Commons Sitting of 21 June 1894

QUESTIONS

  SIGNALMEN'S WORKING HOURS ON THE GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the result of the complaint laid before that Board as to the hours of labour of signalmen at certain boxes at Kelvedon, Witham, and other places on the Great Eastern Railway; and, further, to ask him the dates of the various steps taken in respect of that complaint under the recent Act giving power in such matters to the Board of Trade?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): The Great Eastern Railway Company have agreed to reduce the hours at two of the boxes complained of. My lion, and learned Friend drew attention to the matter on the 19th of February, and the Board of Trade communicated with the Company on the same day. The Board then received a formal representation under the Act from the lion. Member, and, after consulting their Inspecting Officers, called upon the Company on the 8th of March for a Return of the hours worked by their servants in certain cabins. This Return was received on the 27th of March and considered by the In-
  1620
  specting Officers, and on the 9th of April the Board ordered the Company to submit a revised Schedule of the Hours of Labour within one month. This Schedule was received on the 4th of May, and as it was unsatisfactory in terms a conference between the representatives of the Company and the officers of the Board of Trade was arranged, and took place on the 4th of June. The Board are considering what further action shall be taken in the matter.

  THE COLL FREE CHURCH MINISTER.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in a Glasgow paper to the effect that in the Island of Coll, in consequence of his having incurred the displeasure of the proprietor of the Island by standing against the factor for the County Council, the Rev. Mr. Ross, Free Church minister there, had been subjected to many annoyances, the last move against him being the barricadiug of his front and kitchen doors by the factor by the erection of six rows of barbed wire fencing and the filling up of the well, from which the manse got its supply of water, with all sorts of filth and stones; whether it is true that the barricading with barbed wire fencing described was thrice renewed after removal; and whether the Procurator Fiscal has yet completed his inquiries into the case; and, if so, with what result?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.): It is the fact that there has been for some time a dispute between the Rev. Mr. Ross and the proprietor as to the right of the former to use an access to his manse through certain ground belonging to the latter, on which also the well in question was situated, and that the factor twice put up a barbed wire fence close to the manse doors, and filled up the well with stones, his object, as he states, being to have the respective rights of the parties legally tested, and the matter is now accordingly before the Sheriff. The proprietor was abroad at the time, and both he and the factor deny that their attitude towards Mr. Ross has been affected by the County Council election, though other statements are to an opposite effect. I may add that, although the extreme measures taken by

  1621
  the factor cannot be justified, Mr. Ross says that the proprietor has, of his own accord, never exacted more than the half of the feu duty due to him for the site of the manse, and that matters between them now seem likely to be arranged on the footing that Mr. Ross shall have a lease of the ground he wants, including the well, free of rent.
  SIR C. CAMERON: Will the right lion. Gentleman inquire into the statement of Mr. Ross, that the proprietor has offered to let him the land on nominal terms if he will abstain from opposing the factor for the County Council?
  *MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I will further inquire, but I may repeat that on one hand it is asserted that this dispute has nothing to do with County Council politics, and that this is denied on the other side.

  NEWTON ABBOT WORKHOUSE.
  SIR S. NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will lay upon the Table of the House the Reports of the recent inquiries into the administration of the Newton Abbot Workhouse; whether Dr. Fuller, a gentleman who assisted at the recent inquiries, advised that the new nurse should be fully certificated; is he aware that the nurse who has been elected does not possess a midwifery certificate; that a considerable number of the Newton Abbot Workhouse Guardians protested against the legality of the nurse's election; and that the new master of the workhouse has been connected as an official with the workhouse during the time when its administration has necessitated the intervention of the Local Government Board; and if, under these circumstances, the Local Government Board can take any steps to set aside these appointments?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): The Local Government Board have recently received the Report on the further inquiry which has been held by two of their Inspectors with respect to the administration of the Newton Abbot Workhouse, and the Report is now receiving the consideration of the Board. Dr. Fuller, one of the Board's Inspectors, recommended that the Guardians in appointing a nurse should obtain the services of one who is
  1622
  fully certificated. The Board have been informed by the Guardians of the appointments which have been made by them to the offices of master and nurse. The master, who resigned, has been re-elected; but his appointment will be considered by the Board in connection with the recent administration of the workhouse before it is approved of. The question of the fitness of the person who has been elected nurse will also be considered before the Board concur in the appointment. The Reports which are made to the Board by their Inspectors are confidential communications, and I am not prepared, therefore, to lay them upon the Table of the House.

