Commons Sitting of 11 June 1894

QUESTIONS.

  THE PANAMA CANAL.
  COLONBL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  789
  Affairs if, having regard to the development of British commercial interests in Central and South America likely to ensue from water communication being established through the Isthmus of Panama, Her Majesty's Government would be disposed to favourably entertain an invitation from the French Republic to the Great Maritime Powers to join with her in determining, by means of an International Technical Commission, the possibility of continuing the canal works through the opposing Cordillera, and thus completing the half abandoned by the original Panama Canal Company?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Her Majesty's Government have received no communication from the French Government on this subject; it would therefore be premature to express an opinion on the matter.

  ST. PAUL'S SCHOOL
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of any Communications addressed to his Department by the Worshipful Company of Mercers, the Governing Body of St. Paul's School, and others, with reference to the scheme framed by the Charity Commissioners relating to St. Paul's School; and whether he will undertake that no final step is taken in the matter until an opportunity has been afforded to the House of Commons of expressing its opinion thereupon?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAXD,): It would be premature and, as I understand, without precedent, to lay on the Table communications received with regard to a Scheme still under consideration. Should the Scheme be approved by the Education Department, the Governing Body or other parties affected by it may claim that it shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

THE TOBERMORY PROCURATOR FISCAL.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Mr. W. Sproat, Procurator Fiscal, Tobermory, is acting as
790
law agent for the Duke of Argyll and Marquess of Lorne in an action for ejectment and forfeiture of croft against John Macdonald, crofter, Kilkennick, Tiree; and, in view of the promise of the Lord Advocate on the 24th of May, 1892, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUE,&c.): I am informed that Mr. Sproat is acting as agent for the Duke of Argyll, in an action in the ordinary Courts, for the recovery of a sum of £20 15s., the amount of arrears due in respect of rent which was fixed by the Crofters Commission at £4 15s. I do not find that the late Lord Advocate gave any promise on the 24th of May, 1892, and I have no power to prevent Mr. Sproat from engaging in private practice, seeing that he is not restrained by the terms of his Commission from doing so.
MR. CALDWELL: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

IRISH BOARD OF WORKS INSPECTORS,
SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Inspectors of the Board of Works in Ireland have twice presented Memorials to the heads of their Department for transmission to the Treasury, praying the Treasury to re-consider the Memorial presented by these officers in December, 1892, and the Treasury's answer thereto; and if these Memorials have been received by the Treasury; if not, for what reason?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I am informed that the statement in the first paragraph is correct. The Board of Works have not transmitted the Memorials to the Treasury. It is entirely in the discretion of the Board to forward them or not, but no doubt they would consider before doing so, whether any new circumstances had arisen since the last application was refused which would justify a fresh appeal to the Treasury.

THE GLENBEIGH SHELL FATALITY.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to an accident which took place recently at the artillery range at Glenbeigh, County Kerry, when through the bursting of a shell several

791
persons lost their lives and others were seriously injured; if he can explain how the accident occurred; whether any, and, if so, what, precautions had been taken to prevent it; whether the Government will consider the question of compensating the persons injured, and the families of those killed, by this accident; and whether the War Office Authorities will institute an inquiry, with a view to ascertaining how similar accidents can be prevented in the future?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERJUAN,&c.): The sad accident which occurred at Glenbeigh on the 2nd instant was caused by some civilians tampering with an unexploded shell. Every possible precaution is taken to prevent accidents. Notice-boards, explaining the danger of touching projectiles, are posted in the village, at the hotel, the chapel, and the post-office; and all persons going into the camp, or moving about the range, are personally cautioned by both officers and men. It is much to be regretted that in spite of all these warnings persons should foolishly meddle with shells; but when an accident follows upon such conduct it is hard to see how the Military Authorities can be held responsible.

GOVERNMENT STATIONERY CONTRACTS.
SIR W. HART-DYKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Stationery Office have been giving orders for the supply of paper from abroad; if so, whether he can state the amounts of such orders and for what special purpose they have been supplied; and whether he will state the names and addresses of the foreign firms which have supplied paper to the office?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No, Sir; the Stationery Office has not been giving orders for the supply of paper or of any other article from abroad. Orders are, in fact, not given to firms outside the United Kingdom. Such articles as paper are not obtained by contract, but are bought as required in the open market; and it is not possible to follow the manufacture of articles supplied by the firms tendering.

ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE SEWERAGE SCHEME.
MR. HARROP SIDEBOTTOM: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether application has been made to the Local Government Board by the Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation for borrowing powers to enable them to carry out separate sewage works on a plot of land known as Plantation Farm, which is outside their own boundary and within the district of the Dukinfield Local Board of Health; whether he is aware that the whole question of the disposal of the sewage of the towns of Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge, Dukinfield, and Audenshaw, all in the valley of the River Tame, was fully inquired into during six days of last Session by the Police and Sanitary Committee of this House, with the result that the Committee advised an amalgamation of all these authorities for sewage treatment; whether the Local Government Board have always supported such amalgamation of these authorities for sewage treatment; whether he is aware that the Cheshire County Council and the other authorities named have opposed the proposal of Ashton-under-Lyne to treat their sewage on Plantation Farm, and that the inhabitants of Dukinfield have unanimously and repeatedly protested in three public meetings and otherwise against Ashton-under-Lyne sewage being brought in their midst, to the serious detriment to the health of a populous district; and whether, in view of the fact that if such borrowing powers be granted to the Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation the carrying out of the recommendation of the Police and Sanitary Committee for the creation of a joint scheme of sewage disposal for all these towns in the Valley of the Tame will be rendered impossible, he will refuse this application?
MR. ADDISON: Arising out of that question, may I ask whether all the matters referred to in it were not fully investigated and discussed at a local inquiry under the Local Government Act during five days in March last, whether the Dukinfield Local Board were not heard by counsel and their witnesses fully examined; whether the Police and Sanitary Committee did not, through their Chairman, say that if no

793
agreement could be come to for a joint scheme, they would be in favour of the local scheme; and did it not appear from the evidence that Dukinfield could only be brought into the joint scheme on a basis impossible to the larger authorities concerned?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): It is a fact that a local inquiry was held, and all these questions were gone into; but as to the remainder of the question of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, I must ask for notice. In reply to the hon. Member for Stalybridge, I have to say that the Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation have applied for borrowing powers in respect of sewage works on the Plantation Farm. I am aware of the course advised by the Police and Sanitary Committee last Session with respect to the disposal of the sewage of Ashton-under-Lyne and the other towns alluded to. The Board have urged on the authorities such a combination as the Committee favoured, and the Board offered the services of an Inspector at a conference for the purpose of assisting the authorities in coming to a mutual arrangement. But the Town Council of Ashton-under-Lyne declined to take part in such a conference on the ground that an agreement between the authorities was impracticable. I am also aware of the objections which Lave been urged to the scheme for Ashton-under-Lyne. A local inquiry on the subject which was held by one of the Board's Inspectors extended over a period of five days, and at that inquiry full opportunity was given to those who objected to the scheme to state their objections. Since the inquiry the Board have pointed out to the Town Council certain matters in respect of which their scheme appeared to require revision, and the reply of the Town Council is now under the consideration of the Board.

TRADE SOCIETIES AND THE POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will state to the House the total amount of deposits and investments standing in the name of the various Trade Unions of the United Kingdom, under the head of Societies, in the Post Office Savings Banks, and in the Trustee
794
Savings Banks respectively, as nearly as possible up to date?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The total amount of deposits and investments standing in the name of the various Trade Societies of the United Kingdom in the Post Office Savings Banks on the 31st of October, 1893—the latest date for which statistics are available—was: From 491 Trade Societies with balances over £300, £327,672; from 2,534 Trade Societies with balances under £300, £168,848, making a total of £496,520, including £521 in Government Stock. I have made inquiry of the National Debt Commissioners, but they are unable to furnish the figures respecting Trustee Savings Banks.

ALLEGED INTIMIDATION IN WEXFORD.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a meeting held at Tagoat, County Wexford, on Sunday, the 20th of May, and reported in The Wexford People on the 23rd of May, which was convened for the purpose of aiding in an effort to rout the grabbers who had taken possession of evicted farms in the locality; whether he is aware that one of the speeches delivered at this meeting was a direct incitement to boycott Mr. Thomas, of Martinstown, who, in the exercise of a legal right, had taken three farms which had been vacant for five years; whether men who incite to, and who join in, a conspiracy to boycott an individual are guilty of an illegal act; and if he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the law was broken at Tagoat on the occasion in question?
MR. THOMAS HEALY: Is it not the case that the only counsel given at the meeting referred to was that the people should follow the advice generally given by the Primrose League?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I do not know that that was the sum total of the advice given, but I do not say that it went much, if at all, beyond that. The newspaper report of the proceedings at the meeting referred to in the question of the hon. Member for South Tyrone shows that

795
resolutions were passed and language used denouncing the practice known as landgrabbing and recommending exclusive dealing; but the names of individuals are not mentioned in this connection. No reference was made to the name of Mr. Thomas, of Martinstown, at the meeting, and the Law Officers advise me that there is nothing to show that "one of the speeches delivered at the meeting was a direct incitement to boycott him," as alleged in the question. Persons who incite to or join a conspiracy to injure another by boycotting, or other means, are guilty of an illegal act. The Law Officers have advised, however, that a newspaper report is not legal evidence of what occurred at the meeting. Nor are they able to say that the law was broken at this meeting even on the assumption that the newspaper report was accurate, as no particular individual was named or pointed out, and general denunciations of landgrabbing, not directed against an individual, are not evidence of a conspiracy to injure him. I may add that the police report that the meeting has had no effect whatever on Mr. Thomas or anyone else.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: As the right hon. Gentleman has stated that no one was mentioned by name at this meeting, I must ask him whether he knows that at a committee meeting of the National Federation, held on May 16th, the public meeting on the 20th was arranged for the purpose of taking notice of the action of Mr. Thomas, and that The Wexford People on the 19th directed attention to the meeting as being held for that purpose; and whether, in view of the fact that the committee of the Federation specially singled out this man and advised that the meeting be held, he Still thinks it is correct to say that no person was directly referred to at the meeting?
MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member's question refers to the meeting on Sunday, May 20th. In the proceedings at that meeting, as reported in The Wexford People, there was no reference whatever to Mr. Thomas. I must repeat what I have said frequently—namely, that no ill effect has followed from those proceedings, and it is the opinion of the most competent officers in Ireland that if they hunted up every case of supposed intimidation, as the hon.
796
Member does, and founded a prosecution upon it, the effect would be to increase disorder in Ireland rather than to lessen it. No people are so little pleased with the course taken in connection with these matters by the hon. Member than the people who really wish to see intimidation put down.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I hold in my hand a letter [Cries of "Order"!], and as a matter of personal indulgence I ask to be allowed to quote from it, on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman has stated that the people affected object to the course of procedure which I have adopted. I have taken this course of procedure at the direct request of the persons involved. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that these people are not injured by the meeting. I desire to read one extract from the letter, upon which I shall ask a further question. The letter says, after the meeting was addressed by the hon. Member for Wexford, the
"miller refused to grind corn for us, as he might lose 40 customers if he did so. Two of our workmen have left. Our solicitor has refused to act for us."
[Cries of "Order"!]
MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. Is it a fair use of the practice of interrogation to read without notice passages from a letter introducing matters of fact which we have had no opportunity of testing?
*MR. SPEAKER: After the statements of the Chief Secretary I think some latitude should be allowed to the hon. Member. The right hon. Gentleman made some statement in the exercise of his discretion—with which I am not finding fault—which the hon. Member is now seeking to rebut in the nature of a personal explanation. Therefore, under the circumstances, I think the hon. Member should be allowed to proceed.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I submit that I am justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman, after reading from the letter, whether he is entitled to stand at the Table and say that those proceedings did not injure anybody?
MR. J. MORLEY: Even after what the hon. Member has read I think I am entitled to repeat what I first stated—namely, that the police have reported to

797
me that the meeting has had no effect whatever—these are their own words—either on Mr. Thomas or anyone else. The hon. Member has now read a passage which will, of course, induce me to apply for further information.
MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask whether a resolution was not unanimously carried at the meeting in question declaring that landgrabbing should be opposed by legal and constitutional means; whether the chairman, in winding up the proceedings, did not declare that a man who committed an unconstitutional act was worse than the landgrabber himself; and whether public order is not less concerned in meetings which have no ill consequences than in numerous cases in which landgrabbers have first committed outrages and then claimed compensation in respect of them?
MR. J. MORLEY: I believe a resolution was passed in the terms stated by my hon. Friend.
MR. MACARTNEY: Will the Government endeavour to obtain legal evidence of what does occur at these meetings?
MR. J. MORLEY: That would depend on the circumstances of the particular meeting. I shall certainly reserve to myself the right of deciding when it is or is not proper to send an official note-taker.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Seeing that this matter cannot be argued out by question and answer, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state when the Motion for the Chief Secretary's salary is to be brought forward? The whole question may then be raised.
MR. J. MORLEY: A Vote affecting his salary and an Amendment by the hon. Member thereon were before the House not long ago. The hon. Member could have raised the question then.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes; but the Motion was closured, and we had no time to bring it on.

THE EMBARKATION OF TROOPS.
COLONEL PALMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Gravesend was for many years the port of embarkation and disembarkation of Her Majesty's troops to or from abroad, and that exceptional facilities are offered
798
by the River Thames approach, with its three deep-water piers and three distinct lines of railway connected with Chatham, Aldershot, Colchester, and, in fact, all parts of the country, he will consider the advisability of again selecting Gravesend as a port of embarkation and disembarkation as formerly?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When embarkations of troops take place from the Thames it is found that the docks, in which transports lie alongside the quay, afford greater convenience than Gravesend, where it has been found that tenders have to be employed. But, in any case, in time of peace the southern ports are much more convenient for embarking troops than the Thames.

THE CROWN AND UNWILLED PROPERTY.
COLONEL PALMER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the estate of one Mrs. Eliza Adams, who died at Lewisham on 7th June, 1893, and consisting of £202 0s. 10d. Two and Three-quarter per Cent. Stock, and £192 11s. 2d. in the Post Office Savings Bank, has been taken by the Crown on the ground that the said Mrs. Adams left no surviving relatives; whether he is aware that Amos Adams, a bricklayer, and husband of the said Mrs. Adams, only predeceased her by a few months, leaving a brother now living, one Alfred Adams, who is an old man in poor circumstances; whether he is aware that the said estate was derived from the earnings of Amos Adams, and not from the earnings of Mrs. Adams herself, who had no separate estate, business, or earnings; whether Alfred Adams would now have been legally entitled to the said estate, but for the accident of his brother predeceasing his wife by a few months; and whether, under these circumstances, the Treasury will consider the equity of making a grant out of the estate to Alfred Adams?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The estate consisted of the particulars mentioned, and the statement in the second paragraph is correct. It has been stated that the estate was derived from Amos Adams the husband, but the securities stood in the name of the deceased during the lifetime of her husband. But the question whether the estate was or was

799
not derived from the husband, as well as the answer to the hypothetical question in the fourth paragraph, would not affect the liability of the Treasury Solicitor, as administrator, to the wife's next-of-kin. The application of Alfred Adams has been considered and refused by the Treasury in accordance with the established practice in such cases, and I cannot undertake to reverse the decision.
COLONEL PALMER: Bearing in mind the circumstances I have mentioned in the question, will the Treasury give the matter further consideration?
SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas understood to say that the decision arrived at could not be altered.
COLONEL PALMER: Then I will take the earliest opportunity to call attention to this grossly unfair case.
MR. B ARTLEYasked the Treasury to take a fair and reasonable view of this matter, inasmuch as the money evidently belonged to the family, and that it was only under a technical rule that it had been "grabbed" by the Treasury?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I do not agree that it has been "grabbed" by the Treasury. We always take a fair and reasonable view, but we are bound to act under legal advice.

SMALL-POX AT RAWTENSTALL.
MR. SNAPE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to the dispute between the Rawtenstall Corporation and the Haslingden Board of Guardians, in consequence of which a tramp tailor, stricken with small-pox in a lodging-house containing 40 or 50 inmates, who was ordered on Tuesday last into the hospital by the Medical Officer of Health, but could not gain admission, was not allowed to re-enter the lodging house; whether the man suffering from this dangerous disease was then seen drinking at night in the Queen Vaults, Rawtenstall, and afterwards slept at a common lodging-house at Newchurch, disappearing next morning and disseminating infection wherever he went; and whether the authorities responsible can be made accountable for neglect of duty?
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: My attention has been drawn to this case, and I believe that the facts as regards the man
800
referred to wandering about whilst suffering from small-pox, and being a source of serious danger to those with whom he came in contact, are substantially true. It is greatly to be regretted that arrangements were not made for the removal of the man to the hospital of the Corporation, and so far as I can learn it was in consequence of differences between the Corporation and the Board of Guardians as to the rate of payment to be made for the maintenance of pauper patients in the hospital that this difficulty arose. An Inspector of the Board has been making inquiries in the district as to the case, and I learn from him that a special meeting of the Guardians and also a meeting of the Corporation will be held to-morrow, when I trust such arrangements will be made between the two authorities as will render impossible a repetition of such a scandal.

AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION IN ESSEX.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the Report of Mr. R. Pringle upon the condition of certain agricultural lands in Essex; and whether, considering the necessity for immediate relief from a state of affairs so disastrous, he is prepared to suggest any remedial measures between this date and the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I am afraid I can only refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and myself to the similar questions which were addressed to us a few days ago by the hon. Members for the North Eastern and South Eastern Divisions of Essex. It was with a view to consider whether any remedial measures were practicable to meet the depression in agriculture, which exists in so acute a form in the particular district visited by Mr. Pringle, that the Royal Commission was constituted, and we should be only too happy to find that the ability and labour they are devoting to the subject have had a successful result.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to point out the latter part of my question refers to the necessity of immediate relief in regard to a state of things which is simply disastrous. Is it not improbable that the Royal Commission will be able to report during the present year?
MR. H. GARDNER: I have no special information as to when the Commission will report, but it is quite possible, I think, that they may report this year. At the same time, I would point out to the hon. Member that there are no instant and immediate measures possible, which could be applied to the state of affairs in Essex.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over-competition in the labour market in the towns, and particularly in Metropolitan Districts, is produced by the existing agricultural depression, more especially in districts adjacent to the Metropolis?
MR. H. GARDNER: I am not.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I will on an early day call attention to the matter.

