carries out intentions on which both sides of the House are agreed.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I would point out to hon. Members that to insert the words "or hire" in this clause, without any limit at all, would be to lay it open to the objection that there would be no limit to the tenancies let on hire. The question of hiring only comes in when men are unable to purchase, and consequently the limitation has not to be considered with reference to the larger holdings. Therefore the draftsmanship of the Bill is quite correct. If there is anything that is not clear it can be corrected in the later clause; but to put letting in the forefront of the first clause would be to indicate the desire to let equally with the desire to sell, and would give the idea of the County Council being general landlords. The Bill expresses the general desire to limit letting and

  1217
  hiring to persons who could not purchase, and also to holdings of less than ten acres. If the word "hire" were inserted in this clause it must be immediately followed by limitations, whose proper place is in a later part of the Bill.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I infer from what has just been said by the right hon. Gentleman that if you do not put the words "or hire" into the clause, it will not give County Councils power to acquire land for the purpose of letting holdings of less than ten acres. If the words are inserted, County Councils will then have the power which it is desired to give to them. A more obvious fallacy than the argument of the Attorney General it is impossible to conceive; and as to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, he could hardly have listened to the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, who put it entirely as a matter of principle. I fail to see why these words should not be put in the Bill.
  MR. ROBY: I submit that the Amendment would not be in conflict with the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. HALDANE: The Government desire to create a class which we on this side of the House have no desire to establish. The Government desire to create unrestricted freeholds, but we are anxious to create either restricted freeholds, or, if not, leasehold tenures. It seems to me we on this side of the House, including my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain), do not desire to create the kind of freeholds the Government desire to create. The Government desire to create an absolute freehold tenure under which at the end of ten years, or when the purchase money is paid off, the small holder will be in a position of absolute ownership, free to sell to the neighbouring squire or created limitations in tail male with remainders over. Well, that is not the kind of freehold we desire to create, that is not the kind of freehold my right hon. Friend desires to create. We wish to keep some control in the interest of the public over the land. If we are not to have that control in this case of the new freeholds,
  1218
  at least let us leave the alternative of power to the County Councils to let unrestrictedly. I recognise the difficulty of a County Council having to bear the brunt of bad times and to meet the difficulty of letting, but that is a lesser evil with less risk than attends the plan of the Government to create nothing but absolute freehold tenure. That is not the tenure at which we aim, and at which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham aims. It is because we view with great apprehension the proposal in the Bill to create absolute freehold tenure that we lay great stress on this leasehold alternative. It is not a question of drafting but of principle, even from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain), and it seems to me we must divide on the proposition.
  MR. LAWSON: I cannot be included in those on this side whom the hon. and learned Gentleman says look upon leasehold tenure as the great advantage to be established by the Bill. I have read the evidence given before the Committee, and I am bound to say that every witness deprecated leasehold tenure, except as a necessary evil where small holdings could not otherwise be provided.
  MR. HALDANE: I do not say the creation of leaseholds; I say a tenure, subject to conditions restricting the freehold such as was proposed by the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings).
  MR. LAWSON: In voting for the Amendment I support an alternative to purchase which may be necessary for the labourers, but that is not the main object the Bill seeks to promote. I cannot suppose that a County Council will be much better than any other Corporation as a landlord, and it is universal experience that no landlord is so bad as a Corporation, and I do not think it is a public object to establish by Statute in this way.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I just want to say a word on the issue to be decided. This Bill is for the creation of peasant proprietors in all the independence and freedom which cultivating ownership alone can give,

  1219
  and the object, as I take it, of those who support this Amendment is to curtail that principle as much as possible and to create throughout the country a large number of tenants dependent, as the hon. Member below me (Mr. Lawson) has just said, on the very worst class of landlords that can be created. Therefore, it is not an issue of supplying land to the labourer who cannot afford to buy, for that is amply provided for further on in the Bill. The principle upon which we are going to divide is whether we shall maintain the primary object of the Bill to create an independent class of peasant proprietors throughout the country, and at the same time to help those who are not just now in a position to become owners by assisting them to hire a limited amount of land, in order that such land may become what has been termed a ladder upon which they may mount to the position of owners.
  Question put.
  (11.43.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 152.—(Div. List, No. 79.)
  (11.53.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir W. Foster.)
  MR. CHAPLIN: There remain a few minutes we might utilise.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR W. FOSTER: After the decision we have had I do not think the word "occupy" is necessary, and I therefore shall not move my Amendment.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: The Amendment I have to propose is similar to that I proposed in the Allotments Bill, to give to the Local Government Board power by Provisional Order to take land compulsorily. I admit at once it is a modified form of compulsory purchase, but the power is not placed directly with the County Council but with the Local Government Board. I believe that a provision of this kind would add very largely to the utility of the Bill. I perfectly agree with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin), who said, on introducing the Bill,
  1220
  he wished to add to the number of small freeholders and yeoman farmers, and that he looked with disfavour on the accumulation of land in a few hands. Now, we on this side of the House have frequently advocated measures for remedying this evil, but none of the measures we have advocated have found a place in this Bill. There is no doubt that the custom of primogeniture in this country is one which has led to the accumulation of land in the hands of the few. Then we have the custom of tying up land in settled estates, and that is another great cause of the accumulation of landed property among the few, yet this Bill in no way purposes to deal with such points as these. Then the dearness of transfer makes landed property only suitable for men of large means, another cause of the accumulation of which I speak. We have also on this side of the House advocated the simplification of title, and that does not find a place in the Bill. Instead of removing these anomalies and abuses of the law which have brought the land of this country into its present position and have led to the necessity for introducing a Bill of this kind, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to remedy this evil by what is really a Socialistic measure, a measure for raising money on the security of the rates, and applying it to the purpose of the purchase of land to remedy abuses which have crept in, owing to bad laws, during a long course of years.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday 28th April.

  ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]. (No. 232.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I object.
    MR. MARJORIBANKS: I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection. Though a small matter in itself, the Bill is of much importance to Scotland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I withdraw my objection.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (PURCHASE) BILL.—(No. 257.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I object.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I hope the House will allow this Bill to be read a second time. Its only object is to authorise County and Borough Councils to enter into agreement with the lord of the manor for the purchase of the franchise of weights and measures, thus avoiding duplication of authority. I have received very urgent representations in favour of the Bill in reference to the Manor of Wakefield from the West Riding of Yorkshire. I hope we may be allowed to take the Second Reading.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Baronet will have ample time to proceed with the Bill as soon as the Irish Local Government Bill is withdrawn.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 213.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. KELLY: I object.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I merely rise for the purpose of asking the Lord Advocate to give me information——
    MR. KELLY: I object.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: The hon. Gentleman is premature; his zeal outruns
    1222
    his discretion. I am not about to move the Second Reading. I believe I am at liberty to ask a question. I merely wish to ask the Lord Advocate to be good enough to define the position of the Government in regard to the Bill. Are the Government, having accepted the principle, inclined to look with a sympathetic eye upon the Bill as a means of carrying out that principle?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): It may be a question how far the Bill carries out the spirit of the Resolution agreed to by the House, and certainly the Bill cannot pass its Second Reading without discussion.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday, 25th April.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 229.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HOWELL: May I appeal to hon. Members who have objections on points of detail to allow the Bill a Second Reading now?
    SIR E. HARLAND: I object.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I hope I may induce my hon. Friend not to press his opposition at this stage. I think the principle of the Bill is a right one, but I think it is carried out in an impracticable manner. I have Amendments to propose, and should not allow the Bill to become law in its present shape; and in order that sufficient time shall be afforded for the consideration of Amendments by those interested in the matter, I hope the hon. Member in charge will not object to placing the Committee for a distant date, when I believe we can put the Bill into such a shape as will avoid those evils of which shipowners are afraid.
    SIR E. HARLAND: I am sorry, but I must press my objection to the Second Reading.
    Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND) COMMITTEE.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is scarcely carrying out the intention with which the House agreed to a Resolution to appoint this Committee that the Motion should be set down night after night at a time when it cannot be taken. It is two years since it was sanctioned, and it is of vital importance to proceed with the inquiry. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to take the Motion at a time when the Amendment can be discussed and a decision taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I thought I had made a statement which would have been considered satisfactory—to the effect that soon after Easter I would ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to arrange that the Motion should come on, say, about, eleven o'clock, giving an opportunity to Welsh Members to make their speeches and their protest. I hope an hour or a little longer may be considered sufficient for the purpose, and then I hope the Committee may at once proceed to business.
  DR. TANNERMay I ask do the Government propose to keep a House to-morrow evening for the measures standing on the Order Book?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not the opportunity to ask the question now the House is engaged with Unopposed Motions.

  MAIL SERVICE (IRELAND) CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the grounds of his opposition to the publication of this correspondence?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I am not in a position now to state my objection. Should the Motion be brought on earlier in the evening I would be quite prepared to do so.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION (EXPENSES).
  Address for Return (Mr. T. M. Healy for Mr. Crilly).
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I must oppose this, so far as it relates to railways; I do not know that it can be given.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I was informed that the Motion was unopposed. Does the right hon. Gentleman observe that in part it is a continuation of Parliamentary Papers already issued, 1886? I can understand the right hon. Baronet desires to score off me, because I opposed his Bill just now; he is welcome to that satisfaction.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The hon. and learned Gentleman should understand that it is my business that only such Returns in which my Department is concerned are given which are proper to be granted.
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: Many Members have found these Returns for 1886 very valuable and useful, and I hope, on consideration, this Return will be given.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I must object.