  LEAVING CERTIFICATES IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will lay upon the Table of the House the names of the examiners for the leaving certificate, with their ordinary avocations and the salary paid to each?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): There are no examiners for the leaving certificate in receipt of salaries. The Department is solely responsible for the awards made, and the revision of papers is carried on with the help of a large number of gentlemen, whose work is under supervision, and who are paid in proportion to the number of papers looked over by them. The names and numbers of those employed vary each year. I do not see what public object would be served by the publication of particulars, but perhaps when the Educational Estimate is discussed it may be considered whether the names of these gentlemen might be published in the annual Blue Book.

  DUCHY OK LANCASTER LANDS.
  MR. HARE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the lands of the Duchy of Lancaster are exempt from parochial and other rates and taxes when the laud is farmed by the Duchy?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I am informed that all the Duchy lands are liable to Land Tax if not redeemed. Inhabited House Duty is a tax

  1623
  on the occupier, but under "exemption" in 48 Geo. III., c. 55, where houses are occupied by Her Majesty or by caretakers, the tax is not payable or paid. Her Majesty is not liable for Property Tax, but she pays it, under Schedule A, on a fair valuation, and under Schedule B upon profits, if made. Except in a few cases where, by a statutory provision, lands are specially charged with rates, the Duchy is not liable to pay rates for land in hand, but contributes accordiug to a fair valuation, in analogy to what is done by the Offices of Works and of Woods.
  MR. HANBURY: Is the exemption under Statute?
  SIR J. T. HIBBEET: I think so.
  MR. HANBURY: What Statute?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: That I cannot say without notice.

  SMITH'S SCHOOL CHARITY, NUNEATON.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Department has received a Petition signed by 498 inhabitants and ratepayers of Nuneaton against the Scheme now proposed for the future administration of the Smith's School Charity; whether he is aware that since the Scheme was drawD up and advertised a large number of inhabitants and ratepayers have looked into it, with the result that public interest has been aroused which previously did not exist; and whether he will either refer the Scheme back to the Charity Commissioners or take some other step with a view to a further public local inquiry?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLANB,): The statutory time for receiving objections to this Scheme expired on the 2nd of April last without any objection or suggestion having been received, and the Scheme was approved on the 18th of April. The Petition referred to in the hon. Member's question was received a few days ago, but I have no further jurisdiction in the matter. The attention of the petitioners has been directed to the section of the Act under which ratepayers or other parties concerned may claim that the Scheme shall be laid before Parliament.

  KILLARNBY BOABD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Killarney Board of Guardians has been dissolved under sealed Order by the Local Government Board; and if he can state the financial position of the Board when the Vice Guardians took charge of the Union?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The Killarney Board of Guardians was dissolved by sealed Order of the Local Government Board dated the 12th instant. The estimated liabilities of the Union on the 15th instant were £7,147, and the assets, including uncollected rates, were £4,636.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether amongst the assets is included a sum of £421 due by labourers for rents of cottages built out of the rates; also for what period have the paid Guardians been appointed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am afraid I cannot answer either of those questions. I think, however, the amount of arrears is overstated.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I will put the question again on Monday.