ATTACK ON THE POLICE AT GWEEDORE.
MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that 14 summonses were issued in connection with the attack recently made upon the police at Gweedore; that of the 14 persons summoned to appear before the Court, only four appeared, of whom one was convicted; that the cases against the 10 persons who disobeyed the summons to appear were adjourned till next Court day; and that at the adjourned Sessions all the summonses were withdrawn; and how many persons were engaged in the attack on the police, and how many have been made amenable?
MR. DANE: At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will explain why the summonses issued against 30 persons engaged in a murderous attack on the police at Brimlech Mountain, Gweedore, County Donegal, resulting in the death of Sergeant Gunn, were withdrawn at the recent Petty Sessions at Bunbeg; and are further proceedings contemplated?
MR. J. MORLEY: Summonses were issued against 14 persons in connection with the attack made upon a process-server and the police near Gweedore on March 29 last. Four of the defendants appeared at Bunbeg Petty Sessions on April 30, one of whom was convicted on two separate charges of common assault and sentenced to concurrent terms of six and two months' imprisonment respectively; the cases against the other three defendants who appeared were dismissed by the Magistrates. The remaining cases were adjourned till the next Petty Sessions, on May 14, when, in the absence of the defendants, the proceedings were withdrawn. The Crown had no alternative but to adopt this course under the circumstances. The defendants had not been identified as having committed the offence with which they had been charged, so that the necessary information could not be made of the complaint within the meaning of the 11th section of the Petty Sessions Act to enable the issue of warrants to arrest. The crowd which attacked the police numbered from 300 to 400. No arrests were made, and the only proceedings taken were those which I have described. I am informed by the Inspector General of Constabulary that there are no grounds whatever for the allegation that the death of Sergeant Gunn was in any way attributable to the attack on the police on this occasion. The sergeant became non-effective on April 27 and died on May 7. A medical certificate given on the date of his death states that he was "suffering from influenza, accompanied with delirium." As no other person can be identified as having taken part in the attack, no further proceedings can be taken.

THE WELSH CATHEDRALS.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is possible that any national funds should have been spent upon the fabrics of the four Welsh cathedrals since the year 1703 without the fact being recorded in some public Department; and whether he can state what is the total amount of national funds which are recorded as having been spent on the fabrics of the four Welsh cathedrals since the year 1703?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOK THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The only information on this point which I have hitherto been able to obtain is that supplied to me by the secretary to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who informs me that the only sums expended upon the Welsh cathedrals of which the Commissioners have knowledge are the grants made by them at the time of the commutation of the capitular estates, in the cases of St. David's £10,000 and of Llandaff £5,000, in the year 1867. But without further inquiry it cannot be safely assumed that this is an exhaustive statement of the facts bearing on the matter.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of my question.
MR. ASQUITH: It is impossible to answer it without a long inquiry.
MR. TALBOT: May we take it, then, that no national funds have been spent on the fabrics of the Welsh cathedrals? The statement of the right hon. Gentleman refers to funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and it would be a perversion of language to call them national funds.
MR. ASQUITH: My hon. Friend and I differ in our definitions.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Does not the right hon. Gentleman know that no funds have been granted by the State towards the restoration of the cathedrals?
MR. ASQUITH: If the hon. Member means funds voted by Parliament, I think not.
MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has proposed to hand over the cathedrals for national purposes, although he is not aware that any funds have been granted by the nation for the restoration of the cathedrals?
MR. ASQUITH: In any statements I have made on the subject I have never grounded the proposals of the Government on the granting of funds contributed by Parliament. I have grounded them on the general character of the buildings.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Is it not a very important consideration as to who contributed the funds for the restoration of the cathedrals? Will the right hon. Gentleman make any
804
further investigation on this point before he asks the House to read the Bill a second time?
MR. ASQUITH: I have said that further inquiry will be made in order to satisfy the historical anxiety of the noble Lord, though I confess that from my point of view the matter seems to be immaterial.

GYMNASTIC APPARATUS FOR RURAL SCHOOLS.
VISCOUNT WOLMER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to that part of the last Report of the Inspector on the National School of Cranborne, Dorset, in which he says the gymnastic apparatus recommended for the playground in last year's Report has not yet been supplied, and should be provided without delay; and whether, if such a demand is justified by the Code, such gymnastic apparatus can be required in a purely rural parish where the opportunities of games and exercise for the children are unlimited?
MR. ACLAND: The apparatus which Her Majesty's Inspector has urged the managers of this school to supply consists of a giant stride and a swing. These are usual features in the playgrounds of well-equipped rural schools, and it is very desirable that there should be something of the kind attached to all schools for the use of the children during their intervals of recreation between school hours. I hope the managers may see their way to provide them, especially as the cost cannot be serious.
MR. TALBOT: Are these things required by the Code? It is as well we should know what the Code really requires.
MR. ACLAND: I do not think that in the case even of new schools it is an absolute requirement, but, like a great many other things in connection with our schools, managers who wish to do their best by the schools will supply them.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to refuse the grant if the managers do not do as he tells them?
MR. ACLAND: I have already told the noble Lord that I will do nothing very violent.

THE ANGLO-BELGIAN AGREEMENT.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has been received by Her Majesty's Government from the French Government relating to the Anglo-Belgian Agreement of the 12th of May; and whether he can state the purport of the reply given by Her Majesty's Government?
SIR E. GREY: A communication has been received stating that the French Government made the fullest reserves with reference to an Agreement the provisions of which appear to them to be incompatible with arrangements made between France and the independent State of the Congo, and with the international position of certain countries in the basin of the Upper Nile. A purely formal reply was at once sent by Her Majesty's Government taking note of this communication without discussing or admitting the grounds on which the reservation was based. The French Government have since been informed that Her Majesty's Government are quite willing to discuss the grounds on which the French Government objected to the Agreement, and that they will be ready to enter with the French Government into a general review of all African questions pending between the two Governments for the purpose of such an adjustment as would place the nations of the two countries in that Continent on a more satisfactory footing.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: By the words "general review" does the Under Secretary mean simply as between the French Government and ourselves? He does not include in that, I presume, any question of submission to arbitration, or the summoning of a conference on the matter?
SIR E. GREY: No, Sir. The meaning of the words is simply to express our willingness to discuss with the French Government—and between the two Governments only—pending difficulties between us in Africa.

THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS COMMISSION.
DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware that two members of the
806
Highlands and Islands Commission have attended in this House during the past three weeks; and if he will consider how such attendance must interfere with his duties on the Commission, with a view of securing that members of the Commission should give their time and attention to the work of the Commission?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The Highlands and Islands Commission is diligently engaged in its work, which I have every reason to believe is being thoroughly and successfully done. I am not answerable for the attendance at any given period of any individual member of the Royal Commission.
DR. MACGREGOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these Commissioners have not attended any meeting of the Commission during the last three weeks?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have already said I am not answerable for their attendance.
DR. MACGREGOR: Then who is answerable? If these gentlemen cannot attend will they retire and make room for others?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I believe they rendered public service of a very arduous character during last year. I can add nothing to my answer.
DR. MACGREGOR: I shall move to reduce the right hon. Gentleman's salary on the Estimates.

THE ARRESTS AT RIO.
MR. PAUL: In the absence of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information from Sir Hugh Wyndham, Her Majesty's Minister at Rio, as to the arrest of Messrs. Edward Pellew Wilson and James Moir Florence, connected with the firm of Wilson, Sons, and Company, Limited, of Rio, and if any measures have been taken for the release of these gentlemen; whether he is aware that the firm of Wilson, Sons, and Company, Limited, gave very material assistance to the British Senior Naval Officer in his efforts to protect British shipping during the Revolution in Brazil; and if he has any information to show whether the imprisonment of one

807
or both of these gentlemen may be attributed to that fact?
SIR E. GREY: On learning on the 6th instant of the arrest of Messrs. Wilson and Florence instructions were at once telegraphed to Sir H. Wyndham to report the facts of the case; meanwhile to render them such assistance as he properly could. Her Majesty's Ministers telegraphed on the 9th instant that Mr. Wilson had been released, that he did not then know on what grounds the arrests had been made, that he was doing everything in his power in the cases of Mr. Florence and two other British subjects who had been arrested. Her Majesty's Government are aware that Mr. Wilson's firm rendered assistance to the British Senior Naval Officer during the recent insurrection in Rio Harbour, but they have no information showing that the imprisonment of the two above-mentioned gentlemen is due to that circumstance.

UNWIELDY CLASSES IN LONDON SCHOOLS.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the following passage in the recently-published Report for 1893 of the Senior Chief Inspector on the schools in the Metropolitan Division, in which he stated that he regretted to be compelled to return to a subject to which he had already alluded in two previous Reports, the existence of classes in schools under the London Board so large that they cannot be efficiently controlled or taught by a single teacher, such as classes of 70, or 80, or even 90 scholars; and whether he will consider what steps shall be taken to enforce on the London Board the duty of adequately staffing the schools thus repeatedly reported upon?
MR. ACLAND: This subject has for a long time been under my consideration. The alteration in Article 73 of the Code made this year was made with a view of checking overgrown classes in London and elsewhere, and I hope that, together with the public notice which has been called to the matter, it will have the desired effect.

FEMALE PRISONERS IN POLICE CELLS.
MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report of an inquest, held by Mr. Braxton Hicks on Wednesday last, on a woman who, having been arrested on a charge of being drunk and incapable, was taken to the Battersea Park Police Station and there kept for 28 hours in a cell under the control of policemen, and whether the medical evidence showed that the woman's death resulted from coma; and whether there is any female warder at Battersea Park Police Station to look after women under detention; and, if not, whether steps will be taken to make suitable provision for women under detention in the future?
MR. ASQUITH: The woman was found drunk and incapable at 12.25 p.m. on the 19th of May and taken to Battersea Park Police Station, where she was seen by the Divisional Surgeon at 12.45 p.m. This officer said she could remain in the cell, as it appeared to be an ordinary case of drunkenness. The following day, however, as she did not entirely recover, the doctor was again summoned, and by his direction she was removed to the workhouse infirmary, where she remained until her death on the 3rd instant. The medical evidence showed that death ensued from coma, due to meningial hœmorrhage. There is a matron attached to the police station, who is sent for when female prisoners are ill, if they are not removed to the workhouse infirmary. As the surgeon did not order the woman's removal till the following day, but said she might remain in the cells, it would have been better had the matron been called in. I am making further inquiry into the matter.

SWINE FEVER.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can give the House any information as to the working and the general results of "The Swine Fever Act, 1893," and how the number of outbreaks of swine fever, and the number of animals attacked with the disease, since the Act came into force on the 1st of September, 1893, compare with the number of outbreaks and the number of animals attacked with the disease

809
during the 10 months previous to that date?
MR. H. GARDNER: During the 31 weeks which have elapsed since the 1st November last, when the Act of last Session came into force, 2,782 outbreaks of swine fever have been reported to us, and 4,562 swine have died of the disease. The present arrangements for dealing with the disease differ so essentially from those which were previously in existence that any true comparison of these figures with those of the corresponding period of last year is impossible. The mode of working the Act was formulated in Orders, with copies of which I shall be happy to supply the right hon. Gentleman, and I may add that I have invited representatives of certain Local Authorities to a Conference which I have arranged to hold during the present month with a view to ascertain whether the efficiency of the existing arrangements can in any respect be increased, both as regards the action of the Local Authorities and of our own officers.
MR. CHAPLIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the number of outbreaks of the 10 months preceding?
MR. H. GARDNER: I have not got that information, but the actual number of outbreaks reported to the Local Authorities between the 5th of November, 1892, and the 3rd of June, 1893, that is, for the period corresponding to the figures given above, was 1,710. The number of swine that died from the disease was 3,772.

CONSTABLES AT PUBLIC MEETINGS IN GALWAY.
COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will call for a Report from the County Inspector, or an Inspector of Constabulary, as to the conduct of the subordinate constables in the neighbourhood of Turloughmore, Galway, where an independent public meeting was lately held; and will he specially call for a Report from the Constabulary Authorities as to whether any political leanings are shown by the subordinate constables in their visits, language, and summonses?
MR. J. MORLEY: The County Inspector informs me that a public meeting, convened by the supporters of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, was held at
810
Turloughmore on the 6th of May, and that the local police sergeant and two constables were onlookers on the occasion, and had no words of dispute with anyone. Neither the County Inspector nor the District Inspector has reason to believe that the constables have in any way shown political leanings or bias in their visits, language, and summonses, and no complaint has been made that the police have in any way anted improperly.

INCOME TAX ON IMAGINARY FARMING PROFITS.
MR. COMBE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether a new Regulation has been made whereby Income Tax, assessed on imaginary farming profits, is not returned when it is proved that a loss has been incurred, and not profit; and whether a farmer having income from other sources is required to make a return of his whole income before abatement of Income Tax is allowed?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): There is no Regulation which operates in the way indicated. If by abatement of Income Tax is meant the statutory abatement allowed to persons whose income from all sources is under a certain limit, it is, of course, necessary that a return of the whole income should be shown. If the hon. Member has founded his question on a particular case, and will give me the facts, I will cause inquiries to be made and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

THE NEW ESTATE DUTY ON PROPERTY ABROAD.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In the absence of the senior Member for York (Mr. Butcher), I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated amount of Estate Duty which will be receivable annually in respect of personal property situate abroad passing on the death of persons dying domiciled in the United Kingdom?
SIR W. HAECOURT: It is quite impossible for me to give any estimate.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS.
MR. HERBERT LEWIS&c.): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the Counties of Cardigan, Carmarthen,

811
Glamorgan, Merioneth, Montgomery, Monmouth, Pembroke, and Radnor, no property qualification is required for Commissioners of Land Tax, whereas in the other Welsh counties and in England a qualification of £100 a year in land is imposed; and whether he will take steps to redress this disparity, and to abolish the property qualification in the Counties of Anglesey, Brecknock, Carnarvon, Denbigh, and Flint, and in the English counties?
SIR W. HARCOURT: The facts are I believe as stated, but the hon. Member is aware that the Land Tax Commissioners are in no sense under, or connected with, the Executive Government. I daresay a reform of the Laud Tax Commission would be very desirable, but it is not a subject I could undertake to deal with in the present Session.

THE DUNPHAIL RAILWAY ACCIDENT.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what number of repaired wheels of the Mansell pattern made 22 years ago, as referred to in Major Marindin's Report on the railway accident on the 27th of April last to a passenger train at Dunphail Station, are now in use on the passenger trains on the Highland Railway, and why time was not allowed the examiner at Kingussie to go all round the train, instead of only time to examine the wheels on the light side; seeing that since the introduction of continuous brakes the strain upon carriage wheels has been much increased, will the Highland Railway Company be required to further strengthen them; whether it is the practice on the Highland Railway for the assistant guard to ride in the rear van instead of in the front break van; whether a penalty has been imposed on the Company for failing to provide a communication cord between the carriages and the engine and the brake van of the train, as required by Section 22 of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868;" and whether all the carriages of passenger trains on the Highland Railway are fitted with automatic brakes in accordance with the instructions of the Department to the Railway Company last year?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr.BRYCE,): I have received a letter on the subject of
812
my hon. Friend's question from the General Manager of the Highland Railway Company, who states as follows:—
"There are 604 pairs of Mansell's wheels of the old type, made between 1872 and 1886, in use on the Highland Railway, the older ones having been re-timbered and re-tyred as found necessary. The vehicles of the 12.40 a.m. train are thoroughly examined at Perth previous to departure. An examination is also made at Blair Atholl after running 35 miles, and at Kingussie, 72 miles, as thoroughly as time will permit. The train is again examined at Forres, 119 miles, and finally, on arrival at Inverness, it is subject to a minute inspection. This amount of inspection has hitherto teen found ample. Since 1886 all new passenger carriages built for the Highland Company have been furnished with disc wheels of the strongest design to withstand the extra strain of the continuous brake. It is not the practice on the Highland Railway for the assistant guard to ride in the same van as the chief guard, and is distinctly against the Company's Rules. The infringement of the Rules on the occasion in question has been suitably dealt with. The vehicles on the train were not adapted for the application of communication cord, but that has now been remedied."
I believe all the passenger carriages of the Highland Railway are fitted with automatic brakes.

THE PRISONS COMMITTEE.
MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Prisons Committee appointed by him is empowered to consider and report upon such questions as the permission to prisoners to communicate oftener with relatives than at present is allowed, or any other suggestions having for their object the reform of the inmates of gaols, and softening the rigour of imprisonment in the case of any showing signs of amendment?
MR. ASQUITH: This subject does come within the scope of the inquiry of the Committee.

NIGER COMPANY'S DOTIES.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the rates of Customs Duty now levied by the Niger Company in the deltaic region south of Asaba, and in their territory north of Asaba, upon spirits, salt, tobacco, and war material; and whether all other goods are admitted into both regions without any Customs Duty being levied upon them?
SIR E. GREY: There has been no change in the Customs Duty levied by the Niger Company since the Return was laid before the House in Africa, No. 3 of 1892.

THE BRUSSELS ACT.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the power of the application of the Articles of the Brussels Act, referring to the prevention of the importation of arms and gunpowder, is limited to the Possessions and Protectorates of the Powers signatory to that Act; and what power Her Majesty's Government will have to enforce the said Articles, or to establish a system of licences for and registration of arms in the case of foreigners resident in such parts of British East Africa as will not be included in the Protectorates of Uganda or of Zanzibar, e.g., Usoga, Kavirondo, Kikuya, &c.?
SIR E. GREY: It is in the powers of parties to the Brussels Act to prevent the traffic in arms and ammunition in territories over which they may be able to exercise control through the native chiefs, though such territories may not he their possessions or protectorates, and also by their advice to the native chiefs to establish in their territories a system of licences and regulations. This power can be applied to the territories contemplated in the question.

PRIMARY EDUCATION IN GUERNSEY.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there has been received by the Committee of the Privy Council for the affairs of Guernsey and Jersey a Memorial from the committee appointed by the ratepayers of St. Peter Port, in the Island of Guernsey, asking for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the question of public primary education in Guernsey, and especially into the bearing of the recently-passed Act relating to education on the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's subjects in that island; whether there has been received a Petition to Her Majesty from a committee of Nonconformists in Guernsey, praying that an inquiry be made into the circumstances connected with the passing of such Education Act,
814
and into the changes effected by the same, and the probable effect thereof on the progress of education and the rights of the population of the island; whether any, and what, answers have been given to such Memorial and Petition; and whether there is any objection to placing the same, and the replies thereto, upon the Table of this House?
MR. ACLAND: The Memorial and Petition referred to have been received, and the Memorialists have been informed that the Act in question having been so recently passed, the subject could not be re-opened until there has been time to asertain the effect it will have on education in the island. There can be no objection to laying the Papers before Parliament.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
SIR W. HARCOURT: It may be for the convenience of the House that I should state that the Government propose on Wednesday morning to proceed with the Army Estimates in Committee of Supply.
MOTION
  ADJOURNMENT.