  CIVIL SERVANTS (TENURE OF OFFICE BEYOND 65).
  Moved for—
  "Return of Permanent Civil Servants whose tenure of office has been prolonged beyond the age of 65 years, under the discretionary power vested in the Treasury by Clause 10 of the Order in Council of the 15th day of August, 1890, together with the reasons of such prolongation in each case."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: This, I presume, is the Return granted at my request. I do not know whether it fulfils the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I think it is inconvenient that the Return should be moved, we not seeing the terms of it upon the Paper. It is not possible to follow the terms exactly when we hear them read out for the first time.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): If the hon. Member wishes, I shall be very happy to put it down for the first day after the Recess.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Oh, but I want it. I do not object, but I complain that the terms were not put on the Paper to-day.
  Return ordered—
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 141.]

  ADMINISTRATION OF SMALL ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
  Order [22nd March] for a Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and, instead thereof,—
  ADMINISTRATION OF SMALL ESTATES IN CHANCERY.

    ADMINISTRATION OF SMALL ESTATES IN CHANCERY.
    Address for—
    "Return of all Estates of the gross value of £3,000 and under administered in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice from the 24th day of October 1883 to the 31st day of December 1891, showing (1) the title of the Suit; (2) the date of the Order for administration; (3) the date of final Judgment; (4) the gross value of the Estate, real and personal, dealt with by the Court; (5) the total amount of Debts paid out of the Estate; (6) the total amount of specific Legacies; (7) the total amount of the taxed Costs paid out of the Estate, including Costs of both litigation and administration; (8) the total amount distributed out of the Estate to residuary Legatees, Trustees, personal Representatives, and others entitled."—(Mr. Duncan.)

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [FESTINIOG, &c.] BILL (by Order).
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  INDIAN COUNCILS ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].—(No. 182.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 25th April.

  BURGH POLICE AND HEALTH (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 230.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) EXTRACTS BILL.—(No. 119.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  MARRIED WOMEN BILL.—(No. 81.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 25th April.

  GENERAL POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 188.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday 25th April.

  MOTIONS.

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 1) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir M. Hicks Beach, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 to 1890, relating to the Burgh of Govan, ordered to be brought in by Sir M. Hicks Beach and Sir John Gorst.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 271.]

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir M. Hicks Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Aberystwyth, Ashton-under-Lyne, Halifax, Harwich, Limerick, and Maidstone, ordered to be brought in by Sir M. Hicks Beach and Sir John Gorst.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 272.]

    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir M. Hicks Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Kilkenny, Newbury, Sutton (Surrey), West Ham, and Woking (Horsell and Chertsey), ordered to be brought in by Sir M. Hicks Beach and Sir John Gorst.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 273.]

    METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under "The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886," relating to lands in the parishes of St. Marylebone, St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, and All Saints, Poplar, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stuart-Wortley and Mr. Secretary Matthews.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 274.]

    SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir J. Gorst, Bill to amend the Acts relating to Superannuation Allowances and Gratuities to persons in the Public Service, so far as respects the computation of successive service in different offices, where not all subject to the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1887, and as respects the application of section six of "The Superannuation Act, 1887," to employments of profit under the Government of India, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Gorst and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 275.]

    POOR LAW SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Jackson, Bill to provide for expenses incurred by Members of Boards of Management of Poor Law District Schools in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 276.]

    ACCUMULATIONS BILL.
    On Motion of The Attorney General, Bill to amend the Law respecting Accumulations, ordered to be brought in by the Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 277.]

    CHARITY INQUIRIES BILL.
    On Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Bill to authorise the Councils of Counties and County Boroughs to contribute to the Expenses of Inquiries into certain Charities, ordered to be brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir J. Gorst, and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 278.]

    MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Fenwick, Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts, 1883 and 1887, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Heneage, Mr. Rowntree, and Mr. Burt.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 279.]

  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Copy presented,—of Return of the Amount payable on the 5th January, 1892, out of the Consolidated Fund for Ecclesiastical Purposes in the West Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (ENGLAND).
  General Abstract presented,—of Marriages, Births, and Deaths registered in England in 1891 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACTS, 1873 AND 1888.
  Copy presented,—of Third Annual Report of the Railway and Canal Commission, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY GUNS (RIFLED, IRON, AND STEEL).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 10th March; Mr. Duff]; to lie upon the Table.
  EQUIVALENT GRANT (SCOTLAND) DISTRIBUTION.
  Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 6th April; Mr. Hunter]; to lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. THOMAS ELLIS: May I ask what will be the Business to-morrow at two o'clock?
  SIR J. GORST: The Report of Ways and Means, the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill, the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, the Weights and Measures (Purchase) Bill, the Short Titles Bill, and then the Motion for Adjournment.
  DR. TANNER: Is it the intention of the Government to keep a House tomorrow evening? Is there any intention of putting Members to the inconvenience of attending to no purpose?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Certainly not, Sir.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.