  ENNISKILLEN ROYAL SCHOOL ESTATE.
  MR. M'GILLIGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what was the gross rental of the Enniskillen Royal School Estate for the last year; what were the expenses of management; and what part of the balance was spent for educational purposes?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The gross rental of the Enniskillen estate for year ended November, 1893, was £2,100 13s. 11d. The expenses of management amounted to £576 8s. 5d., leaving a balance of £1,524 5s. 6d. Out of this balance a, sum of £604 10s. 3d. was paid to retired masters in pursuance of the Scheme formed by the Educational Endowments Commissioners, leaving a sum of £919 15s. 3d. available for educational purposes, exclusive of dividends on Stock belonging to the endowment, amounting to £167 8s. 9d. The total sum thus available amounted to £1,087 4s., out of which a sum of £1,080 was divided be-

  1625
  tween the Fermanagh Local Boards of Education to be applied by them for the purposes of the Schemes.

  RESERVISTS' PAY AS TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Reservists, on receiving appointments as telegraphists, have their Reserve pay of 6d. per diem deducted from their salary during their period of service with the Reserve?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BAXNERMAN,&c.): I find that under the Regulations of the Postmaster General, made in 1885, men of the first-class Reserve appointed to the Post Office as telegraphists have their Reserve pay deducted from the Post Office salary of their position, partly to equalise their emoluments with those of other telegraphists, and partly because, though belonging to the Reserve, their time counts towards superannuation on their Post Office wages. Their service in the Reserve is compulsory under their original enlistment. Men in the supplemental Reserve, in which service is voluntary, do not have a deduction made from their Civil wages. The arrangement as it now stands does not commend itself to me, and I will inquire into it further.

  LEEDS BARRACKS.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the alterations to the barracks at Leeds will be completed; and when the barracks will be occupied?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The barracks at Leeds will be ready for occupation on the 1st of July. Troops will probably be moved in during the month of August.

  DERBY LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. MAINS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at a meeting of the Governors of Derry Lunatic Asylum, held on the 14th of this mouth, a Report was received from a Committee appointed to select a site for the new asylum for County Derry, in which they recommended as a site for the new asylum a farm at Granshaw containing 290 acres,
  1626
  and which is situated near the City of Derry; whether he is aware that all the members of this Committee live in or near the City of Derry; whether he is also aware that they had offers of sites from several central districts of the county, and whether they visited any of those but the one at Granshaw; that the Chairman of the Governors said at the meeting that the Committee had given the Governors no information, and that the Derry Governors were in a majority, and could do as they wished in this matter; and whether, in view of the fact that Derry is situated at the extreme end of the county, and therefore difficult>to get at from various parts of the county, the Board of Control will consider the interests of the county at large, previous to approving of any site?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are correctly stated in the first two paragraphs. With regard to the remainder of the question, I am informed there were 20 offers of sites for the new asylum and that of these the Committee visited four —two being near Derry and two near Limavaddy. The Report of the Committee has not yet been laid officially before the Board of control, upon whom will devolve the entire legal responsibility in connection with the selection of a site. Before such selection is made the interests of the insane poor of the various portions of the district will be carefully considered.

  LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY WATER-FORD.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Commission were aware of it that Thomas Whelan, who has applied to the Land Commission for an advance to purchase a holding at Ballinafina, County Waterford, stated on oath at the Presentment Sessions held at Carrickbeg on the 12th of May last, that he got possession of the holding in question on the 26th of February, 1894, and that prior to getting possession he signed the agreement to purchase; whether, if the facts are as stated, the Land Purchase Acts apply to such cases; whether, under the circumstances, the Land Commission, before making the advance, will make further inquiries into this case, and ascertain if any misrepresentation has been made to

  1627
  them; and whether the annuity to which Whelan will be subject if this sale is carried through will be £40, whereas the rent, for the non-payment of which the former tenant was evicted, was £79 a year?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Land Purchase Acts only apply to enable tenants in occupation to purchase. An agreement to purchase where no tenancy or occupation under it existed and then the creation of a tenancy to carry it out would be improper and an evasion of the Acts. I have received a Report from the Land Commission, but am making further inquiries in the matter.