    AGRICULTURAL DEPRESSION (ESSEX).
    Captain NAYLOR-LEYLAND,Member for Colchester, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely,
    "The recent Report of Mr. Hunter Pringle upon the Agricultural Depression in Essex, and the measures which that Report recommends as being immediately necessary, and the desirability of the Government giving legislative effect to the recommendations of Mr. Pringle without delay;"
    but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    *CAPTAINNAYLOR-LEYLANDsaid, he would make no apologies whatever to the House for bringing this Motion forward, because, in the first place, the Government had taken possession of the whole time of the House, and there was no other way open to Members to call attention to the subject; and, in the second

    815
    place, as all impartial men would admit, the state of things in Essex was serious and urgent, and demanded the instant attention of Parliament. He might be told that the same argument would apply to agriculture generally, but his reply was that he intended to deal specifically and specially with the County of Essex, and to ask the House and the Government to treat the county as if it were a congested district, such as they sometimes heard of in Ireland. And in so doing he hoped to have the support of County Members generally, because it was obvious that if special legislation were not applied to the County of Essex no other county, however deplorable its condition, could hope to be able to get any relief since Essex was the worst of the whole. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that last year the Government appointed an Agricultural Commission, and one of the first acts of that body was to appoint Commissioners to visit the various counties in England with a view to investigating their agricultural condition. The gentlemen selected to perform that duty in the County of Essex was Mr. Hunter Pringle, and being a recognised agricultural authority he was eminently well qualified for the task. In fact, he enjoyed the confidence of the agricultural world at large. He had made a Report to the Commission. The Report had been laid before the House in the form of a Parliamentary Paper, and that Report and its recommendations would constitute the theme on which he intended to address the House. He would not tint anything; he would colour nothing; he would embellish nothing: he would give nothing but Mr. Pringle's plain, unvarnished statement, and upon that he was content to rely. He was not preferring any indictment against the Government; he had no desire to bring this forward as a Party question; it was too grave for that. The present Government had been in Office for two years, and they had done nothing for agriculture; the late Government were six years in power, and they did not do much for agriculture either, so that it might be said to be six to two in favour of the Liberal Party. Mr. Pringle went down into Essex on the 19th of October last year; he was engaged in his investigations until the 11th of November, and he concluded his inquiry
    816
    in the constituency which he (Captain Naylor-Leyland) had the honour to represent. It had been suggested that the boroughs in Essex were not affected by this agricultural depression; but he submitted that they felt it even more than the rural districts, for when the landlord received no rents, the tenants made no profits, and the labourers got reduced wages, less money was spent in the adjoining towns, and the labour market there was soon over-stocked. Mr. Pringle divided his Report into four parts. In the first place, he indicated the circumstances which led up to the present state of things; in the second, he described the existing condition of affairs; in the third, he indicated the causes; and in the fourth he suggested the remedies; and had he not, in clear, specific, and unqualified terms, named those remedies, this Motion would not have been submitted to the House. But he having done so, it surely was the duty of the Government to act upon his recommendations. If they did not do so the responsibility would rest not upon Essex Members, but upon the Government. The time was when Essex was one of the most prosperous agricultural counties in the whole Kingdom; it was one admirably adapted for corn growing; but the years since 1875 had been a period of accumulated decline, 19 years in which not one year had been a good one, with the exception of 1887. Even in that year the farmers did no more than pay their way, and then on the top of all came the worst season agriculture had ever known, to wit, the year 1893. In 1879, according to Mr. Pringle, the land in Essex might be described as being farmed by three classes of agriculturists. First there were the good tenants of long standing, then there were the new tenants with insufficient capital; and finally there were the landlords farming their own land. The season of 1879 severely crippled the old tenants, it ruined many of the new ones, and it inflicted a heavy loss on the landlords farming their own land. And as he had said, every year, with the exception of 1887, had proved a period of accumulative decline. How rents were to be paid next Spring and how the inevitable expenses of farming were to be defrayed were questions which no one in Essex could answer; and, indeed, it was

    817
    generally asserted, according to the Report, that this year would prove the ruin of many farmers. That was what had happened during the last 25 years, and it faithfully described the condition of Essex at the present moment. If hon. Members would turn to Mr. Hunter Pringle's Report they would see a map of the county, and that a certain area of it was coloured black. That area had absolutely gone out of cultivation. It was practically useless even to graze a bullock or feed a ewe for any considerable portion of the year. Essex was a county with an area of 987,000 acres, and a population of three-quarters of a million, and yet within half an hour by train of the House of Commons there were no less than 28,222 acres out of cultivation, or 45 square miles of country. He would venture to read one short extract, but still a typical example of the condition of that area of 45 square miles. It conveyed a description of a farm of 360 acres, and of it Mr. Pringle said—
    "The farm in question occupies an area of 360 acres, and has been for 10 years out of cultivation. It used to employ six teams of horses, six horsemen, six labourers, and boys. It was commonly relied on to grow not less than five quarters of wheat to the acre, and often the average was six quarters. It yielded five to six quarters per acre of barley, and has been known to give an average of 13 quartets of oats. It carried about a score of milch cows and weaned and fattened calves, besides rearing young stock. The farm, therefore, was capable both of producing good crops and of employing a considerable amount of labour. To-day the abomination of desolation seems to have settled down upon the place. The fields once under the constant dominion of the plough have covered themselves with a coarse profitless herbage. The hedgerows, formerly neat and tidy, are now straggling and unkept, suckers from the thorns have grown up a dozen yards on either side of the fence, and what was once a trim, straight hedge is now a broad belt of tangled brushwood. Irregular gaps, with an occasional rotten post, standing like a forgotten sentinel, show where the gates once were. The drains are choked and useless, and the ditches instead of carrying off the water allow it to stagnate and to invade the land, thus fostering a worthless growth of sedge and rush. The buildings, commodious and substantial in the days of a thriving agriculture, are rapidly succumbing to the decay induced of neglect; doors of which the fastenings have disappeared creak idly in the wind, the weather boarding piece by piece is falling away, and there is no hand to replace the tiles, the constant dislodgment of which renders even larger the holes in the roof through which the rain pours to carry on the work of destruction within. The stables are tenantless, the byres: are unoccupied, and the farmyard is empty, neither waggon, plough, nor any other imple-
    818
    ment being visible. The house is deserted, save, indeed, for one room occupied by an aged caretaker, whose shambling gait, as he moves about the desolate premises, seems scarcely out of accord with the air of solitude which reigns over all."
    The serious point about this was that when the land had once gone out of cultivation it was practically irreclaimable, and for this reason: Land might now be bought in Essex at £6 10s. an acre; but, if it were allowed to go out of cultivation, it would cost £17 an acre to reclaim and bring it into cultivation again. Another serious point was that if they allowed the present state of things to continue, and if the Government did nothing, the area of uncultivated land would rapidly increase, and by this time next year there would be three times as much land out of cultivation as there was at present; and if occupiers acted upon the notices they had given, many more thousands of acres would be left tenantless, because it was hopeless to expect that new tenants would be found, and every class now connected with the agriculture of the county was now on the verge of ruin. The Report dealt specifically with every class of the community—with owners, with occupying owners, with tenants, with labourers; it showed that rents and values were sinking to nothing at all, that a large proportion of every class was on the verge of ruin, and that the population were migrating to West Ham and the Metropolis. And this was going on in spite of all efforts that had been made to arrest the general ruin. Landlords had acted with generosity; arrears of rent had been blotted out; large sums had been expended on buildings; every mortal thing that human ingenuity could devise had been done, and trials had been made of large farms, small farms, poultry farms, stock farms, and dairy farming. A number of canny Scots had been introduced, and he believed that even they found they could not make farming pay in Essex. It was not because the people of the county had been in fault, had been improvident, had lived beyond their income, or did not know how to farm that they had been reduced to their present condition; but they were the victim of causes beyond their control. He now came to that part of the Report in which Mr. Hunter Pringle indicated the causes of this state of things. These causes he divided broadly into two—first,

    819
    falling prices; and, secondly, burdens placed upon land by Parliament, which had been increased in an extraordinary manner during the last two years. No Government could legislate to increase the price of corn; nothing could be done immediately to bring corn back to the prices at which agriculturists would like to see it; but there were two recommendations which might be acted upon. The first had reference to the City of London Grain Duty of 3–16ths of 1d. per cwt. on wheat, barley, and oats grown at home, while grain imported from abroad was not liable to duty. This, as Mr. Hunter Pringle pointed out, was a glaring injustice which might be remedied. Why should a London miller be able to import corn from abroad free of duty, while if a Maldon merchant sold him home-grown corn, it would be subject to the duty of 3–16ths of 1d. per cwt.? Why should the English article be taxed and the foreign be allowed to go free? He was confident that the Government would see the injustice of that, and would promptly provide a remedy? The Report further showed very clearly that farming in Essex must fail under the old system of three crops in rotation; and that if it was to be made to pay, an altogether different system must be adopted. Mr. Hunter Pringle held that the only way to apply that remedy was for the Board of Agriculture to take some of the derelict land, to set up a model farm, and to show Essex farmers how farming could be made to pay. It was of no use to theorise and dogmatise, they already had schools of instruction in Essex, but if a practical example were set the farmers would follow it. Now he came to matters a great deal more important and feasible from the point of view of the Government itself. He referred to the heavy burdens on land, and he proposed to show how enormously those burdens had increased in recent years. First came the tithe. In Essex the commuted tithe amounted to £250,000. Essex paid as much as the six wealthy counties of Lancashire, Cumberland, Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, and Rutland. In Essex the tithe amounted to 6s. 4¼d. per head of the population—men, women, and children; in Lancashire it was 4½d.; in Cumberland, 3s. 0¾d.; in Durham, 1s. 1½d. In Essex the tithe amounted to
    820
    6s. per acre of cultivated land, and to 5s. 0¾d. per acre if the uncultivated land were included. Under the old system of the payment of tithe in kind, as Mr. Hunter Pringle told them in his Report, the tithe-owner suffered with the cultivator; but with tithe converted into a fixed money payment, which had to be paid under any conditions, tithe was a burden which was driving land out of cultivation and helping to destroy our industry. This was a very important and serious statement—namely, that a charge continued by Parliament upon land in Essex was having the effect of driving thousands of acres out of cultivation. Surely if the landlords were losing their rents, their tenants their profits, and the labourers their wages, the tithe-owner ought to bear his share of the general depression. That was a matter on which the Government might well introduce legislation. He knew he might be told that under the Act of 1892 the tithes were largely a landlords' question. He dared say it was. The landlords had got to pay it, and therefore the tenants were not in a worse position. Then, as to the Commutation Act of 1835, that was passed when they were living under a high protective duty, so that the tithe-owner to-day was being paid under the assumption that wheat was 56s. a quarter. Was it not perfectly obvious from that that the remedy was to amend the Commutation Act of 1835? Was there anything to prevent their having a re-valuation based on the prices of corn during the last seven years? Mr. Hunter Pringle told them that in Essex opinion was in favour not only of a re-valuation, but also of the nationalisation of the tax. He did not press for nationalisation, but he did urge the Government to grant them a re-valuation. He had shown that every acre in Essex paid a tithe of 6s. a year, while if it were let for as low as 1s. per acre it would ruin the occupier to cultivate it, and therefore so long as the tithe was continued on its present basis they would have an enormous premium in driving land out of cultivation. He passed from these to the Land Tax. He had now got up to 6s. an acre for tithes. The Land Tax in Essex was lid per acre, whereas in Lancashire it was 2¾d., in Northumberland 2½d., in Cumberland ½d, and in Westmoreland Id. The remedy for this was again stated

    821
    clearly. Let them divert the Laud Tax in Essex to the relief of local rates. Now he came to local burdens. He had shown charges for tithe and land tax to the extent of 6s. 9d. per acre on land in Essex. Mr. Pringle told them that the highway, rural sanitary, School Board, and other rates in Essex were higher than in any other county in England. The average in Essex was 3s. 9d., in Kent it was 2s. 9d., and in Lancashire, Northumberland, Cumberland, Durham, and Westmoreland it was only Is. 8d. The fact was, that the average burden per acre of land in the unfortunate County of Essex was 10s. 8d. How, under such circumstances, could agriculture be made to pay? It was to be borne in mind that the whole of the derelict land in Essex was assessed to the rates as if it were producing rent, for if that were not so the burden on the cultivated laud would become still more intolerable. What he urged the Government to do was to make grants in aid of local rates until affairs in Essex came round. They would thus do something at least to retard square miles of country going out of cultivation year by year. This state of things existed within half an hour of where he now stood, in the midst of what was reputed to be one of the richest countries of the world. In Essex they had 45 square miles of land worse than the land of an American prairie, with the strong probability that this time next year they would have a much larger amount of land in a similar condition infinitely worse than any congested district in Ireland. This was brought about to a great extent by the heavy burdens thrown on laud by the Legislature. Everyone connected with agriculture in Essex had experienced the worst of all experiences; having been once well off they were now face to face with practical destitution and despair. In the face of these facts, he hoped it would not be said that his Motion was brought forward with any obstructive or factious end in view. He had laid the facts before the House, and he submitted that the people of Essex had a right to expect not merely sympathy, but practical aid and assistance from the Government. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Captain Naylor-Leyland.)
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I should be the last person to complain that any Member of that House connected with the County of Essex should desire to impress upon the public mind the unfortunate condition in which the agriculture of the county stands. No words shall fall from me in condemnation of the spirit in which the hon. Member has laid the subject before the House. At the same time, I am bound to point out to the hon. Member the extreme inconvenience, and perhaps he will allow me to use the word inconsequence, of the action he has taken. He has talked of the Report of the Commissioner. First of all, Mr. Pringle was not appointed by the Government. In the next place, Mr. Pringle has not reported to the Government or made any recommendations to them. He has made recommendations to the Commission appointed by the Government, whose duty it is to consider the facts and the recommendations laid before them. Anybody who reads the Report will see that these recommendations are not submitted to the Government at all. On recommendation after recommendation he says, "I do not know what the Commission will think of this suggestion." It is not for me to disparage the Report or the authority of Mr. Pringle. What we have to deal with are the recommendations of the Commission. I find in Mr. Pringle's Report that the central cause of this distress in Essex is the incapacity of the land to grow corn. He says—
    "There can be no doubt that the cultivation of corn on the London clay cannot be successfully prosecuted unless the price of wheat rises at least 45 per cent."
    The hon. Gentleman makes a point of the raising of the price of wheat; but there is not very much in that, because he must know that even if we desired to bring that about, which we do not, it would be entirely beyond the power of any Government to raise the price of wheat 45 per cent. It is doubtful, indeed, if, upon Essex soil, however fertile, corn could be grown which would be worth that standard of price. Then Mr. Pringle goes on to say—
    "Concurring as I do with these opinions, it is by no means easy to see or recommend any-speedy course of action."

    823
    This is the opinion which is laid down by Mr. Pringle, but it is the purport of the hon. G3utleman's Motion that the Government should take this speedy action, which Mr. Pringle says he cannot recommend. Then he goes on to say—
    "The main hope lies, I think, in the possibility of laying more of the land down to grass and farming it on some rotation where the extent under the plough is kept at the lowest economical area. It cannot be denied and must not be forgotten that many unsuccessful attempts have been already made in the direction of temporary and permanent pasture in Essex."
    And then he adds—
    "My thoughts incline towards an increase of the gross area and the extension of stock-breeding, rearing, and feeding, accompanied with a decrease in corn growing and farming expenses."
    Now the hon. Member says that what the Government ought to do is to set up model farms in Essex to teach the Essex farmers how to farm. Is that reasonable? We heard in the old days in France of the ateliers nationaux where artisans learned their industries, but we cannot set up an atelier for Essex farmers. Are there no farmers in Essex who can start model farms in order to show the other farmers what they ought to do? I must say that I am extremely surprised that there should be a demand for Government farms in Essex, and I shall be more surprised if, when the Royal Commission comes to report, it is found that they recommend anything of the kind. Then Mr. Pringle goes on to say—
    "It is a much more difficult thing to say what steps would be taken to remove the present depression."
    Well, I think everybody will concede that. Then he says—
    "I have endeavoured to lay before the Commissioners in the Body and Appendix of this Report the case of the Essex agricultural ratepayer,"
    and he expresses the hope—
    "that they may be convinced of the injustice of the burdens now resting upon a class of land which was cheaper 20 years ago at 40s. per acre than it now is at 10s."
    Why, this Commission was appointed in order that they might consider this very matter, and we are waiting, and anxiously waiting, to hear what are their views upon it. Then I see that Mr. Pringle says—
    824
    "These appear to me to be the two most serious features of the present position, and I cannot help thinking that if Essex men had only looked ahead 10 or 15 years ago neither would have arisen. They stuck to the very system of farming and persisted in growing the very crops which gave every indication of giving way before the weight of foreign competition, and in so doing they courted and invited their own ruin. This fatal attachment has not yet died out, but that I attribute more to ignorance of any other system than blind prejudice in favour of the dog that bit them. If, then, there be some new system calculated to work well in Essex, what is it, and how might it be introduced into this country? So far as I can see, and so far as I did hear, the three-horse cloys cannot be cultivated to profit with wheat below 45s. per quarter. Grow as small an area of unprofitable crop as possible. Reduce the acreage under the plough, and till what land must be tilled in the best possible manner. Let stock, whether it be cows, cattle, sheep, horses, pigs, or poultry, become the sheet-anchor, and fix attention more than ever upon grass farming in so far as it relates to temporary pastures."
    The hon. Member has enumerated eight remedies which he calls upon the Government to carry out, and I will endeavour to deal with them in the order in which he mentioned them. First of all he made a recommendation with reference to the Corn Duty in London. I am not very familiar with that subject, but I am sure the Commissioners will investigate it, and see what can be done. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman has not made out a good case in that respect. The second point of the hon. Gentleman is that the Government should establish model farms in Essex. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any encouragement in regard to that. I think it would be an extremely dangerous and inappropriate thing for the Government to undertake to teach farming to the farmers of Essex. No Government Department could undertake to do it. Besides, I think that the landowners know their own business, and the result of their experiments is available for everybody. Then, I see, Mr. Pringle says—
    "If I am right in these recommendations, it is certain that Essex-born farmers stand in need of instruction, for it means a complete overturn of their native custom and ideas. In my Report I referred to the field open to the Board of Agriculture for the establishment of experimental farms, where the treatment of grass lands might be demonstrated and taught. I have, however, lately been supplied with particulars respecting the sum placed at the disposal of the County Council for purposes of technical education, and have had the opportunity of reading the Reports on the subject.