  JUSTICES' CLERKS AND LICENSING BUSINESS.
  MR. T. OWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in accordance with the promise he made last year (in answer to a Question), he has conferred with Mr. Attorney General with a view to taking steps to put an end, in the public interest, to the practice whereby Justices' clerks, whose duty it is to advise the Magistrates in licensing cases, regularly act as solicitors for brewers and licensed victuallers in connection with the sale or transfer of public houses in respect of which application subsequently come before such Justices; and, if so, with what result; and whether, in the interests of justice, he will now take steps to secure that Magistrates' clerks shall cease to occupy the conflicting positions of being, in connection with the same cases, in the first instance the legal advisers to Courts of Petty Sessions, and afterwards the prosecuting solicitors before Quarter Sessions, with extra remuneration for each case committed for trial?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I did confer with the late Attorney General on the matter. We found on inquiry that the practice, so far as licensing cases are concerned, to which my lion. Friend refers, was not common, and that where it exists it usually extends only to the preparation of formal notices by the Justices' clerk. Upon the general question, the conclusion at which the Attorney General and I arrived was, that the practical harm done by the existing
  1628
  system is so small, and the difficulties in the way of making any change so great, that it was not desirable to propose any legislation on the subject. To this view I must adhere, while there are many other subjects on which the necessity for legislation is both clearer and more urgent.

  COMMISSARY CLERKS IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR C. PEARSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has considered a statement on behalf of those commissary clerks in Scotland who are paid by fees as to the injurious effect of Clause 13 of the Finance Bill upon their emoluments; and whether the Government propose to amend the clause so as to avoid the injustice, either by raising the proposed scale of fees, or lowering the proposed limit of value of the estates to which the fee of 15s. shall apply; and, if not, whether the Treasury propose to obtain statutory power to grant compensation for loss of fees in such cases, as was done in similar circumstances by the 12th section of "The Revenue, Friendly Societies, and National Debt Act, 1882"?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The statement has received consideration. The Amendments to Clause 13, which will have the effect of confining personal applications to officers of Inland Revenue to estates of £500 gross, will greatly modify the effect of this clause upon the emoluments of clerks. If, however, those emoluments, or those of the Probate Registrars in Ireland, who are paid by fees, are injuriously affected by the proposal, the Treasury will be prepared to compensate them, after the precedent of the Act of 1882, mentioned in the question.

  THE VOLUNTEER MEDAL.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Volunteers who have served more than 20 years, but whose service has not been continuous and does not come within paragraph 6 of the Army Order relating to the grant of a medal; and whether he can see his way to grant such medals in cases where it can be proved that there has been a service of over 20 years, though not continuous?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A Circular is about to be issued which will allow, under certain specified circumstances, a break in the continuity of service.
  *MR. TOMLINSON: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the question of granting decorations to Volunteers whose service, though sufficient and continuous, expired before the end of last year?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have answered several questions on that subject. I do not see my way to accede to that proposal.

  LISTOWEL POOR LAW UNION.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to recent disparaging suggestions as to the management of the Listowel Poor Law Union, whether he is aware that, at the close of the last financial year, on the 25th of March, 1894, the Guardians had to credit of their bank account £1,941 7s. 10d., and assets outstanding to the value of £4,000, and whether, at the date in question, all substantial debts of the Union had been discharged, including a sum of £500 due for seed rate by the Glinn Union, lately incorporated with Listowel; and that the Guardians have still kept to their credit a sum of over £1,000, although the sum of £690, balance of seed rate due by the Glin Union, has been withdrawn from their account by sealed order; and whether the increase of charge for indoor and outdoor relief is reasonably accounted for by a moderate improvement in the dietary, by pressure of poverty, owing to agricultural depression, by the number of evictions in the district, and by the effect of the emigration of young people upon the proportion of the aged in the Home population?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The clerk of the Listowel Board of Guardians reports that on the 25th of March last the Guardians had a credit balance at bank of £1,941 7s. 10d., and that the total assets outstanding amounted to£1,883 11s. 10d. At the close of the half-year to the 25th of March last, the outstanding seed rate amounted to £1,189 17s. 4d., nearly £1,000 of which were due by the divisions transferred from the late Glinn Union, but of which about one-half only
  1630
  is recoverable, and there being at that date £690 12s. 10d. due to the Board of Works, the outstanding seed rate cannot be considered an asset. A sum of £500 was paid to the Board of Works on the 20th of February on account of seed loan for the transferred electoral divisions, but all the substantial debts of the Union had not on March 25th last been discharged, there being due to Union officers, contractors, and others £740 which, if then paid, would reduce the credit balance to £1,200. After payment on the 30th of April of £690, balance of seed rate due by the Glinn Union, the Guardians had to their credit at bank £1,062, and at the present time the credit balance stands at £310. The dietary of the inmates of the workhouse has been improved of late years, and this to some extent has caused an increase of charge. No opinion is expressed as to the other causes alleged in the concluding paragraph.