    825
    Essex County Council have over £16,000 a year to devote to technical education, and even the half of such a sum would, if wisely devoted to demonstration and experiment, be sufficient not only to thoroughly test the best grasses and management of pastures for the prevailing soils of Essex, but also to conduct lectures and give practical instruction in the manufacture of butter and cheese."
    He follows that with the observation that—
    "The Reports received last year from rural stations in Essex are unfavourable to the continuance of agricultural instruction by lectures alone. Few of the farmers attended, and such as did attend were not favourably impressed. This is merely a repetition of what has taken place in other counties. Agricultural instruction must be accompanied by demonstration, or it falls flat and finds no friends."
    I am afraid that in this case the hon. Gentleman cannot expect to receive very much encouragement of his suggestion that the Government should set up model farms in Essex. Then the hon. Member went to the subject of tithe. He said it was a thing that could be dealt with tomorrow to reduce the tithe by one-half. The hon. Member evidently has a high opinion of the powers of the Government. I do not think he was in the last Parliament, or he would not have thought that the Government could reduce the tithe by one-half to-morrow. If the hon. Member had had the experience hon. Gentlemen opposite had of dealing with the tithe question, he would realise that that question could not be dealt with in a day. The hon. Member objected to the Tithe Commutation Act. How many to-morrows would it take to alter that Act? I have never heard that tithe was regarded as other than a hereditary burden. So far as I know, it had been on the land since the days of Melchisedec. Does the hon. Member really believe that if he succeeded in placing right hon. Gentlemen opposite in power, the tithe question could be settled to-morrow? I shall be very glad to hear the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford on that subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell the hon. Member what the successors of the Government are going to do in that matter. Then the hon. Member raised the question of the corn average. There was a Committee sat some time ago upon this point, but I have not a very accurate recollection of the result of that Committee, though as far as I can recollect it was very neutral. If any advantage was
    826
    to be obtained by a fair system of com averages, I see no objection, and I have no doubt the Commission will consider what can be done on that subject. One of the complaints recorded in Mr. Pringle's Report is the complaint of farmers that they suffer considerably because sporting rights are leased to gentlemen who have no real interest in the affairs of the farmers of the locality, and the suggestion was made that in future when a landlord desired to part with his sporting rights the option of acquiring them should, in the first place, be given to the tenantry. The Report also says that the tenant-farmers, as a rule, preserve rabbits for their own sport and benefit. It strikes me as a remarkable thing that a distressed and ruined people should preserve rabbits for their own sport, for I never yet heard that the preservation of rabbits was beneficial to the cultivation of the soil. At all events, if the Government were to set up a model farm hon. Gentlemen may be sure they would not preserve rabbits upon it by way of improving agriculture. The hon. Member suggested that the Land Tax should be diverted and applied to the purposes of local taxation. I would point out to the hon. Member that if a policy of that kind was to be adopted it must be adopted as a general policy applicable to the whole country. When the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, dealt with the subject of local taxation he might, had he thought fit, have diverted the Laud Tax to the purposes of local taxation; but for reasons which he believed were sufficient and proper the right hon. Member did not think that that was the proper course to adopt to relieve local taxation, and he granted relief from the general taxation of the country, from the Probate Duty and other sources. Then the hon. Member referred to the question of rates. That is undoubtedly a very great question, but it is one that cannot be settled on the Report of a Sub-Commission, however able. The hon. Member can hardly expect the Government to review the whole subject of rates and to attempt to equalise them on such a ground as that. The subject is not one that can be dealt with satisfactorily in a moment. In my opinion, this Report hardly constitutes a sufficient foundation for a Motion for the adjournment of the House. A Motion

    827
    of the kind might be made every evening if the House were to encourage such a practice as this, for there are other distressed trades in the country besides agriculture, trades that have suffered almost to annihilation. It is surely a novelty to propose a Motion for Adjournment for the purpose of calling upon the Government to adopt the views and accept the recommendations of an individual Sub-Commissioner. I fully sympathise with the anxiety felt by hon. Gentlemen connected with Essex, for the distress in that county is a matter of deepest regret to the Government and to everybody. A Commission has been appointed to inquire into the subject of agricultural depression, and the Government await with anxiety and hope the Commissioners' Report as to the measures which, in their opinion, may in any degree tend to alleviate the distress. The Government, however, cannot anticipate that Report, and any attempt to do so would, I submit, be premature.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, he would like to say a few words in support of the contentions of his two hon. Friends. He would confine himself to a few words only, because he had not forgotten that some weeks ago, with the indulgence of the House, he was permitted to move the adjournment on the question of the depression of agriculture generally, and conceived he had not now any right to occupy the time of the Government or to stand in the way of other hon. Gentlemen who desired to speak on this subject. His desire was to make some remarks on the conciliatory and sympathetic speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for which those who were concerned with Essex were very grateful. The right hon. Gentleman fell foul of his hon. Friend upon the question of the appointment of the Commissioner. His hon. Friend naturally supposed that the Commissioner was appointed by the Government. As a fact, the Commissioner was appointed by the Commission, but the Commission was appointed by the Government, and it seemed to him to be a distinction without a difference to say that the Government had nothing to do with the appointment of Mr. Pringle. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested that they ought to wait for the Report of the Commission. Quite so, but then the Commission would not report until the end of
    828
    this year, and the needs of the agriculturists of Essex were imminent. They had waited a considerable time already, and did not want to wait any longer. That, he thought, would be agreed upon by anybody who had read Mr. Hunter Pringle's Report. With regard to the suggestion as to the price of wheat, he was not a Protectionist, and he did not say that wheat could possibly be got up to a price 45 per cent, higher than at present, the prices now paid being 22s., 21s., and even 19s. 6d. a quarter; but he might point out that low as was the price the agricultural labourer got very little change out of it, because he was now paying 4½d. for his loaf when, according to the price of wheat, he ought to be paying only 2d. for it. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, taking another part of the Report, said they ought to lay down Essex land under pasture. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must know that you could not gather grapes from thorns nor figs from thistles; and Essex land, if laid down in pasture, would not carry stock or sheep for more than two months in the year. With his wide agricultural experience the Chancellor of the Exchequer must know also that if land in Essex was laid down in pasture it only employed a third of the agricultural labourers that it would if it were arable land—[Cries of "One-fourth."] Next the Chancellor of the Exchequer advised them to cut losses and take up profits.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: No, that is contained in the Report of Mr. Pringle. I do not say that I adopt it.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, he understood that at all events the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in favour of the suggestion.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not say so.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, that at all events if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would teach the farmers in Essex how to cut losses and take up profits they would be deeply grateful to him. Although he admitted that it might be almost impossible to cut down tithe by a half as his hon. Friend had suggested, yet the Government might practically achieve that object if they would only agree to lend money to tithe-owners at 2½ per cent, only, so that the capital sum might be paid off. The Chancellor of the Exche-

    829
    quer took exception to their raising the question of Essex at all, and said that everybody who had a grievance might equally as well move the adjournment of the House. In answer to that objection, he would point out that the welfare or the starvation and ruin of a million of people was a large order; and he thought that, under the circumstances, they had some reason for taking the action they had that day. He should not have ventured to intrude in this Debate were it not for the fact that he lived in the very midst of what was called the congested district of Essex, and could absolutely endorse every word which his hon. Friends had said, as well as of Mr. Pringle's Report. The abomination of desolation pictured by his hon. Friend was true in every particular. Gates were falling off their hinges, hedges were straggling into the middle of the roads, and an aged caretaker was looking after a farm of 400 acres which not a dozen years ago employed a considerable number of agricultural labourers. Members who desired to obtain information on the subject could not do better than read an article which appeared in The Times on the 19th of May called A Derelict Farm, and also an article which appeared on Saturday, entitled Unfortunate Essex. The cause of depression was the fact that the selling value of the article produced did not reach the cost of production, and the effect was that something like 200,000 acres of land were already derelict and out of cultivation. Landlords were being driven out of the country, farmers had lost the whole of their capital, and agricultural labourers were, in the month of June, when work ought to be plentiful for everybody, absolutely applying for outdoor relief. He could not help thinking that if the conditions of the country were the same as they were 60 years ago there would almost be reason to expect repetitions of the rick burnings which then took place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), speaking a few weeks ago, said the agricultural Members were not homogeneous; that they were always asking for something, but did not know what they wanted. The right hon. Gentleman was hardly the man to throw stones at them, because the Party behind him was not on every occasion absolutely homogeneous. Certain false impressions appeared to have
    830
    prevailed in the House with reference to the unfortunate condition of agriculture in Essex. During the Debates on the Budget Bill two or three hon. Gentlemen had alluded to the Essex land as having gone out of tillage. His hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) was one of them. His hon. Friend knew a great deal, but he did not know absolutely everything. He was an expert on the rule of the road at sea, but he did not know much about agriculture. It used to be said of the late Master of Trinity (Dr. Whewell) that science was his forte and omniscience his foible. He (Major Rasch) hoped he might without offence say much the same about his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend did not believe the land in Essex was worth nothing. If his hon. Friend went down to Essex and bought land there he would find it would cost him £10 an acre to clean it. When he got tired of it, and gave instructions to somebody at Token-house Yard to sell it, he would only get from £3 10s. to £5 an acre, and, inasmuch as he would have spent £10 an acre upon it, it might be said that that land was practically worth £5 less than nothing. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) had expressed the belief that land in Essex had gone out of cultivation owing to the incidence of the tithe. That was not the case. Land had gone out of cultivation simply because it cost 40s. a quarter to grow wheat, and farmers could only get 24s. or 25s. for it when it was grown. When Mr. Pringle's Report came out he (Major Rasch) was discussing it with an hon. Friend who represented a rich agricultural constituency in the centre of Ireland, and his friend said, "The reason why your laud goes out of cultivation is that your farmers have to pay so much rent." Rent absolutely did not enter into the question at all. Rent was the very last thing a man asked about when he wanted to let land, or thought about when he had an idea of taking land. Within a few hundred yards of his house there was a farm of 400 acres which was now let at a rent of 5s. an acre tithe free. The landlord had to pay a tithe of 6s. an acre, so that he really had to pay his tenant is an acre for the pleasure of allowing him to run some sheep over the land once a year. With reference to the remedies for the present state

    831
    of things, a good deal was said about the incidence of local taxation, and he believed his hon. Friend was right in stating that the local burdens upon land in Essex were something like 9s. 2d. an acre. The Secretary for India (Mr. Fowler) the other night endeavoured to prove that the farmer was much better off now with reference to local taxation than was either the urban dweller or the farmer 10 years ago. Theoretically, the right hon. Gentleman might have been right, but practically he was wrong, because it had been shown that the farmer paid local taxation amounting to 10 per cent, on his income, whereas the dweller in town paid only 5 per cent. He believed there was something in the idea of constructing light railways. Of course, it would be rather expensive to carry out this proposal, but desperate cases required desperate remedies, and he thought that the Government might well take the question into consideration. Mr. Albert Pell, speaking the other day, said he could not conceive why there should not be equalisation of rates in the counties. If such a suggestion could be carried out, the result would be a reduction of rates in poor counties, while rich counties would bear some of the burdens which now pressed upon the shoulders of those who were quite unable to bear them. There was an opinion prevalent in the minds of Essex men that the Government should suspend the Land Tax in Essex for 10 years. He did not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take this proposal into his favourable consideration, but he thought it his duty to mention it as one of the proposals which the broken-down and long-suffering farmers of Essex were in the habit of making. It showed that there was something very rotten in the State, and our political economy could not be worth very much if a tract of land 2,000 acres in extent was to be allowed to become derelict whilst farmers were being ruined, and agricultural labourers were starving within 20 miles of the Palace of Westminster.
    MR. DODDsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remarked with very good reason that this was a most inconvenient mode of raising the question of agricultural depression, and the apology of the Essex Members must be that they had no other time at
    832
    which to raise it, inasmuch as the whole of the time of the House had been taken by the Government. As an Essex man, it was impossible for him to remain silent when he knew that Mr. Pringle's Report of the state of affairs in Essex was not exaggerated, but was even in some respects toned down. As Mr. Pringle stated, a large number of tenant farmers were absolutely ruined, inasmuch as their business had become unprofitable. Mr. Pringle stated that the opinions of the Ongar farmers were embodied in a resolution, unanimously agreed to, to the effect that the laws which were passed for Ireland, and which were beneficial to the Irish farmers, should be immediately extended to the whole of Great Britain, whilst the Chelmsford agriculturists were in favour of the establishment of Land Courts and valuers. When the farmers of Essex passed resolutions of this kind it was very strong evidence that they were at their wits' end and scarcely knew where to turn. It was, however, hardly to be wondered at that nothing substantial had been done for the farmers when Members opposite, and some Members even on the Ministerial side of the House, were prepared to spend millions on making a railway to Uganda. If the country had so many millions to dispose of, he thought that some of them might be very well spent in our own country for the benefit of our own people. Mr. Pringle, in his Report, referred to a suggestion which had been made that each county should have its own market in London, and that an arrangement should be made under which the produce from each county should go by one particular train to the county market. He thought that if the Commission now sitting were to receive evidence on the subject of markets as well as of railway communications it might be able to formulate some system which would be of some use to the agricultural counties. If the produce from a particular county could be sent in large loads instead of being broken up as it was now into small portions it could be carried as cheaply as the produce which came from foreign countries was carried. With reference to the burdens on land, there was but one opinion in Essex, whatever might be the politics of the farmers—namely, that burdens upon the land were greater than Essex could possibly bear.

    833
    He was of opinion that some share of the common loss must be borne by the parochial clergy of Essex. If the amount now payable to the clergy had been rent instead of tithe there was no doubt that long ago the clergy would have cut it down. He did not think that, under the present conditions, they would be able to cut it down themselves, because individual clergymen did not like to grant remissions for fear of making it difficult for their brother clergymen in the neighbourhood to obtain their tithes. Under these circumstances, he thought that Parliament ought to cut down the tithes for them. He regretted the length of time the Committee had occupied in getting together these facts. He would only say he hoped the result of its labours would show that the time had been well spent; that their recommendations would be drastic and useful; that they might be the foundation of a cheaper system of carrying agricultural produce to market; that they might do something towards the promotion of more satisfactory markets, and that they might lead to the cutting down, to some extent, of the burdens upon land, more especially the burden of tithe. As to the Land Tax, he must say he was very much at one with what had been said on the other side of the House. All Members representing agricultural constituencies—though those constituencies might not all be in the same distressed condition as those of Essex—would agree that the Commission would have done good work if it was able in any way to relieve the present depression in agriculture. In asking the Government to assist them in this matter they were only asking them to do what other Governments had done for the agricultural industry. He found in a Report of great value—"Commercial, No. 3"—published in 1894 from our Representatives abroad, statements as to the organisation of departments of agriculture in foreign countries. They saw from this Report that the Belgian Government had been finding money to assist in the construction of light railways, so that the transport might be more ready and cheaper. With the object of facilitating the circulating of agricultural produce the Belgian Government was continually making efforts to obtain reductions in the price of transport, and during the past 12 years, through the
    834
    goodwill of the Railway Companies, most important results had been obtained. There had been a diminution of from 30 to 50 per cent, in the cost of transport of all produce. In England, however, during this period not only had there been no decrease in the cost of transport of agricultural produce, but in many oases there had been an actual increase. Turning to France, he found that not only was the Government assisting in the construction of light railways, but in the case of the existing railways it was making efforts to bring about a reduction in the cost of transport. Notwithstanding the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Essex would be grateful to those hon. Gentlemen who—a little out of season he admitted—had directed the attention of the House to the serious condition of things prevailing in that county.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he ventured to intrude for a few moments, because, although not a Representative of Essex, it fell to his lot some year and a-half ago to preside over the largest assemblage of agriculturists—at which Essex was very fully represented—which had ever been held in the country. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Mr. Pringle's recommendations would, if accepted, practically do very little for the County of Essex. A model farm conducted by a Government official he should regard as a very undesirable experiment. It would be bound to fail. As to the other suggestion—the abolition of the Land Tax and the question of rates and tithes—speaking broadly, though tithe was an important matter deserving the attention of the Government, as regarded the other points his own opinion had always been that the subject of local taxation was a mere flea-bite to the great agricultural question, and that subventions in aid of local rates would lead but a very short way towards a solution of the difficulty. He desired to draw the attention of the House to the Resolution passed at the Conference of agriculturists to which he had referred and at which Mr. Gray, then Member for Essex, was present. The resolution set forth—
    "That the unfair competition of untaxed foreign imports with home produce and manufactures, which are subjected to heavy internal taxation, is an anomaly and an injustice, and by

    835
    causing a diminution of the demand for home labour and the contraction of the purchasing power of the community adversely affects every trade and industry in the country, and this Conference is further of opinion that all competing imports should pay a duty not less than the rates and taxes levied on home productions."
    That resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority of the largest agriculturist gathering that had ever been held in the Kingdom. Reference had been made to the Royal Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had asked them to wait until the Royal Commission had reported. But he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that Commission did not contain a single individual representing the opinions embodied in the resolution which he had just read, or, at any rate, who was prepared to carry that resolution to its logical conclusion by the imposition on competing imports of an adequate duty which would enable home products to hold their own. Many of his own personal friends for whom he had the greatest regard were members of that Commission, but from the first he had questioned the wisdom of the appointment of that body. The original proposal of the Government was to appoint a Committee of the House. He had himself put down on the Paper a Motion objecting to that step and had declined to remove it under any condition whatsoever. He said at the time that this Select Committee was asked for that this House was perhaps the worst body on the face of the earth to enter into an inquiry of that kind, because very few members of it had much practical knowledge of agriculture, and of those who had the great bulk were afraid to state their opinions. That was the ground on which he opposed the appointment of the Select Committee, and he was bound to say that while the Royal Commission did not come under the condemnation which he presumed to pass upon the never-to-be-appointed Committee, he did complain that the Government had carefully excluded every single Member who could be suspected of having any sympathy whatever with the one true remedy which everybody, in the privacy of his own conscience, knew perfectly well was the only practical remedy to employ. Mr. Pringle said at the very-outset of his Report, in the words quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that unless some steps could be taken to bring
    836
    wheat up to a figure of not less than 45s. per quarter, it could not, with profit, be cultivated in the County of Essex. If the Government appointed a Commission from which they excluded everybody who was prepared to adopt any practical step in that direction he thought they were entitled to look with great suspicion at its Report whenever it made one. The question as it affected the County of Essex, near as it was to the Metropolis, was one of great concern for the nation at large. The effect of throwing large areas of land out of cultivation tended to throw large numbers of the rural population into the Metropolis, and into, all large centres of population in this country. It increased the struggle for existence in these centres of population; in its turn it had an effect upon all the manufacturing industries of the country, causing a diminution of the demand for manufactured articles, and in that respect it was not merely a question affecting the County of Essex, although the condition of affairs which had been revealed to them to-day in regard to that county was deplorable in the extreme. He might be told, perhaps, that the Government could not be expected to-morrow, as his hon. and gallant Friend suggested, to go in for any practical remedy in the direction he had suggested. He must, however, remind the House that it was not a question of to-morrow but to-day. They had upon the list of Orders for this day's deliberations an opportunity afforded to Her Majesty's Government of dealing practically with this subject. The Finance Bill would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, as the result of what he had heard this afternoon, that the Government were prepared to introduce into that Bill, or at any rate to listen with care and attention to any suggestions which might be made in the course of the discussion regarding any proposal for at one and the same time relieving the agricultural community of Essex and other counties of the burdens that were imposed upon them, and on the other hand placing in the Finance Bill some provisions which might enable a profitable return to be yielded to agriculture in this county by making persons outside these realms contribute in a legitimate way towards the financial exigencies of the State. He hoped the Government would not allow this discus-

    837
    sion to close without some assurance being given them that they would seriously consider this very great question. To tell them, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, that the mind of the country was made up, and that none of the remedies which he (Mr. Lowther) had suggested were capable of adoption was, he ventured to say, entirely untrue. He hoped, therefore, some assurance would be given that this serious question would be considered, because the House might rely upon it that all this tinkering with rates and all these petty devices would have no practical effect at all, and unless they were prepared to face the question in all its bearings it would be almost as well to leave it alone.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENthought the Essex Members would be of opinion they had received cold comfort indeed from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although he dared say they did not expect much else. He only wished to make one observation. He was glad to note the expression the Chancellor of the Exchequer used with regard to tithes—that they were hereditary burdens, and that for generations past land had been bought and sold subject to the imposition of tithes. He thought that admission might be of subsequent use to them. The Essex Members who had spoken on this subject had advocated the views of their constituents with very great ability, but they very curiously, though unintentionally, omitted to bring before the House and the Government one of the points upon which the Essex farmers were represented by Mr. Pringle to be absolutely unanimous. Mr. Pringle said—
    "On one point, however, they were unanimous—namely, that the free importation of corn and meat was one of the chief causes of depression. To free trade they traced their present unfortunate position."
    Of course, by free trade they did not mean what was now called Free Trade, the false system under which they were at present. It seemed to him that the agriculturists were pretty well used to rough treatment at the hands, he regretted to say, of both political Parties, and one reason for his rising was to suggest that the time had come when there should be an end of that system which he could call no other than a system of
    838
    hypocrisy practised by Members of both political Parties up and down the country, and that was the almost constant assertion by men on both sides on political platforms and at meetings, that they regarded agriculture as the greatest industry in this country and one upon which the welfare of the country depended. If these statements were true, why was it that year after year was allowed to pass by and Budget after Budget brought forward without anything being done to give real relief to the agricultural interests? He must call attention to the unreality of the Debate. They were discussing now the depression which existed in one of the great departments of industry. They knew the depression existed; they knew the remedy; but they ignored the remedy and wasted their time discussing a number of little remedies, all of which, as the right hon. Member for Thanet had said, were as a mere flea-bite to the question, and if every one of these remedies was granted it would hardly touch the fringe of the agricultural depression. How did both political Parties stand with regard to this question of agriculture? He asserted last week that the Party opposite could no longer profess to be friends of the agricultural interest, because they were promoting a Budget the result of which must be to inflict great injury upon that interest. How did the Conservative Party stand? They had recently been told by the Leader of the Conservative Party (Lord Salisbury) that although he knew that agriculture was ruined by unrestricted foreign competition, yet that the only remedy which could really be of avail—that was, an alteration of their fiscal system—could not and must not be undertaken. That view might be right; but if so, he contended that those only could be held to be sincere who, when they professed to regard agriculture as the greatest of their industries, were prepared to adopt the only policy which could save it. He felt that this Debate had already lasted long enough on an occasion such as this. He wished to say, in conclusion, that if any statesman—he did not care from which Party—would make this question his own, and have the courage to advocate opinions now widely held, though seldom expressed,