  TRANSVAAL GOLD MINING INDUSTRY.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that proposals have been made to the Transvaal Government under which a monopoly for the importation into the Transvaal of cyanide of potassium and all compounds of cyanogen, now for some years largely in use in that country for the extraction of gold from minerals, would be granted to a single individual or Company, and under which a very heavy tax could be imposed on the gold industry, in which some millions of British capital has now been invested; if he is aware that much of this capital has been invested under the impression that the means used in this industry, such as mercury and cyanide of potassium, were subject in their use only to the conditions existing up to now; and if the Colonial Office will use its friendly offices with the Transvaal Government to prevent this great injury to the gold industry of the Transvaal in the interests of the industry and of British investors, who own the greater part?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): I have no official knowledge of the facts set forth in the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question. But I recognise the importance of the matter as

  1631
  affecting the mining industry, and upon a proper representation from the interests affected being made, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared favourably to consider the question of making a friendly representation to the Government of the South African Republic should the facts seem to warrant such a course.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I will take steps to lay the facts before the hon. Gentleman. Will he, in the meantime, prevent any further action in the direction indicated in the question?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We can do nothing until we have the facts before us.

  THE POST OFFICE AND THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether an agreement between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company has been in preparation for two years; and whether, in view of the fact that he has stated on various occasions during the last year that the agreement would be shortly laid before the House of Commons, he can now state definitely before what date the agreement will be produced? At the same time, I may ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the effect of the long delay in concluding the agreement between the Post Office and the National Telephone Company, and the refusal of the Post Office in the meantime to grant licences to Municipalities, has been to enable the National Telephone Company to increase their monopoly and place themselves in a better position than those Municipalities which wish to obtain licences; and if he can state how many applications for local licences from Municipalities have been received since it was decided to purchase the trunk lines?
  MR. A. C. MORTON: May I at the same time ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the terms of the agreement with the National Telephone Company have yet been settled; and, if not, are they likely to be settled soon; and whether he is aware that the great delay in settling the agreement is extremely inconvenient to Local Authorities who are desirous to deal with the question of telephonic communication?
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I wish also to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice, i.e., whether he will take care that in any agreement between himself and the National Telephone Company provisions are made that in the event of the purchase by the State of the Company's property only the market value of the stock and plant actually belonging to the Company shall be paid as consideration money, without taking into account prospective profits, or any claim for goodwill, or any similar claim?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MOKLEY,): Since I answered a question on this subject on the 30th of April last further points of considerable complexity have arisen in connection with the settlement of the details of the agreement. While I very much regret the delay which has occurred—a delay which is in no respect due to any absence of effort on my part to bring it to a successful conclusion—I cannot think that it has enabled the National Telephone Company either to increase their monopoly or to place themselves in a better position. In fact, the hon. Member for the Southern Division of Westmoreland appears to forget that the National Telephone Company only enjoy a temporary licence which terminates in 1911, and that every month that passes must therefore have the effect of reducing the value of their goodwill in the business. I hope the hon. Member will not press me to answer the latter part of his question, as I do not think it would be desirable in the public interest to reply to it at the present moment. With reference to the question of which the hon. Member for Canterbury has given me private notice, I must point out that the agreement now being negotiated is simply intended to give effect to the arrangement made by the late Government for the purchase of the Company's Trunk wires—an arrangement which did not contemplate any interference with the general conditions of the existing licence.