    839
    and go in for an entire alteration and amendment of their fiscal system, he believed he would rally around him an amount of support that would surprise hon. Members, and he believed then there might be some prospect of a return to this country of that commercial and agricultural prosperity which she once enjoyed.
    *MR. ROUNDthanked the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) for coming to the assistance of the Essex Members, but he hoped the House would not be of opinion that the Debate had lasted long enough already, and that opportunity would be given to those interested in the district referred to address the House. He much regretted the absence of two former Members of this House, the late Member for Norfolk (Mr. Clare Sewell Read), and Mr. Gray, the late Member for the Maldon Division, both of whom were practical agriculturists, with full knowledge of the present difficulties of the land. He thanked the Mover and Seconder for the speeches they had made. No one could be in a more fitting position to speak for the agricultural interests than his hon. and gallant Friend who had introduced this Motion and who represented the borough of Colchester, because Colchester was the centre of a large agricultural district, and contained something like 10,000 acres of arable land, some portion of which had in late years actually gone out of cultivation. The Seconder of the Motion represented the centre of the district chiefly referred to in the Report of Mr. Pringle, and no one had done more than he to endeavour to direct the attention of the House to the calamitous state of the agriculturists in that district. He (Mr. Round) in former days used to represent that very district, but at that time all was satisfactory. It was then what might be described as a smiling land, and when landlord and tenant were in very different positions from what they were at the present day. They not only wished to direct the attention of the House to what was patent to everybody, now that it was represented so well in the able Report of Mr. Pringle, but what they were really afraid of was that the whole of the heavy land wheat-growing districts of Essex might before long be placed in the same
    840
    calamitous position. Already something like 30,000 acres had gone out of cultivation, and it would be a great calamity not only to Essex, but to the country generally, if the wheat-growing districts were to cease being cultivated. Having represented the County of Essex for a great many years, he was very familiar with its northern, eastern, and central portions, and he asserted that it was almost impossible to depict in appropriate terms the state of things which had been going on ever since 1879 in the wheat-growing heavy land districts of the county. It was a very serious thing to see occupier after occupier of these farms, men who were once men of capital, who possessed ability and practical knowledge, failing one after another, and losing every penny they possessed in the world. It was also a very sad thing to see the agricultural labourer turned out of his house and home because neither the landlord nor the farmer was able any longer to find money to employ him. He knew a parish of Essex where there were 60 cottages which were absolutely untenanted. If they could devise the means of bringing about a better state of things it would not only be the duty but he was sure it would be the pleasure of the House to do so. He thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the tone of his speech, but what the right hon. Gentleman had said would, of course, give them very little satisfaction. They on that side of the House felt that it was very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman who represented the great industry of agriculture in that House was in a subordinate position and was not a Cabinet Minister. They all felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to help in this matter; he was acquainted with North Essex, which he himself represented; but the right hon. Gentleman could hardly do justice to the present state of things so long as he was outside the Cabinet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer rather sneered at what his hon. Friend the Member for Colchester said about model farms, and he asked why did not the landlords themselves set up a model farm? He ventured to say that the landlords of Essex had done all in their power to cultivate the land which had been thrown upon their hands to the extent of many thousands of acres

    841
    since their tenants left them, and their object had been, as long as they possibly could, to employ the labourers in these parishes and not to turn them adrift before they were absolutely obliged to do so. But the landlords in Essex had not the resources now from the land which would enable them to live in any sort of tolerable position. With regard to model farms, if the Government could set up one experimental farm with the object of showing what grasses could be best laid down on the derelict farms to which Mr. Pringle referred they would confer a great benefit on the agricultural community. Their difficulty had been that Essex was not adapted for growing grass. At the present time they could not grow wheat, the cost of production being found to be too great, and when they had sown grass they had found the result equally unsuccessful and unprofitable. With reference to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said as to rabbits, no doubt rabbits had increased in some places since the depression in agriculture had set in. He believed that was partly owing to the seasons and partly owing to the great number of acres that had been thrown upon the landlords' hands. With regard to remedies, what the said was this: that much of this land might have been kept in cultivation if it had not to bear the excessive burdens which had been thrown upon it by Imperial and local taxation. He thought they might fairly ask for facilities for the redemption of tithes. Of course, the landlords knew they had bought or inherited the land subject to the tithe, and that they must pay tithe so long as land was in cultivation; but it was rather hard that those landlords who could not farm their farms at a profit should have to hand them over to the tithe owner, and if facilities were granted for the redemption of tithes that might be a considerable alleviation. Again, he thought that in these depressed districts they might fairly ask that the Land Tax should be remitted, and the Land Tax generally should be given up towards the alleviation of local rates. They on that side of the House had no objection to the division of rates between owner and occupier so long as the owner was properly represented in the expenditure of such rates. Whenever they had endeavoured to fight the battle of their constituents in the agricultural dis-
    842
    tricts they had been met with little favour and great opposition by the present Government. He had always considered it a great grievance in agricultural districts that those who used the roads should not pay for them, and when the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, endeavoured to bring about legislation which would throw the onus of keeping the roads upon those who used them, or, at all events, make them pay their fair share of the cost, they were opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and defeated in what was a just and reasonable proposition. That was the one difficulty they had always had in this House. Whenever they had endeavoured to get a fair share of local taxation borne by other' descriptions of property than real property they had been met with great opposition, and often with defeat. Whatever income was made from the land the owners would be ready to pay from it their fair share of local and Imperial taxation; but they objected to the taxation of the land itself, which was only the raw material, with the result that when they had paid tithe and rates and taxes there was no margin left. Under these circumstances, men had been involved in a terrible struggle for existence, which had driven many to the poor-houses, and some even to suicide, and all the time they had been bearing burdens altogether disproportionate to their ability to bear them. He contended, therefore, that no time should be lost in applying a remedy to this condition of things.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H.GARDNER,): I can assure the House that I do not rise for the purpose of making a long speech, nor to deprecate in any way the introduction of this subject by hon. Members who come from Essex; but, at the same time, I would venture to make an appeal to the House whether, after having debated the subject in a very exhaustive and interesting manner for some time, it is not very nearly time that we should proceed to the other business of the evening? I am the last man in the House to minimise the Report of the Sub-Commissioner which has been made to the Royal Commission, because not only in my position as Minister, but also in my capacity as a Member for

    843
    Essex I have watched with great anxiety the state of the depression which has existed in that county not only since the issue of Mr. Pringle's Report, or during the last year, but, I am sorry to say, for some years past. With regard to the Debate that has taken place to-night, I would venture very respectfully to say to the House that we have been discussing not what the Government should do, but what the Commission should report, and though the Debate may be of worth, so far as the general question is concerned, I venture to point out that for us to debate what the Royal Commission appointed by the Government to consider this subject should report—not, I hope, at a very late date—is not the best way to spend our time. I have myself very little to add to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on this question. Remedies have been pointed out by various speakers and by Mr. Pringle, but the meaning of this Motion, if it has any meaning at all, as set forth by the Mover, is that the Government should to-morrow or next day, or at any rate within a short number of weeks, bring forward instant measures of relief to deal with the depression in Essex. What were the remedies suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other hon. Members? Light railways was one. I have considerable sympathy with those who advocate light railways, and I hope the Royal Commission will consider and report upon that matter, but does the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider it is possible to put down light railways within the next week or two, because if it is to be the instant and immediate relief of the agricultural distress that is the meaning of the Motion. The hon. and learned Member for Maldon made the suggestion that each county should have a market of its own in the Metropolis, and that each county should have a line of railway apparently of its own from that county to the market in the Metropolis. There, again, I venture to point out that to suggest that as a remedy for the agricultural depression in Essex is to make a suggestion which it is a little difficult for the Government to undertake, or, at any rate, to accomplish within the limits of the next few weeks. Then my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet suggested what he has on
    844
    many former occasions advocated in this House as the one remedy for agricultural depression—namely, protection; and he laid it down as a grievance against the Government that there was no Member of the Royal Commission inclined to his views on the subject. I have no information on the subject; I have no particular reason to believe there is no such Member on that Commission, but I understood it was perfectly open to the Commission to consider any remedy put before it with a view to alleviating agricultural distress. Hon. Members have spoken on the subject of tithes. I always took a great interest in the subject of tithes, and the opinions I held in the last Parliament I hold in this. But hon. Members who were in the last Parliament will know the difficulties that we had to fight against, not on one side of the House, but on both, on this question, and how impossible it is for the subject of tithe to be taken up in this offhand manner. That is a subject for the Commission to consider, if it thinks it necessary to consider it, in relation to agricultural depression. It is quite obvious to the House that it is a subject it is impossible for the Government to take up at a moment's notice. I venture to think that there has been an initial mistake with regard to Mr. Pringle's Report, and in this I expect the Commission will agree with me. Mr. Pringle's Report is merely evidence placed before the Royal Commission for them to consider. The whole subject is sub judice, and the Royal Commission will undoubtedly hear other evidence. I know myself, at the present moment, a gentleman in Essex, who has some evidence to give on the subject, and who does not entirely concur with the general conclusions in Mr. Pringle's Report; and the Royal Commission, who are appointed as judges to determine this subject, will view Mr. Pringle's Report as portion of the evidence placed before them which it is their duty to consider as a whole, and having so considered, to found upon it the Report which they will, I hope before long, make to the Government. Before I sit down I would like to point out that the Government is not to blame because the Commission have not yet made a Report. It is quite open to the Commission to make an ad interim Report. I have not the slightest doubt

    845
    that when the Report is laid before the Government they will give it that attention and consideration which this most serious subject demands, and I hope they will be in a position to adopt some measure which will be of benefit to the agricultural interest in this country.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I can assure both my hon. and gallant Friend who has moved and the hon. Gentleman who has seconded the Motion for the Adjournment that they have our sympathy in their endeavours to place the position of the County of Essex before the House of Commons. There is no doubt in the world to anyone at all conversant with the present position of the county that the agricultural condition of Essex is critical in the extreme, and what is perhaps even of more importance is this, that it is steadily going from bad to worse at the present moment. Under these circumstances, with which, I am sure, the Leader of the House must be to some extent acquainted, I am not surprised and I was very glad to hear that he had no complaint whatever to make of the Mover of the Adjournment in endeavouring to direct the attention of Parliament to this very important question. There was one note of murmur which I detected in his speech when he observed that it was all very well to talk of the County of Essex, but still, if other hon. Members adopted that course, any other subject might be discussed by private Members in the same way. The right hon. Gentleman must not forget that he has taken, for his own purposes, the whole time at the disposal of Parliament, and it is by this means, and this means alone, that we are able to call any attention whatever to any subject, however important or urgent or pressing it might be. I must also remind the House that the condition of Essex is only a symptom of what is going on at the present time in all parts of the country. I admit that, with regard to large districts in Essex, the character of the soil is worse than it is in many other parts of England, and the difficulties, no doubt, in that district have been more urgently felt than elsewhere. But there remains the fact that, at the present moment, agricultural depression prevails throughout the whole country, and is practically universal, and, in my opinion, we have reached a stage with regard to
    846
    this question when it not only claims, but must demand, the attention of Parliament, and that attention will necessarily, in my judgment, have to be given to it before any further period of time has elapsed. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down appeared to be under the impression that the Mover of the Motion considered that Parliament could give instant measures of relief, such as the provision of light railways, and matters of that kind. But I do not in the least understand that to be the view of my hon. and gallant Friend. What I understood him to say, and what I think he pressed upon the Committee with great force, was that one of Mr. Pringle's recommendations for dealing with the depression was with regard to the making of experiments in Essex by the Board of Agriculture, and although I am prepared to admit the force and weight of all my right hon. Friend has said as to its being necessary for the Commission to make their Report upon the general question, in the first instance, yet I do think that this recommendation of Mr. Pringle's is deserving of the attention of my right hon. Friend, and for this reason: No doubt the character of the soil in Essex is specially suited to the growth of wheat; in fact, those districts to which Mr. Pringle refers grow practically very little else—but, at the present price of wheat, that has become absolutely impossible. And Mr. Pringle being asked to consider this question, and devise some means of cultivation in that county, as a last resource, expressed his opinion that it was possible that something might be done by laying down more land for grass. It is not suitable for grass, it is exceedingly difficult to make grass grow to any advantage, and Mr. Pringle suggested that, under all the circumstances, it would be wise and desirable for the Board of Agriculture—(which, after all, I suppose, was appointed for some purpose of the kind)—to take into its hands the conduct of experiments on this particular point, so that if they proved to be successful other people in Essex might follow their example. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in that suggestion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out with perfect truth that the central cause of the depression in Essex was the incapacity to grow corn at the present time. There he stopped.

    847
    He ought to have gone further, and pointed out that anything else than corn cannot be grown to advantage so far as the researches of our Commission extends, and I do wish on that point to call the attention of the House for one moment to a single paragraph upon that subject. This is what Mr. Pringle says, at page 28 of his Report—
    "On the three-horse lands the difficulty of growing grass and roots has prevented the spread of dairy farming"—(he means exceptionally strong clay)—"and the alteration of system which has accompanied the introduction of cows on many mixed farms cannot, therefore, be related of this peculiar variety of soil. Nature has apparently decided that three-horse land shall be suitable for one style of farming, and that one unfortunately the least suited to the present prices of agricultural produce."
    He points out that these large districts comprising thousands of acres, will not grow anything else, as far as we know at present, except wheat. Something was said with regard to the farmers of Essex upon which I do desire to say a word in their defence. It was said that really they ought to have looked forward to this state of things 15 years ago.
    MR. H. GARDNER: Mr. Pringle says so.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I care not who says so, and I wish to defend them on this point. I think it is equally reasonable to have expected farmers in any part of England to have foreseen 15 years ago the crash which is coming upon them at the present time, especially in the wheat-growing districts. On the Commission, of which I also was a member, 10 years ago, presided over by the Duke of Richmond, two of the most practical agriculturists in England, who were Members of this House, were commissioned to go out to the United States of America, which at that time was our chief competitor in wheat, to examine the whole question and to give indications as clearly as they could as to the course of the prices of wheat in the future. What was their Report? They went into the question most minutely, and they placed it upon record that it was impossible to expect the United States of America would be able to send wheat to this country, at a profit, at less than 40s. or 42s. per quarter, and when these experienced men, with all their knowledge, studying the question on the spot in America, and being desired to consider
    848
    the same thing with regard to other parts of the world, came to this conclusion, it is impossible to blame the farmers of England for not having foreseen this. I will say nothing on the question of model farms, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred, excepting this: that I do not agree that it would be a dangerous expedient for the Board of Agriculture—which would be, I suppose, a Government Department in this case—to make experiments in farming for the benefit of agriculture in this country. It is done in almost every other country in the world, and although I do not think it was necessary in this country at all during the days of our great prosperity, I do not think it ought to be put on one side altogether as a thing beyond the reach or purview of the Government. With regard to the question of tithe, I have this to say: An hon. Member said that the clergy ought to bear some share of loss in that respect. I am under the impression that the clergymen have undergone very great loss already. It appears to me that in these large districts, of which we hear some 30,000 acres have gone out of cultivation altogether, the tithe is also gone to all intents and purposes, and there are no people who are suffering more heavily than the clergy in that respect at the present time. I am afraid that the depression in these districts goes far beyond the question of tithes, and that, even if the tithe were abolished to-morrow, it would not be the means of relieving the agricultural depression. I will not dwell upon the question of rabbits raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer further than to say this, and I merely say it as an indication of the state of things to which I really believe we are going in the near future. It is not 150 years ago since the whole of what is known as the Lincoln Heath, which, I suppose, in its days of prosperity was perhaps more celebrated for the superlative excellence of its farming, was one vast rabbit warren, and it is as certain as I am speaking to the House at the present moment that if prices continue to fall as they are falling now, and if the present condition of agricultural depression continues, not only will all the vast sums of money which have been expended in reclamation of that great district be thrown away, but in all human probability it

    849
    will be destined to go back to the uncultivated state it was in in former days. What we have to consider, in my opinion, is what is the real cause of the depression? On that question I have not the shadow of a doubt that the real cause, the chief cause, of agricultural depression to-day is the great fall which has occurred in agricultural produce of all kinds and descriptions, and the fact which is more important than all, that that fall has been and still is progressive. I am well aware that at this moment there are many subjects deserving the attention of agriculturists, and I am quite prepared to consider them all, and I have no doubt the Commission will do so. But they are none of them the cause of agricultural depression, nor will any alteration with regard to any one of them prove to be anything in the nature of a remedy for agricultural depression. I must say one word with regard to what the hon. Member for Maldon said about Land Courts, because he was very much mistaken. It was not the case at any meeting of farmers in the County of Essex that they were unanimously in favour of the appointment of Laud Courts. He omitted a sentence which he ought to have given, and which followed immediately upon the one he read. The sentence is this—
    "Before consenting to this resolution" (that is, in favour of Land Courts) "several farmers submitted that Arbitration Courts for fixing fair rents should be optional, and not compulsorly, and this opinion was shared by all who were present."
    MR. DODDsaid, the passage the right hon. Gentleman quoted did not follow the passage which he (Mr. Dodd) had read to the House. The resolution he quoted was with reference to a meeting at Ongar, and which was exactly as he had read it, the sentence now quoted by the right hon. Gentleman referring to a meeting at Braintree, which was quite different.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I quite admit the accuracy of the quotation which the hon. Member made. He can put whatever interpretation upon it he pleases, but I think I must be allowed to do the same, and I think this does not show that the farmers in Essex are unanimously in favour of Land Courts. But what I want to call the attention of the House to is this, and I do desire to Impress it most
    850
    earnestly upon the mind of Parliament, and through Parliament on the mind of the country. The position in the County of Essex, which does not differ very materially from other districts in other counties in England, at the present moment is this: vast areas of laud are gone out of cultivation already, more and more land is going out of cultivation every day, and, concurrently with this, employment for the agricultural labourers is daily and continually disappearing, and, as a matter of course, agricultural labourers are continually being driven into the towns. You will read in this Report for yourselves that vast numbers of farmers are bankrupt, landlords are ruined, and the payment of rent has ceased altogether. The depression, as I have already said, is progressive, and is getting worse every day. What is to be the remedy for this state of things? I must admit, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with my right hon. Friend opposite, that until the Royal Commission has reported it is difficult for the Government to do more than a very little. But I cannot say that I regret the Debate which has arisen upon this occasion, because it is most desirable that the extreme gravity of the agricultural situation should be impressed upon the mind of the public whenever the opportunity occurs. I do not think there Las been anything so serious in past times as that which we see to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is fond of talking of the days when Mr. Henley used to tell him that large districts in Oxford-shire and other parts of England were all out of cultivation too. That was true. There was a wave of great passing depression at that time in England, due, I believe, to nothing but the contraction of the currency which had occurred In those days, owing to causes on which I need not enter now. But that was temporary and passed away. The present state of depression, on the other hand, has lasted now at least 15 years, and instead of showing the slightest signs of passing is getting worse from month to month and from year to year, without the slightest prospect at the present moment of anything like amelioration in the future. There is only one cause for this, and there is only one remedy. I repeat to the House of Commons that the cause of this has been the constant fall in the

    851
    prices, and the fact that that fall has been progressive, and unless and until Parliament can make up its mind to do something to arrest this constant and further fall in the future, then it is idle and useless to profess sympathy for agricultural depression. I hope that this Debate will have the effect of calling public attention to the extreme gravity of the situation. It is well that Parliament should have an opportunity of considering it, and I hope the result will be that before many months have passed Parliament will make up its mind to do something in earnest to deal with this question, and to deal with it in the direction upon which my own views are well known—that is, that this general state of things is due to currency causes, and that it is only in dealing with them that real and permanent relief will ever be found.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid, that he thought that Her Majesty's Government were to blame for two things in connection with this matter—first, for the way in which many of their candidates during the last Election led the labourers and farmers to believe that if they were returned they would be able to take measures to en sure prosperity; and, secondly, in the present Budget it was absolutely beyond doubt that, instead of relieving agricultural burdens, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was chastising agriculturists with whips of a heavier material and imposing heavier burdens. Various remedies had been suggested for the present state of depression, but the two principal ideas brought forward were the theory expounded by the right hon. Member for Sleaford, and also the bare fact of Protection. He did not wish—even if he could—to argue the question of Protection now, but one thing they must allow was this: that even if the premisses upon which in old days the argument in favour of Protection were founded were false, the logical deduction drawn from them had been absolutely verified. Those who so argued said that if such measures as were adopted were taken agriculture would be practically ruined. Without pledging himself to their premisses, he said their deductions had been logical and true. He should not have intervened in this Debate, even as a Member for part of the scheduled district,
    852
    unless he had a remedy to propose. His plan was probably full of faults, and he put it forward with all humility. It was that the Government should acquire an estate of 6,000 or 7,000 acres in one of those scheduled districts, which they could now obtain at a ridiculously low price, and form a Crown colony. Englishmen went to far-off countries to colonise, and surely it would be easy to induce them to colonise within a mile of railways and twenty miles of London. He had no doubt that objections could be raised to the experiment he proposed, but if it were attempted it could at least be said that the Government had shown more than sympathy with depressed agriculture, and had done something practical and in the right direction to relieve the present deplorable condition of things.
    MR. H. R. FATQUHARSONrose to continue the Debate.
    MR. H. GARDNERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."
    The House divided:—Ayes 163; Noes 205.—(Division List, No. 86.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  FINANCE BILL.—(No. 190.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 8th June.]
    [TENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 4.
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAYrose to move, in page 3, line 11, after "property," insert "in which case the further Estate Duty shall not be payable." The Amendment was meant to carry out what he believed was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the course of the discussions on the last day the Committee met the question of altering the phraseology of Sub-section 3 altogether came up for consideration; and until the right hon. Gentleman did that there would be no

    853
    difficulty in showing that the Amendment was necessary. The clause as it stood was governed by the initial words of its first sub-section; that was to say, that it only came into effect where property liable to Estate Duty was settled by the will of the deceased, and remained settled by virtue of any disposition. The Amendment applied only to the latter of those causes. The view of the right hon. Gentleman in framing the clause was not doubtful. Put in non-technical words it was this—that if they put on 1 per cent, in respect to a settlement, then the whole of the members of the family, who took one after another under the establishment, were enfranchised of that payment of 1 per cent, in addition to the Estate Duty, which was paid at once. Take the case where a man succeeded under a disposition which was not made by himself; that was to say, where the deceased was a person who had taken under a disposition not made by himself, and where there were other takers that followed him. In that case the property would remain settled by virtue of a disposition. He would not say on which side lay the right in the controversy which had taken place on the last day between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition as to whether an estate, in technical terms, remained settled if the person who took was in a position to dispose of that estate, but he put his Amendment down from the point of view of the way it affected them in Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had used phraseology which was not technical in Scotland. "Settled" had no technical meaning in Scotland. On the other hand, it was language which, if used in a popular sense, one would have no difficulty in applying to conveyancing in Scots law. Suppose property was directed to go under a settlement to various persons—A, B, C, D, in turn—it might be that when C, say, succeeded under that settlement he might be in a position in which by law he was capable of defeating the settlement altogether so far as his successors were concerned. He would be a person "competent to dispose" of such property; nevertheless, he did not do anything in his lifetime to dispose of the property. The property would remain settled and would go under the settlement, and not according to the ordinary Law of Intestacy. Under the
    854
    scheme of the Government a person might be charged the 1 per cent, duty without getting any return for it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, after the word "property," to insert the words "in which case the further Estate Duty shall not be payable."—(Mr. Graham Murray)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not enter into the question of what the meaning of the words "remain settled" might be. It was possible that there might be a person "competent to dispose" who might not dispose, and there might be a remainder over so that the settlement would still continue. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman was the object of the Government, but he would suggest that instead of the some-what technical phraseology proposed the Amendment should take the following form:—
    "During the continuance of any settlement the further Estate Duty shall not be payable more than once."
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, those words would no doubt meet a blot in the section, but they would not meet his point. The words at the beginning of the section were absolute, that was to say, wherever an estate remained settled there must be the 1 per cent, paid on the death of the person competent to dispose. The object of the Amendment was to cover a case in which a person, who, though competent to dispose, did not do so.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that it was the intention of the Government that under all settlements one further Estate Duty should be paid and no more.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the object of his hon. and learned Friend was to prevent an enfranchising fee being paid where nothing was enfranchised. Perhaps, however, it would be well for the Government to take the point into consideration between now and Report, the Committee accepting the Solicitor General's Amendment in the meantime.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, to add at the end of Sub-section (b)
    "and during the: continuance of any settlement further Estate Duty shall not be payable more than once."—(Mr, R. T. Reid.)

    855
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, be objected to the word "further"; it seemed to him that the Estate Duty itself should be levied no more than once.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not wish to debate the matter in a hostile sense seeing that they were all intending the same thing. The clause was rather ambiguous. It said—
    "(b) If Estate Duty has already been paid in respect of such property since the date of the settlement, neither the Estate Duty nor the further Estate Duty shall be again payable in respect thereof."
    The Solicitor General proposed to introduce at the end of the clause these words—
    "During the continuance of any settlement the further Estate Duty shall not be payable more than once."
    Nobody was competent to dispose of property unless he had barred the entail and become possessor in fee. He hoped it would be made clear that so long as steps had not been taken to break the entail or settlement payment would only be once claimed in respect only of Estate Duty or further Estate Duty. When the process of disentail had been gone through the tenant in possession was competent to dispose and a different state of affairs would exist.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the Committee would do well to accept the Amendment according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's. The words proposed would carry out the undertaking given.
    MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, that perhaps when they came to look into this matter the Government would see his point. The Solicitor General's Amendment would prevent the Estate Duty being paid more than once, but his (Mr. Graham Murray's) Amendment would prevent a man paying the further Estate Duty at all if he really got nothing from the settlement.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    *MR. BUTCHERsaid, he wished to move to add a new sub-section, as follows:—
    "(c) If the only life interest in such property arising on the death of the deceased be that of a husband or wife of a deceased, the further Estate Duty shall not be payable."
    856
    The object of the Amendment was to except cases of marriage settlement from payment of the further or 1 per cent. Estate Duty—that was to say, in cases where there was the ordinary settlement first on the husband for life, then on the wife for life, and then on the children. In this case, he thought, only Estate Duty should be paid, and not the further Estate Duty. This he took to be the intention of the Government, judging from the contents of a Parliamentary Paper issued by them and published in The Times of the 21st of April, 1894. The Parliamentary Paper contained the following:—
    "Settled property having paid Estate Duty will be exempt from further payment of that duty during the continuance of the settlement, but in consideration of that exemption will pay an additional Estate Duty of 1 per cent. But that additional duty is not to be paid where the only life interest is that of the deceased's wife or husband."
    According to this, when they paid Estate Duty on the death of the husband they did not pay additional Estate Duty when the only other interest was that of the husband or wife of the deceased. The two main grounds for the Amendment were first that marriage settlements should be treated somewhat more leniently than other forms and settlements. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman had a rooted objection to settlements both as Chancellor of the Exchequer and as a man, but his objection ought hardly to extend to marriage settlements which were really the embodiment of thrift and foresight, their object in the vast majority of cases being to make provision for the children. But he put the Amendment on a wider ground. He asked the Committee to say that property passing on the death of the husband to the wife should not be dealt with in the same way as if it passed to a stranger. He did not base his Amendment on the old legal fiction that husband and wife were one, but he did base it on the ground of the social requirements of life and on grounds of public policy. He maintained that property passing from a husband to a wife should not be treated as if it were property going out of the family altogether. In this matter the example of the Colonies might be quoted as forming a precedent. In New Zealand the wife taking from the husband who died intestate paid no duty at all. In Victoria when a person died

    857
    testate or intestate the widow and children paid only half duty.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, after the word "property," to insert
    "(c) And if the only life interest in such property" arising on the death of the deceased be that of a husband or wife of the deceased, the further Estate Duty shall not be payable."—(Mr. Butcher.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that from the Government Memorandum, he gathered that the mere arrangement whereby a life interest was to be given by a wife to a husband or a husband to a wife was not to be regarded as belonging to that class of settlement by which property was so tied up that it was necessary for extra duty to be paid in respect of it.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the only question was how far the Amendment corresponded to the words used in the Memorandum. He understood the Memorandum to apply to the case in which a wife alone took a life interest.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Or the husband.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Or the husband.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: There being no other intervening life interest.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, as the Amendment appeared to carry out the intentions of the Government as expressed in the Memorandum, he should accept it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to exempt settlements made prior to the passing of the Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought, must have contemplated passing such a proviso as this, judging from something which fell from him the other evening.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, at end, insert—
    "Neither Estate Duty, or further Estate Duty, shall be payable in respect of property comprised in a marriage settlement, and which does not exceed at the date of the settlement in the aggregate in value or amount the sum of £10,000, so long as such property is enjoyed
    858
    under or by virtue of the settlement by the wife, husband, or issue of the settlor."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he had stated a few days ago that where settlements had been made previous to the passing of the Act they should not bear the additional duty. The Government, therefore, accepted the principle of the Amendment, but preferred to deal with it in Clause 17, which referred to all questions of distinction and of disposition previous to the passing of the Act.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, at end, insert—
    "Neither Estate Duty, nor further Estate Duty, shall be payable in respect of property comprised in a marriage settlement and not in the aggregate exceeding at the date of the settlement in value or amount the sum of £10,000, so long as such property is enjoyed under or by virtue of the settlement by the wife, husband, or issue of the marriage."—(Mr. Byrne.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, they had already discussed the subject at great length, and decided upon it. He had pointed out that when a man left his money to his wife and children by will, Probate Duty had to be paid at present, but if the property was settled it did not pay duty. He did not say that these settlements were not very frequently useful, but they were, at all events, opposed to the principle of the Bill, and there was no reason why a fiscal preference of exemption should be given to them.
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he was afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an objection to settlements of any kind.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I have never said so.
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the Committee would see that the Amendment had only a very limited application, applying as it did to settlements not over £10,000. His object was to protect marriage settlements in cases where the

    859
    sum was a moderate one such as he took this to be. A sum of £10,000 was one which would be employed in the ordinary course for the purpose of securing that a man's widow should be provided for, and that the children should be set up in business, &c. In his opinion, it was a very hard thing that they should refuse the protection which this Amendment gave to the persons to whom this amount of money might come.
    *MR. BUTCHERsaid, he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that settlements ought not to be protected under any circumstances whatever. But the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech said that small incomes ought to be exempted fiscally. If there was to be any exemption at all it ought to apply to these small marriage settlements. He did not himself attach any special virtue to the sum of £10,000; but with regard to these small settlements, he would say that, in his opinion, it was more desirable that a man should make a settlement than a will, and he submitted that settlements ought to be encouraged by fiscal exemption. Having regard to the interests of the comparatively poor, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make this exemption.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That is exactly my difficulty. I want to equalise the disposition of property and not to encourage settlements. The Amendment is not consistent with our view of the matter.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, they had hitherto brought their batteries in vain to bear upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this question of settlements, and it was obvious that no impression could be made upon him. He should have thought that the exemption of a marriage settlement would have appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with more force than any other; but, as he had said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive no impression, and he therefore recommended his hon. Friend not to proceed with the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GRANT LAWSONmoved an Amendment the object of which, he said,
    860
    was to secure that settled estates should not pay the extra 1 per cent. for a benefit which the owners did not receive. He said he believed the clause had been introduced with the honest intention of protecting the owners of settled estates to a certain extent and of tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. The desire of the Government was, no doubt, that when owners of settled property had paid 1 per cent. further Estate Duty they should be protected from having to pay duty again in the next generation. It was possible, however, under the clause as it stood, that when property passed in regular succession from father to son the Estate Duty and the further Estate Duty would have to be paid on each generation. In his opinion, family settlements ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged, because regular descent from father to son was distinctly to the benefit of the farmers and the labourers on an estate. Regularity of succession was secured by breaking the succession in every generation and re-entailing. Supposing A, the present holder, were holder for life, with remainder to his son in tail, when the son B came of age or married the entail was cut off, and the land was re-settled on A for life, on B for life, and on a possible grandchild, C, in tail. Under the scheme of the Government, as soon as A died B would have to pay Estate Duty and the Extra Estate Duty. When C came of age or married, exactly the same process would be gone through, and C would have again to pay the Estate Duty and the extra Estate Duty. Thus, instead of any benefit accruing from the section to holders of the property they would from generation to generation have to pay not only the full Estate Duty, but extra Succession Duty.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, at end, to insert—
    "(c) If upon the death of any person Estate Duty shall become payable in respect of any property upon which the further Estate Duty has been paid or become payable by or on behalf of such person, there shall be deducted from such Estate Duty the amount of the further Estate Duty so paid."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the object of the hon. Gentleman seemed to be that where property had been settled, and a further Estate Duty of 1 per cent, had been paid upon it, the 1 per cent, should be repaid or allowed on the next devolution of the property after the settlement had come to an end.
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that was not quite his meaning. His meaning was that it should be returned on the next succession.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he thought he had fairly described the effect of the proposal. The hon. Member thought that there ought to be not merely mitigation of the tax, but absolute restitution of the money that had been paid. He could not suppose the hon. Gentleman expected that this would be acceptable to the Government which had proposed the Bill. It must not be forgotten that there were cases in which the settlement lasted for many years and covered two or three generations of men. The 1 per cent. was in the nature of a compromise, and he (Mr. Reid) could not recognise that any particular class of settlement ought to be treated preferentially as against other classes of settlement provided they were all made in good faith.
    MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,): The system of average and compromise is extremely pleasant to the Government, who in the end will not lose by it, but it appears to me that it will work somewhat hardly in individual cases. I think it very questionable indeed whether the broad principle laid down by the Government—namely, that of averaging cases, is a sound one. I do not think you can fairly introduce an average in taxation which will meet all cases. I quite understand that the Government are anxious to do some rough justice by this proposal, but my hon. Friend has pointed out that in individual cases injustice will be done. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentlemen denied this.
    MR. R. T. REID: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me. I do not think there is any injustice in our proposal. The re-settlement, whether it be laudable or not, is the deliberate act of the parties themselves.
    MR. GOSCHEN: But in such cases the compromise will be of no advantage whatever to the parties. The inherent vice of the clause lies in the general scheme of the Government under which they average certain cases, and, by a composition, attempt to meet all cases. This is the second time in the course of this evening where it has been shown that the compromise has broken down.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he did not know that the Amendment was informed by any principle which could properly be applied to the collection of taxes, but the fact was that the whole of the Bill was devoid of the true tax-collecting principle. If the Bill were passed in its present form he would undertake to say that the confusion that would arise in endeavouring to comprehend it, and in levying the duties, would be inconceivable. He thought that everybody who knew anything of settlements and of the way in which people died out of their turn would share his feeling of absolute horror at the proposal of the Government. He bad never been able to see on what ground the extra 1 per cent, was to be levied at all. To his mind, it was a confession of the impropriety of the original Estate Duty, and a confession that the Government had not been able to cover by the Estate Duty that devolution of property which they wished to tax. He had looked through the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on introducing this plan to the House, and he found no reason assigned for this further Estate Duty except this: that the right hon. Gentleman said the duty was only to be charged once, and, therefore, they charged 1 per cent., and that if they did not do that they would lose duty. He denied altogether that they lost any duty or that settled property passed more often than property not under settlement. He would remind the Committeee that a vast part of unsettled property escaped all Death Duties because it passed inter vivos. When they came to settled property the Government said that came under their ken less often than other property, and therefore they charged an extra 1 per cent. He denied that, and he said that

    863
    they had greater power over settled personalty or realty than they had over the fund of free personalty, and he therefore said that instead of levying 1 per cent, additional they ought to take off 1 per cent. He had never yet heard any valid reason assigned for levying this further Estate Duty, as it was called, but which ought to he called an extra Estate Duty. He thought the Amendment was a little difficult to apply, but he could well understand the desire of his hon. Friend to get rid of this 1 per cent, under some circumstances, and to get it back under others. He only rose, however, to protest against any further Estate Duty altogether.
    SIE R. WEBSTERsaid, he should not follow the hon. Member in the observations he had made on a somewhat curious duty, and his object in rising was to give fair notice to the learned Solicitor General that they would have to raise this point, if not under this Amendment, at some future stage of the Bill. They charged the Estate Duty and then a further Estate Duty, and they assumed the extra 1 per cent, was the price of extra privileges. The Amendment stated—
    "If upon the death of any person Estate Duty shall become payable in respect of any property upon which the further Estate Duty has been paid or become payable by or on behalf of such person,"
    or, in other words, that if the consideration failed or partially failed so that a new Estate Duty arose within the line of succession which it was intended to cover by the extra 1 per cent., in common fairness the Exchequer ought not to keep the extra 1 per cent. He (Sir R. Webster) rose because the learned Solicitor General did not seem to grasp the point. It was not that any favour was being claimed by the Mover of the Amendment, but that he was entitled to have this particular devolution of his property go without any extra payment, without any extra Estate Duty at all. He submitted it was a point that deserved consideration, and he thought it only fair to the Solicitor General to give notice that they could not preclude themselves from raising the point at some further stage, though he thought his hon. and learned Friend might be satisfied without pressing his Amendment further.
    *MR. BUTCHERsaid, there was one thing he should like to ask the Solicitor General, whether it was intended to charge two Estate Duties? There was a very simple case. Supposing property was settled on A for life, after his death to B for life, giving B a general power of appointment, and then to someone else, say the children. On the death of A, the first tenant for life, Estate Duty became payable and further Estate Duty would become payable. This was so under the clause. Then, when the second tenant for life died, according to the section of the clause, they charged a second Estate Duty because he was competent to appoint, having a general power of appointment, though he might never have exercised that power. On his death the property would go to the child; therefore it was plain that under those two lines they saddled the property with Estate Duty, further Estate Duty, and a second Estate Duty. He thought that ought not to be the intention of the Government.
    MR. R. T. REID: It does not.
    MR. BUTCHERventured to think that it did under the Bill as drawn. Under the case he had put, there would be two Estate Duties, and a further Estate Duty payable. As he understood, the further Estate Duty was put on as a sort of concession; instead of charging Estate Duty twice over the Government said—
    "We will charge a further or additional Estate Duty of 1 per cent., which shall cover the entire thing."
    But that worked an opposite result, as he had shown in the case he had given, and he asked the learned Solicitor General to say that was not the intention of the Government, and to give effect to the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He did not for a moment suppose that the Government wished to put settlements in a worse position than other property, and yet that was the result of the clause as now drawn.
    MR. BYRNEhoped the Solicitor General would consider the question with a view to having these or some other similar words introduced into the clause. The further Estate Duty was intended, as he understood it, as a composition instead of a second Estate Duty;