  FEMALE FACTORY INSPECTORS.
  MR. MOLLOY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the appointment of a female Inspector, resident in Ireland, for factories and

  1633
  workshops in that country, in the same manner end under the same conditions as those of England and Scotland?
  MR. ASQUITH: I must refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a similar question on the 4th of this mouth; but in illustration of what I then stated as to the attention that was being, and would continue to he, given by the lady Inspectors to Irish industries, I may mention that one of them spent most of her time in April and May in Ireland, and conducted prosecutions in Dublin, Belfast, and Kingstown.

  PROSECUTION FOR CRUELTY TO A BULLOCK AT GLOUCESTER.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Davis and Pocock, who were summoned on the 2nd ultimo, before the Gloucester County Bench, for cruelty to a bullock by driving it for three miles to market when lame from a fracture of a leg; whether he is aware that it was proved by the medical witnesses that the animal was suffering pain and was unfit to be so driven; whether in holding that the act of the defendants did not constitute cruelty, and in dismissing the case the Justices committed an error of law; and whether he will direct the case to be disposed of in accordance with the evidence?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been drawn to the case to which my hon. Friend refers, and I find that although the animal which was the subject of the charge of cruelty was lame from a fracture of the leg, the fracture had taken place more than a year ago. Evidence was given to the effect that the animal was suffering pain and was unfit to be driven; but there was counter-evidence to show that though from this old fracture the animal limped badly, he did not suffer pain, and could be driven without cruelty. The Justices held that a case of cruelty was not made out against the defendants, and dismissed it accordingly. In this, whether their decision was right or wrong in point of fact, they committed no error in law; and I have no power to give any instructions for the re-hearing of the case.

  AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the circumstances relating to the dismissal of Mr. W. S. Aldis from the post of Professor of Mathematics in the University of Auckland; whether he is aware that, although Mr. Aldis was appointed to the Professorship under agreement with the New Zealand Government, by the terms of which six months' notice in writing was to be given for the termination thereof, he has been dismissed from his Professorship without any proper notice, and, in fact, without any notice from the said Government; and that the Colonial Government has refused to consider Mr. Aldis's claim to be either reinstated or compensated; and whether Her Majesty's Government has addressed any remonstrance to the Government of New Zealand respecting the matter?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have received no official information on the subject, as the matter is not one that would come under our cognizance; nor is it one with which, as I understand, the Government of New Zealand have anything to do.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not an isolated case, and that other gentlemen have been similarly treated?
  MR. HOGAN: Is it not a fact that Professor Aldis was not appointed by the New Zealand Government at all, but by the Auckland University College, which is an independent corporation in no way under the control of the New Zealand Government; and also is it not a fact that the Governing Body of the Auckland University College was acting within the terms of the agreement in terminating the Professor's engagement?
  MR. S. BUXTON: I have no facts before me which will enable me to answer the latter part of the hon. Member's question. The statement in the first part of the question is perfectly true.

  BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATION IN SUSSEX.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if any, and what, person was appointed by the Court in the bankruptcy of Mr. W. E.