    865
    but if the result of paying the composition was that the persons paying it did not get the benefit they were entitled to, then it seemed only reasonable and just the amount of the composition should be returned.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he should be glad if the Solicitor General would say whether he appreciated the point.
    MR. R. T. REID: I hope so; I have listened with great attention.
    MR. GOSCHENhoped the Solicitor General not only appreciated it, but would say whether he would consider the matter between now and Report.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he had already expressed the opinion which struck him on considering the Amendment. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) told them that unless something was suggested that would meet with general satisfaction between now and Report he (Sir R. Webster) meant to raise the whole question on Report. He (Mr. R. T. Reid) had frankly told the Committee he considered the clause a right clause, but if on consideration between now and Report he came to the conclusion that he was wrong in his opinion well and good, but at present he did not think so.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The question of my hon. Friend was, what does the Government mean to do by the clause?
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the meaning of the Government was that where a property was settled a further Estate Duty of 1 per cent, ought to be paid. He might remind the right hon. Gentleman that what they were asked to do by this Amendment was to make a repayment of this particular 1 per cent. where the advantage had turned in favour of the Exchequer by the act of the parties themselves.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the statement of the Solicitor General was a travesty of their position, and all they asked was that the Government should not levy in a manner that would make the Estate Duty payable twice.
    MR. W. AMBROSEcould not see how in any case the Government could possibly lose.
    866
    The hon. and learned Gentleman said that in some cases it might operate to the advantage of the Government and in others to the advantage of the State, but he (Mr. Ambrose) failed to see how in any ease the Government could lose.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that if a father settled an estate for his own life and then to go to his son, and then to the issue, that was a case where ordinarily there would be an Estate Duty payable on the death of the father and another on the death of the son, but under the settlement only one duty would be payable.
    MR. W. AMBROSEsaid, that under the settlement the Government would get three Estate Duties, but if the property had been given direct to the children of the eldest son there would only have been one Estate Duty.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he could understand the argument of the Solicitor General if an option were given, but no option was given; the Treasury demanded the 1 per cent. and it had to be paid. If it should turn out that the demand of the Treasury was wrong, and that a second Estate Duty was payable, surely it was only common honesty that the extra duty should be remitted. Even then the Treasury would gain an advantage, because they would have had the interest on the 1 per cent, during the time they had it in their possession.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, that the Amendment he had moved earlier gave an option, and he believed that if that had been allowed a great deal of difficulty would have been removed.
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he did not propose to press this Amendment, not because he did not think it was important, but because he did not think that those who had not been present to hear the discussion ought to take part in the Division.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper which he proposed to move in two parts, unless the Solicitor General could assure him that it was dealt with under the Interpretation Clause, Section 18, Sub-section 3.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he thought it was.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, in that case he would not move his Amendment.
    *MK. BUTCHERsaid, he proposed to move, in page 3, line 11, at end, insert—
    "If, upon the death of the deceased, a life or any less interest in such property arises to the wife or husband of the deceased, the payment of the Estate Duty and the further Estate Duty shall (if otherwise payable) be postponed till after the determination of such interest."
    He did not propose by this Amendment to exempt from any duty whatever, and he hoped the Solicitor General would appreciate that fact. What he did propose was simply to postpone the payment of the Estate Duty and the further Estate Duty until after the death of the wife. They had had a small concession made to-night in the direction of recognising the unity of husband and wife, but by this Amendment he wished to go one step further in the recognition of that unity, and to say that when they had a settlement which contained an interest for the husband for his life and then for the wife for life, the Estate Duty should not be payable until after the death of the wife. The reason for that was obvious, that the income of the wife should not be diminished by the payment of duty on the death of her husband, but that the duty should be payable by those who came after her. This, he thought, was a small and reasonable concession, and was really consequent upon the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, after the last Amendment, to insert the words—
    "If, upon the death of the deceased, a life or any less interest in such property arises to the wife or husband of the deceased, the payment of the Estate Duty and the further Estate Duty shall (if otherwise payable) be postponed till after the determination of such interest."—(Mr. Butcher.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, they could not accept the Amendment. It was true that earlier in the evening a concession was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and no doubt stimulated by that the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed this Amendment; but he would point out that whatever form of indul-
    868
    gence should be granted, this was the most undesirable form, because it was not that the money should not be paid, but that the payment should be postponed! until the death of the wife. He could not state it upon his own authority, but he was assured by competent authorities that it would introduce very considerable confusion into the administration. Besides, the Amendment would not give relief to the poor only; the widow of the millionaire would be able to claim the indulgence with an income of £40,000 or £50,000 a year. He was sorry he could not hold out any expectation of accepting the Amendment.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he could not regard his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General as stony or flinty-hearted, and he would really appeal to him to appreciate the position, as he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman could not have remembered what had happened to-night. It was quite plain that the Solicitor General had come down that evening having forgotten all about the Treasury Paper which had been issued, whereby they pledged themselves there should not be a charge during the joint lives of husband and wife. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about indulgence; but it was no question of indulgence—it was a question of simple abstract justice. The only argument of the Solicitor General was an administrative one. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman forgotten what the Secretary of State for India said only a few nights ago, that when there was once a Death Duty payable Somerset House had full knowledge of it? He (Sir R. Webster) said it was common knowledge to those who had to do with the administration, that when once Somerset House got knowledge, as they would in this case as in others, they watched until the death occurred and then wrote to say that the duty, whatever it might be, had become payable. He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would make some further inquiries upon the point.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that undoubtedly this Amendment, if adopted, would somewhat add to the administrative difficulties in the collection of the tax, but it would only add the same general difficulties that already existed

    869
    in the collection of the Succession Duty, and the same kind of machinery that was kept up for the collection of the Succession Duty would be applicable to this new tax. The machinery would mainly consist of warning those concerned that the duties would become payable. He thought it hardly lay in the mouth of the Government to raise the objection of administrative difficulties. This scheme bristled with administrative difficulties, difficulties which would prove to be absolutely insuperable, and which would make the measure so unworkable that after the experience of one year, or at the most two years, any Government that was in power would find it necessary so seriously to alter it as practically to repeal it. Therefore, he said the argument of administrative difficulties was one that should not appal them—first, because they were no greater than the administrative difficulties that existed with regard to the Succession Duties; and, secondly, because they were far inferior to the difficulties of the same kind that had been created by the Government with a light heart. Look at the case of the widow. The Government had scarcely realised what they would do by this finance scheme with regard to the widows. He had appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for figures, but having failed to obtain them he had himself drawn up some tables which had taken him so much time, and which he was so proud of, that he was almost inclined to move for them as a return. These tables showed that, so far from the Bill making a diminution in the charge on small estates and in the charge upon widows and orphans, it would make an enormous addition to that charge. He would not refer to the wicked millionaire or his still more wicked wife, but would take an estate of £300. At present a widow or an orphan inheriting such an estate would pay 30s., whilst under the Bill they would have to pay £3. If a widow came into an estate of £300 under a settlement she would, instead of paying 30s. or £3, have to pay £6, or four times the present amount. Whilst the charge upon the widow would be very considerably increased by the Bill in many cases, the charge upon a stranger would be very considerably diminished. A stranger obtaining a property of £500 would have to pay £60 at present, whilst under the
    870
    Bill he would only have to pay £5. Thus, whilst the amount payable by a widow inheriting a small estate would be doubled or quadrupled, the amount payable by a stranger would be positively reduced. Surely this was not the kind of tax that would reconcile itself to the sense of justice of the people of this country. There were other strange things which this table disclosed, one of them being the point raised by the Amendment of his hon. Friend. The Amendment was one that the Government might well adopt, as it only carried out the principle that was accepted earlier in the evening by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, his hon. Friend who had just sat down (Mr. Gibson Bowles) had raised an extremely important matter, and with the light the hon. Member had thrown upon it the case of the widow would have to be considered very carefully. The fact was, that every day the public outside were becoming aware how many more anomalies and injustices were concealed beneath the complicated and obscure clauses of this extraordinary Bill than they at first imagined. He trusted that his hon. Friend would pursue his studies in this matter, for the Committee had not yet got nearly enough information as to the fiscal results of the Bill. He denied that there were in this Amendment any administrative difficulties that could baffle the Inland Revenue, and particularly the department which dealt with the Death Duties, whose extraordinary omniscience and ingenuity deserved the highest compliment. The figures brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) showed that Amendments in this direction—if not this particular Amendment—ought to be presented to the Committee.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, he wished to add one word with reference to the attitude taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General upon this matter. Their contention was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was now imposing a duty which combined not merely the old Probate Duty, but an increase of the old Succession and Legacy Duties, and that being so, they were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to

    871
    apply the same rules as in the case of Succession and Legacy Duties to the new Estate Duty.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 127.—(Division List, No. 87.)
    MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that at the request of his hon. Friend he desired to move the next Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend (Mr. Byrne)—namely, after the word "property," to insert "notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained." He did not know whether the Solicitor General had quite grasped the case presented by the Amendment, but it was undoubtedly a case of some importance. The Definition Clause, Section 18, Subsection 2, showed that such property, if property of which the deceased was competent to dispose, was liable to Estate Duty; but under Clause 2, Sub-section 2, exactly the same kind of property did not pay such duty. He therefore thought his Amendment was necessary in order to remove the confusion.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 15, after the word "property," to insert the words "notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that anyone could see that the insertion of the words would not add the slightest benefit of a financial character to the clause. The words would be mere surplusage; and the Government could not accept them. Hon. and learned Members opposite who 'moved those Amendments had their own views about the drafting of the Bill; but they should allow the Government, who was responsible for the drafting of the Bill, to hold their own views on the subject.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that this was not a question of drafting at all. If the hon. and learned Member would look at the Bill he would find—as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Thirsk—that two clauses of it were inconsistent; that under one clause certain
    872
    property was excluded, and that under another the same class of property was included. Some correcting words of the kind set forth in the Amendment were really necessary.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he would not say anything as to the point about the drafting; but he would remind the Solicitor General that it often happened that people would in the most perverse manner live beyond their time, and that others would in an equally perverse manner die out of their time. He knew, for instance, of an estate of £100,000 which was left to a person for life, and on his death to go in sums of £1,000 to 99 other persons. The life-tenant lived on for 60 years, and during his life all the 99 persons entitled to £1,000 each died. At whose death was the estate to pass? Was it on the death of the 99th person, or on the death of the life-tenant of the whole? That was a point he would like to have cleared up.
    Question put, and negatived.
    *MR. BUTCHERmoved, in page 3, line 16, at end, to add—
    "Any person paying the duty payable under this section upon property comprised in a settlement, may deduct the amount of the ad valorem Stamp Duty (if any) charged on the settlement."
    That was not a drafting Amendment to which the Solicitor General seemed to have such an objection, for the reason, probably, that they reflected on the gentlemen—whoever they might be—who drafted the Bill. But this was a matter of substance. The object of the Amendment was substantially to put wills and settlements upon the same footing in regard to the payment of duty. Settlements paid an ad valorem Stamp Duty of 5s. per cent.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to add the words—
    "Any person paying the duty payable under this section upon property comprised in a settlement, may deduct the amount of the ad valorem Stamp Duty (if any) charged on the settlement."—(Mr. Butcher.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR W. HARCOURT,interposing, said, he would save the hon. and learned Gentle-

    873
    man from proceeding further by accepting the Amendment. He thought it reasonable to allow the ad valorem Stamp Duty to be deducted, and therefore he was prepared to accept the Amendment if it were verbally altered so as to read "any person paying the further Estate Duty payable," &c.
    MR. BUTCHERsaid, that before he accepted the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman he should like to ascertain what would be the practical effect produced by the insertion of the words "further estate." He understood that in some cases of settlements only one duty was payable; and that in some cases of wills only one duty was payable. In such cases as those he would like to know what was the "further Estate Duty" on which the deduction would be allowed.
    Silt W. HARCOURTsaid, the deduction of the ad valorem Stamp Duty would be made in respect to the 1 per cent, that was paid on settlements.
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, after the word "the," to insert the words "further estate."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. GOSCHENthought that, as wills and settlements were to be placed in future upon the same footing of equality—according to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—property passing under a settlement should not be charged a higher duty than properly passing under a will. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for York with regard to further Estate Duty. But as, under the Bill, even if amended by this Amendment, property passing under a settlement would have to pay not only the Estate Duty which was paid by property which passed by will, but, in addition, the 1 per cent, that was paid on the instrument of settlement, and that being so the taxation of settlement would be actually higher than hitherto, he, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the
    874
    concession from the further Estate Duty to the Estate Duty itself.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was either unjust or unnecessary. If the ad valorem Stamp Duty was less than the further Estate Duty then the Amendment was unnecessary; and if the ad valorem Stamp Duty was more than the further Estate Duty, then there was not that equality between wills and settlements on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had insisted.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he had two objections to raise to the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman had not selected the right time for the deduction—the right time being when the first Estate Duty was paid; and, in the second place, some of the settlements, and those the most meritorious, would not get the allowance at all, while all of them would have to wait a longer time before getting it.
    *SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to understand the point of view from which the Government regarded the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's said the Government did not place settlements on exactly the same footing as dispositions of property that were not settlements. Settlements were treated differently from wills in respect to the charge of 1 per cent.; but that distinctive charge was made because settlements had peculiar advantages. The Government proposed to make the allowance in respect to the ad valorem Stamp Duty on the 1 per cent, duty, but that was no reason why settlements should be relieved of the 1 per cent, duty altogether.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quite caught his point. He had always considered that the quarter per cent, ad valorem Stamp Duty on settlements was a kind of tax which was put on instead of a Death Duty. If that was so, if they put a definite Estate Duty on settlements equal to that imposed on wills, there was no reason why the instrument of settlement should be taxed while a will was not taxed. He believed there

    875
    were many cases in which further Estate Duty would not be paid at all; but in those cases it was not in respect to the hardship of the 1 per cent, charge that he claimed the remission of the ad valorem Stamp Duty, but because as instruments of settlements would in future be taxed in the first instance, that therefore there should be an allowance for the ad valorem Stamp Duty.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that a man who was possessed of au estate might deal with it in two ways—he might make a settlement that would operate at the time of his death; or he might make a will that would operate at the time of his death; and the question was whether they would make a distinction between the fiscal treatment of those two dispositions. In the one case they had au Estate Duty plus an ad valorem Stamp Duty, and in the other case they had simply an Estate Duty. He did not see any reason for that distinction. He did not see why there should be an ad valorem Stamp Duty in the case of settlements when it did not exist in the case of wills.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 123.—(Division List, No. 88.)
    Words, as amended, added.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    *MR. BARTLEYsaid, he desired to move the omission of the clause. It might fairly be asked why this extra duty should be placed on settled property. The subject raised a much larger question than the question of the amount of benefit the Revenue of the country would derive from the proposal; and that question was whether it was good for the community that the House should encourage settled estates. He ventured to say that settlements—such as settlements at marriage and settlements on children—promoted thrift; that they prevented money from being squandered and wasted, by tying it up for excellent purposes; and that, therefore, settlements were good for the community. But what would happen if
    876
    they increased the expenses of settlements? No one could deny that they would thereby reduce the tendency towards careful settlements. He was not going to say that the Laws of Settlements were everything that could be desired. Indeed, there were many details of those laws which it was desirable to amend. But they had to take the Laws of Settlements as they found them, and the fact that they were not perfect was no reason why they should by the Bill discourage the creation of the best forms of settlements, in the shape of marriage settlements, by penalising them. If it were reasonable that they should tax all property with those heavy Death Duties, there was no reason whatever why those settlements should be taxed with this extra 1 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said repeatedly that the tendency of the Bill was to reduce the duty on small estates. As a matter of fact, the clause increased the duty on small estates very heavily. They were taxing small estates under £500 one per cent.; but in the case of a settled estate of £500 the Estate Duty was actually doubled. The clause, in his opinion, ought to operate in the opposite direction, and to encourage people in every legitimate way to make provision for those whom they left behind.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he saw no reason why additional duty should be laid on property because it was settled. On the contrary, as settled property was as it were locked up in the strong box of the settlement, it could not escape the hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it consequently deserved favourable treatment. For instance, £100,000 that was free personalty might be dissipated; the owner might spend it on rum and tobacco, and when it was gone there was no Death Duty to be paid on it. But £100,000 that was put into settlements could not run away, and could not escape the Death Duties. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he confessed, pursued settled property in this ruthless manner because he thought it was the resource of the wealthy and related to landed property in particular, and the right hon. Gentleman was determined to injure the landowner. They had heard