  1635
  Warren, late of Iping Paper Mills, Sussex, to represent the debtor, in accordance with Rule 271 of the Bankruptcy Acts 1883 and 1890, he being at the time detained under certificates as a person of unsound mind; if the debtor, or any person duly appointed as his representative, was present at any public examination during the bankruptcy proceedings; and, if not, whether any order was made under Section 2 of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1890," to dispense with his public examination, and upon whose application was such order made; and if the Board will allow the debtor or his solicitor to see the accounts transmitted to the Board by the Trustee under Rule 289, and any Report on his accounts which may be made to the Board before his release is granted under Section 82 of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1883"?
  MR. BRYCE: No person was appointed by the Court under Rule 271 of the Bankruptcy Rules to represent Mr. W. E. Warren. No public examination has been held. The sitting of the Court for the public examination was fixed for the 20th of August, 1891, but was adjourned sine die in consequence of the debtor's non-appearance. The examination has not been dispensed with under Section 2 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890. If the debtor desires to obtain his discharge it will be necessary that the examination should be proceeded with in the usual way. The accounts transmitted by the Trustee under Rule 289 are by Statute open to the inspection of any creditor or of the bankrupt, or of any person interested. There is no statutory right to inspect Reports prepared under Section 82 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, but when the Report is prepared in the present case it will be considered whether an inspection of it can be permitted.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: May I ask whether the estate of an alleged lunatic is liable to be administered in bankruptcy without any person being appointed to represent his interest, or without any communication to the Judge in bankruptcy or the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. BRYCE: The question does not arise out of my answer, and I think notice should be given of it. It does not appear from the circumstances of the case, so far as I can ascertain, that any injustice has been done.

  COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES IN THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now say whether the rate of compensation or compassionate allowance in the case of persons killed or injured in the Government employment at the Ordnance Factories can be increased by the Treasury without further previous Parliamentary sanction; and what are the powers of the Treasury in this respect?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT (who replied)said: The powers of the Treasury are laid down, as regards compensation or compassionate allowances in the case of person killed or injured at the Ordnance Factories, in the Warrant of September, 1887, framed in pursuance of Section 1 of the Superannuation Act of that year, and those powers cannot be extended without further legislation.
  MR. HANBURY: But is it not the fact that in the case of the allowances made to the widows of the men killed at Waltham, the Treasury can, without going to Parliament for extra powers, increase the sum?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Only within the limits of the Warrant.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: How is it that these widows only got pensions of 5s. or 6s. a week instead of a sum equal to the pay received by their husbands?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: That question should be addressed to the War Office.
  MR. HANBURY: Has the maximum under the Warrant been allowed to the relatives of the men who were killed recently at Waltham Abbey?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot say.

  THE CONGO TREATY.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to come to an understanding with the French Government that French Forces shall not advance into the Equatorial Provinces during the discussion of the French claims with regard to the Congo Treaty of the 12th of May? I should also like to ask the hon. Baronet if he can inform the House as to the present position of the French forces?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): I can give no information on the last point without notice. I cannot add anything to previous statements with reference to the pending discussion between the two Governments.

  COMMANDEERING IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a protest has been addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Transvaal Government against the commandeering of British subjects for service in the Transvaal; and, if so, what reply has been given by the Transvaal Government to this protest?
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: At the same time, I may ask the hon. Gentleman whether there is any further reply as yet from the Government of the South African Republic in regard to the commandeering of British subjects for military service against certain native tribes?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Acting High Commissioner for South Africa has addressed a friendly representation to the Government of the South African Republic on this subject, and we are in further communication with Sir II. Loch on the subject. No reply has as yet been received from the South African Republic.