    877
    that afternoon a tale of the sad case of the landowner that might move a heart of stone, and ought to move the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But no—
    "The more the woes the men of Jebus bore, They still were thought God's enemies the more."
    But by far the largest proportion of the settlements that were made were made not of landed property, but of personalty, by comparatively poor people, such as young men at the time of their marriage. Such meritorious and thrifty provisions ought to be encouraged. An estate of £300 coming to a widow now, without settlement, would pay 30s. Under the Bill it would pay £3, and, if settled, £6. No doubt this had not been done purposely, but only foolishly and unreflectively, like so much else in the Bill. A stranger in blood inheriting £500 would, under the present law, pay £60; under the Bill he would pay £5, or, if the estate were settled, £10. A stranger in blood inheriting £1,000 would pay £120 under the present law; under the Bill he would pay only £20, or, if the estate were settled, £30. While the tax was doubled in some instances, or even quadrupled, on the widow, the stranger in blood was let off three-fourths of the tax he now paid. On an estate of £100,000 the extra tax on the widow was 37½ per cent., and on the stranger in blood only 10 per cent. This was an extraordinary state of things for a democratic Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. ROBY): Order, order! The hon. Member is going too far into details. The question is about further Estate Duty, and not in reference to Estate Duty.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Then I will give only one further instance of the further Estate Duty. Take the case of a million—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question is about the further Estate Duty.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I submit, Mr. Roby, that the further Estate Duty—[Cries of "Order, order!"] I really must appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to interrupt—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must request the hon. Member not to proceed further with that argument.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he very much regretted that the Chairman would not permit him to go on with the discussion of the further Estate Duty. This further Estate Duty, like the rest of the duty, seemed to him to regard the stranger with very great favour, and to deal with the widow and orphan with extreme disfavour. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite were they which destroyed widows' houses and for a pretence made long perorations.
    MR. AMBROSEsaid, he failed to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made out any justification for the further Estate Duty imposed by Clause 4. The right hon. Gentleman had indeed gone away from the statements which he had made in introducing the Bill. The clause was supposed to apply to settlements only, but he could find only one set of cases which would be exempt from its operation, so that instead of this being a further duty, payable in particular instances, it would practically amount to an additional 1' per cent, in almost every conceivable case. Apart from the mere question that this was an imposition, and an unfair imposition, there were social questions involved. They knew how much pain and anxiety was caused to families by the unsatisfactory and illegible character of wills, and it was certain that the encouragement of settlements would avoid much of this. If they were to have the duty regulated by the form of the bequest, efforts would be constantly made to evade the duty, and poor people would become involved in constant litigation and expense. It was, in his view, the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise the revenue he required without putting poor people to these temptations and risks. For these reasons he opposed the clause.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, that for the purposes of justice a widow of small means ought to pay less than at present, but under the clause she would have to pay more than a widow of large property. No doubt the object of the clause was to create an absolute equality between personalty and

    879
    realty. But what about the result? In the case of a settlement created before this Bill became law, and passing to lineals, and in which one life had already expired, the amount of the settled property being £100,000 realty and £100,000 personalty, the personalty would have paid first £4,000 and then £2,000, and been cleared for the remainder of the settlement, while the realty would have paid £7,250 in all. And yet this was put forward as equality. If the property passed to a nephew, the personalty would have paid £9,000, while the realty would have paid £12,350—namely, Succession Duty before the Bill, £3,850; and, after the Bill, Estate Duty, £5,500, and Succession Duty, £3,000. He thought it was absolutely impossible that the Government could have contemplated these figures when they framed the Bill, and he wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer were now present, so that he might hear his observations upon them. While acknowledging the courteous way in which the Solicitor General had met all the points raised, he would point out that it was not by legal points, but by individual cases of hardship, that the Bill would be judged by the country at large. The taxation laid on realty under settlement by this clause would amount to half as much again as the taxation on personalty. In this there was grave inequality, which might be unintentional, but which was indefensible, unless you were to set to work to put a retrospective penalty on land. His request was that before this clause was passed the Government would hold out some hope that under Clause 17 the exemption given to personalty which had paid probate would be extended to realty, and that thus the Bill would be made to harmonise with the professions of the Government, submitted to the House when it was brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he should have thought that the Committee was entitled to an answer from the Government at all events upon some of the points that had been raised. He would do justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the extent of saying that his temporary absence from the House was not due to any disrespect to the Committee, because he knew that during the progress of a Bill
    880
    of this kind it was necessary that conferences should be held, and more information obtained upon the various points coming before the Committee. At the same time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take care that he was represented by some one capable of dealing with those points in the Committee, and answering them. The clause had been positively riddled in its financial aspect. What an extraordinary arrangement was this "further Estate Duty," and what an extraordinary name was "further Estate Duty"! They had never heard of "further Income Tax" or "further House Duty." The Government claimed to have attained to simplicity by diminishing the number of Death Duties; but with Estate Duty, Succession Duty, Legacy Duty, and further Estate Duty, there were really four duties left. He hoped the Government would invent another and a better name for the further Estate Duty. It had been shown to be very unequal in its operation, varying from 1 to 50 per cent, of the original. He should like now to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the point urged by the hon. Member for Surrey that in Clause 17 there was an exemption which favoured personalty at the expense of realty. Clause 17 said—
    "Estate Duty shall not be payable on the death of a deceased person in respect of personal property settled, or by a will or disposition made by a person dying before the commencement of this Act, in respect of which Property, Probate, or Account Duty has been paid."
    In the case of realty simply that privilege was not given. Realty had to pay more than personalty under the Bill. This unfair treatment as between the two classes of property was, as had been shown, a flaw in the Bill; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consult with his advisers as to how it might be remedied at a subsequent stage. With regard to the clause before them, he hoped it would be amended at a further stage, but as its omission would put them in the position that the Estate Duty would have to be paid in full instead of the further Estate Duty, he hoped his hon. Friends would not persist in their opposition.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause 5.
    MR. BYRNE MR. BYRNE moved, in page 3, line 20, after "duty," to insert—
    "calculated at the rate and in the manner provided by Section 7, Sub-section (6) hereof."
    The object of the Amendment was to show what the executor had to pay in Estate Duty as calculated on the full estate.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 20, after the word "duty," to insert the words—
    "calculated at the rate and in the manner provided by Section 7, Sub-section (6) hereof."—(Mr. Byrne.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that the wish of the Government was to leave the executor free to pay in the first instance duty approximately to what he believed to be the value of the estate, and as the Amendment would make it compulsory for the executor to pay duty as calculated the Government could not accept it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    *MR. BUTCHER*MR. BUTCHER moved, in page 3, line 21, after "property," leave out to
    "on" in line 22, and insert—
    "which but for the passing of this Act would be liable to the duties mentioned in Clause 1 of the First Schedule to this Act,"
    The object of the Amendment was to secure that an executor would only be bound to pay the Estate Duty upon such kinds of property as were now subject to Probate Duty. He said that under the Bill as it stood the executor would be expected to pay Estate Duty on all personal property wherever situated, not only at home but abroad. He would also have to find out whether any property passed under settlements in connection with which the deceased had a general power of appointment, and if such property did pass he would have to pay duty upon it. The duties of an executor would thus be most extensive, and he ventured to say impracticable, and the difficulties in the way of winding-up estates would be enormously increased. At present throughout the country the estates of deceased persons were wound up at a small expense by
    882
    local solicitors; but if they threw those new duties on executors he did not think it would be possible for local practitioners to deal with such cases in the future. The proposal in Sub-section 2 of Clause 5 appeared to be wholly inconsistent with the proposal in Clause 7. Under the former provision the executor had to account for all property, wherever situate, while under Sub-section 3 of Clause 7 he was accountable only for the property actually received by him. The Solicitor General had placed an Amendment on the Paper, presumably for the purpose of dealing with the differences between the two clauses. That Amendment, however, seemed to him (Mr. Butcher) to be a wholly improper one for dealing with the case, inasmuch as it referred only to cases of testamentary disposition and did not deal with cases of intestacy at all. His (Mr. Butcher's) Amendment was simple, and, he thought, carried out the intention of the Government.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 21, after the word "property," to leave out to the word "on" in line 22, in order to insert the words—
    "which but for the passing of this Act would be liable to the duties mentioned in Clause 1 of the First Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. Butcher.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. and learned Member says that he entirely agrees with the view of the Government, and thinks his Amendment carries it out, but he thinks that the Amendment which the Solicitor General has drawn up with the assistance of the Inland Revenue Authorities is a very improper one. I do-not think that he should criticise every line, word, and comma of the Bill simply because he thinks that the Law Officers of the Crown and the Inland Revenue Officers know nothing about their business, and that he could draw the Bill a great deal better than they can. That really is the point of view from which we have had this Bill discussed from the beginning. He must excuse us for thinking that the gentlemen who have drawn and who have revised this Bill know

    883
    quite as well as he does how it ought to be drawn. The hon. and learned Member's view of the administrative effect of the Bill is, I am informed, based upon an entire misconception of the clauses relating to administration. The provisions respecting administration are to be found in Clauses 5, 7, and 10 of the Bill. I need not say that the Inland Revenue Authorities know something about matters of administration, and they have devoted special attention to this part of the Bill. One of their main objects, of course, was to prevent the distribution of free personalty being delayed because of the existence of settled property, the amount of which might be unknown to the executor. There are three cases dealt with. The first is that in which the property of the deceased, whether land or personalty, is such that the executor is responsible for all the receipts. That case is dealt with in Clause 5. The executor, under such circumstances, declares all the property, and a certificate is given under Clause 10. The next case is one in which all the property is not of such a kind that the executor is liable to pay the duty on it, but in which, nevertheless, he is aware of the total amount of it. There is here no more difficulty than under the former case, and under Section 7 the executor is required to state all he knows. The rate of duty on the property for which he is responsible can at once be fixed. If the person accountable for the property, for the duty on which the executor is not responsible, agrees, he can pay under 5. The amount of the other property being known, there will be no difficulty in fixing the rate. I have not the advantage possessed by the hon. and learned Member of understanding these matters thoroughly, and I am guided therefore by those who do understand them, and who have drawn up these clauses. I believe that these gentlemen are aware of the circumstances with which they had to deal, and knew how they should be dealt with. I have confidence that the Government draftsmen and the Law Officers are able to express in proper terms that which the Government desire to carry out. This is really all I have to say on the matter. I do not profess to be an authority on the subject, and I am guided by those who do understand it.
    MR A. J. BALFOUR: I do not rise to deal with the merits of this question, because I know almost as little about them as the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt). He has been good enough to inform us that he is quite ignorant of the merits of the question, but that he relies entirely on the officials of the Inland Revenue Department, and on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown. Under these circumstances it would have been well if he had left the defence of the drafting of the Bill to the Law Officers, who, presumably, by his own confession, know something about it, a position in which, presumably, also by his own confession, he does not happen to stand with regard to its details. I must protest against the tone which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought fit to assume towards my hon. and learned Friend. He has been good enough to inform the Committee that in his opinion the very eminent and able gentlemen on whom he relies for advice are infallible, that, being infallible, it is gross insolence in anyone on this side of the House to criticise them, and that even so competent a critic as my hon. and learned Friend is wasting his time and the time of the House in doing so.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: He said that the Solicitor General's Amendment was not properly worded.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no doubt that he did say the Solicitor General's Amendment did not meet the particular difficulty which my hon. and learned Friend felt with regard to this clause. Have we got to this, then, that a lawyer on this side of the House is not allowed to suggest that the Solicitor General may be mistaken in the effect of an Amendment which he has put down on the Paper? I want to know why the Solicitor General has put his Amendment down on the Paper? If the Attorney General and the Inland Revenue Officers are infallible, why have they to be put right by the Solicitor General? If the Solicitor General is qualified to improve the language of these infallible guides of the right hon. Gentleman, why may not my hon. and learned Friend improve the language of the monitor of the infallible gentleman? I am especially

    885
    puzzled at the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when I recollect that the Solicitor General the other night took occasion in very graceful and appropriate language—and that he has since done the same thing again—to observe that he himself had owed something to the drafting skill of my hon. and learned Friend and had borrowed from him words which were specially calculated to carry out the intentions of the Government. My hon. and learned Friend, who has merited these compliments from one of the infallible guides of the right hon. Gentleman, is made the butt of the right hon. Gentleman's stricture and sarcasms, because on this clause he has endeavoured, as he has endeavoured on previous clauses, to suggest words which, in his opinion—and a more competent opinion there is not in this House—are better calculated to carry out the views of the Government themselves. I do not trespass long on the time of the Committee, because, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has professed himself totally incapable of dealing with the merits of the question, I do not wish to put myself on a higher level than ho, and I shall leave it to my learned Friend near me and to the Solicitor General to carry on a Debate which those who have never joined the Bar, or have left it for a considerable period, are unable, either through ignorance—[Ministerial cries of "Oh!"]—through ignorance in my case or through forgetfulness in the case of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to conduct.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, that he had shared the doubts of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Butcher) with regard to this clause, and had put down a similar Amendment, which, however, was differently worded. He believed that the Solicitor General was indebted to his hon. and learned Friend, to another hon. Member, and to himself (Mr. Byrne) for the suggestion contained in the Amendment he (Mr. R. T. Reid) had placed lower down on the Paper. His hon. and learned Friend and himself might be mistaken about this clause, but they were not content to take it that they were mistaken merely because they did not happen to agree with those who advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    *MR. BUTCHERsaid, he was surprised and a good deal amused at the personal attack which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen to make upon him, all the more because the right hon. Gentleman had been good enough earlier in the evening to accept from him two Amendments of a not unimportant character. The right hon. Gentleman thought it was open to him to accept Amendments of substance and importance from Members of the Opposition, but that it was beyond his province to accept Amendments on matters of form, and that it was insolent and impertinent for Members to offer such Amendments. He confessed he did not see the reason for that distinction, and, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not see fit to impute motives which he did not accept, he (Mr. Butcher) wished on his own behalf to repudiate that infallibility which the right hon. Gentleman assumed for his draftsmen. These clauses were no doubt drawn by the best authorities, but no draftsman he (Mr. Butcher) had ever heard of would refuse to accept advice on points that might not have occurred to him. In putting down Amendments on points of drafting he had wished merely to suggest points for the consideration of the Government, without asserting for a moment that his Amendments were necessarily the best, and he was bound to say that some of them had been accepted by the Solicitor General with a courtesy which left nothing to be desired.
    SIR R. WEBSTERremarked, that the attack which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the hon. and learned Member for York was perfectly unjustified, and he was convinced that when they came to the Amendment of the Solicitor General the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit himself that it had been framed so as only partially to meet one part of the case, and that it would be absolutely essential to amend it in order that cases of intestacy might be included. He mentioned that in order to show the gentleman who wrote out on paper the observations for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to read off in reply to the Amendment of his hon. and learned

    887
    Friend, that he had not applied his mind to the subject now before them. He was quite sure when this matter was discussed on its merits that the Solicitor General was too generous to endorse, at any rate outside this House, the observations respecting the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Essex, who had assisted the Government to make many Amendments in past clauses of the Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that by coming down to the House and making personal attacks he was going to assist the progress of this Bill he made a great mistake. The hon. and learned Member argued that this Amendment was absolutely necessary if this part of the clause was to be at all workable. It was not a case of drafting but of substance, and if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should support him.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 148; Noes 117.—(Division List, No. 89.)
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (PROCEDURE) BILL.—(No. 258.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, after line 25, to insert—
  "(vi) any decision affecting the jurisdiction of English Courts in Scotland or Ireland."—(Mr. Paul.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it would be well if the Solicitor General explained the bearing of the Amendment, particularly as to the right of the English Judges to alter the Rules of Law with regard to matters in Ireland.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the Amendment provided that the International Tribunal, so to speak, would not be precluded from considering any straining of jurisdiction by the English Court; and, therefore, would prevent the English
  888
  Courts, were they so disposed, from assuming jurisdiction and refusing appeal.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. LEESE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Line 28, after "decisions," to insert—
  "(vii) an order refusing unconditional leave to defend an action shall not be deemed to be an interlocutory order within the meaning of this section."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, it would be well that the part of the Bill referring to the Rules of Court should be postponed, to give hon. Members from Ireland the opportunity of considering them.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL.—(No. 234.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEmoved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Viscount Cranborne.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREappealed to the noble Lord not to persist in his Motion. The Bill was the result of a conference between the sweeps and some Members of the House. He thought the Bill might be allowed to go on.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. HOPWOODsaid, he had to move Amendments which would free journeymen and assistants from the tax which the Bill proposed to make them pay.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 6, to leave out "or journeymen chimney sweeper, or as assistant to any chimney sweeper."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Consequential Amendments.
  Clause 3.
  MR. HOPWOOD MR. HOPWOOD moved, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "And every," to end of Clause.
  Leave out Clauses 5 and 6.
  Schedule 1, line 8, leave out "or journeyman or assistant."
  Certificate B., line 25, leave out "or journeyman or assistant."
  Schedule 3, line 18, leave out "nine."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 277.]

BOARDS OF CONCILIATION BILL. (No. 135.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he hoped that hon. Members would allow the Bill to be read a second time, especially as he had received a promise from the right hon. Member for Sheffield that the Government would not object.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. T. E. ELLIS, Merionethshire)said, that as he understood the matter, the Government promised to allow the Bill, when it was read a second time, to go to the same Committee as that to which their own Bill might be referred.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he must complain that the Government did not bring on their own Bill. His Bill was down on the Paper, and he thought he should be allowed to proceed with it. They had the whole time of the House, and surely they should either proceed with their own Bill, or allow him to go on with that of the London Conciliation Board.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, the Government put down their Bill on many occasions last Session and this Session, but it had always been objected to.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, it was always brought on after 12 o'clock, when no discussion could be taken.
  MR. T. E. ELLISsaid, he must object to this Bill proceeding.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that the Government must take the responsibility of stopping the Bill, which was supported by the Chambers of Commerce and the great Loudon Trades Unions.
  Objection being taken to Further Proceedings, Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL. (No. 239.)
Read the third time, and passed.
UNIFORMS BILL.
Ordered, That the Select Committee on Uniforms Bill have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Mr. Brookfield.)

CHCRCH PATRONAGE BILL.—(No. 11.)
Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 158.]
Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 158.]
Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 276.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill,
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Acts of the eighth and ninth years of Victoria, chapter twenty-six, and of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth years of Victoria, chapter forty-five, relating to Fishing for Trout or other fresh-water Fish by nets in the Rivers and Waters of Scotland, and to make provision for a close time." [Trout Fishing (Scotland) Bill [Lords.]

NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.—(No. 272.)
As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

HEEITABLE SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 207).
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 261.)
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Ordered, That Mr. Boss be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Libraries (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill.
Ordered, That Mr. William Johnston be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)

SOLICITORS' EXAMINATION BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 4) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Montrose, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Bryce.
Ordered, That Standing Order 193A be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—(Mr. Burt.)
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 275.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether any, and what, arrangements can be made to improve the Accommodation provided for the Members and Officials of this House, and for the representatives of the Press.
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Seventeen Members.
The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Sir Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, Mr. Buchanan, Lord Burghley, Mr. Radelifle Cooke, Mr. Cremer, Mr. Dalziel, Sir Charles Dilke, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Freeman-Mitford, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Major Jones, Mr. Alpheus Morton, Dr. M'Donnell, Mr. David Plunket, Lord Stanley, and Colonel Howard Vincent.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. T. E. Ellis)

COMPANIES' DEBENTURES REGISTRATION &c, BILL.
On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill to amend the Companies' Acts as to the Registration of Debentures and other matters, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Arnold-Forster, Mr. Mather, Mr. Bucknill, and Mr. Barrow.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 278.]

EAST INDIA (DECCAN AGRICULTURISTS' RELIEF ACTS COMMISSION).
Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 4th June; Sir William Wedderburn]; to lie upon the Table.
EAST INDIA (MILITARY EXPENDITURE).
Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 7th June; Sir Donald Mac-farlane]; to lie upon the Table.
GRESHAM UNIVERSITY COMMISSION.
Copy presented,—of (1) Minutes of Evidence taken by the Commissioners, with Tables of Witnesses and of Institutions represented, and (2) Appendix and Analytical Index to Minutes of Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CLERKS OF UNIONS AND RATE COLLECTORS (IRELAND) (SALARIES).
Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 22nd May; Mr. Ross]; to lie upon the Table.
AFRICA (No. 5, 1894).
Copy presented,—of Further Papers relating to the Agreement between Great Britain and His Majesty the King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo. Signed at Brussels 12th May, 1894 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1392–1399 (China, United States, Spain, and France) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, No. 330 (China) [by Command); to lie upon the Table.
House adjourned at ten minutes before One o'clock.