  FRANCHISE ACTS—REMUNERATION OF IRISH POOR LAW OFFICIALS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether ho is aware that the Local Government Board for Ireland adopted last year a reduced scale for payment to clerks of Unions and poor rate collectors for their services in connection with the Registration Acts; that payments subsequently made to these officials under the former scale for work done while the former scale was in force were surcharged by the auditors of the Local Government Board in different Unions; that the County Court Judge for Monaghan has decreed a Board of Poor Law Guardians for the full amount under the old scale in a test case brought before him by the Union officials interested; whether, since this decision, lawsuits in-
  1638
  volving costs to the rates have been taken by these officials against several Boards of Guardians for payment under the old scale, and the Local Government Board, in a letter dated 2nd of June last, have refused to give the Tobercurry Board of Guardians any definite advice in the matter; and whether he is prepared to recommend that the Local Government Hoard shall take competent legal advice as to the exact scope and legality of their orders in this matter, and advise the Board of Guardians accordingly, so as to save litigation with their officials and consequent loss to the rates in various Unions in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are generally as stated in the first and second paragraphs. The Local Government Board were advised that the Order of the 23rd of September last applied to all payments made after that date, and that the facts that the services in question, or some of them, were performed before that date made no difference. In recent cases the Board have suggested to Boards of Guardians that they should act as advised by their own solicitor or counsel before making payments for duties discharged prior to the issue of the recent Order, and this course was followed in the Tobercurry case referred to. In the absence of a decision of a High Court on the point, the Board have deemed it expedient to suggest this course to the Guardians in every case in which they are called upon to give a decision. The Board's advice to the Guardians will of course influence the auditors in their action.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to get a decision of the High Court on the subject? The Guardians are in this dilemma: If they pay on the old scale they are surcharged, and if under the new they are decreed by the County Court Judge.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will inquire if it be possible.

  GOSPORT FOREIGN ANIMALS WHARF.
  MR. TOMLINSON: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Walthamstow Division of Essex, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he will explain why the lauding of American cattle by means of lighters from large vessels is sanctioned at the Foreign Animals Wharf at Deptford,

  1639
  but a similar practice is not recognised in the case of the Foreign Animals Wharf at Gosport; and whether there is any legal objection to such landing by means of lighters taking place at Gosport?
  THE PRESIDENT of THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The Foreign Animals Wharf at Deptford is part of the Port of London, and the vessel from which animals are transhipped for lauding there has practically arrived at her destination, and is merely proceeding to some other wharf in the same port to complete the work of unloading and for disinfection or cleansing. In the case of Gosport, what is proposed is that ocean steamers should be detained in the Channel for the purpose of transferring cattle into lighters before proceeding to the port of destination, or else that animals should be allowed to be transhipped in the Thames and taken round to Gosport in small vessels for landing there. There is, therefore, an essential difference between the two cases, and although I am not prepared to say that there is any absolute legal objection to either of the arrangements proposed, I believe that they would be inconsistent with the maintenance of that reasonable security against the introduction of diseased animals which the law is designed to afford.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that at Gosport the vessels are to be detained in the Channel and the animals transhipped?
  MR. H. GARDNER: There is no place at Gosport at which the animals can be landed from these large vessels.

  WEXFORD LETTER DELIVERIES.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in several of the country districts served from Wexford Post Office the first delivery of letters does not take place until 1.30 p.m.; if such late deliveries are due to the irregular working of the mail train between Dublin and Wexford; whether the said train very often takes 11 hours and a-half to do a journey of about 92 miles; and if steps will be taken to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs?
  MR. A. MORLEY: It is true that in: a portion of the outlying district of
  1640
  Wexford the delivery is as late as the hour mentioned, and the lateness is in a measure due to the irregular working of the mail train. My Department is in communication with the Railway Company on the subject, and I understand that the Company are taking steps for securing a punctual working of the train.

  LONDON POLICE BOOTS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in spite of the efforts of the Chief Commissioner of Police, considerable dissatisfaction continues to prevail among the constables in the Metropolitan Police Force with respect to the quality and comfort of the boots issued to them, and which are supplied by contract; and whether he will consult with the Chief Commissioner as to the advisability of giving to the members of the Force the option of being supplied with contract boots or receiving in lieu the contract price with permission to supply themselves with boots in accordance with the regulation pattern?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Commissioner is unaware that dissatisfaction prevails amongst the constables in respect to the quality and comfort of the boots issued to them. The boots are of very good quality, and men are given the fullest opportunity of fitting themselves, and even of changing the boots after they have been worn if they prove uncomfortable. The present contract was entered into in 1892, and has still three years to run. It would be impossible for men to supply themselves with boots of the same quality if they received money allowance equivalent to the contract price; but the Commissioner will consider this point before the expiration of the contract, and will report to the Secretary of State.
  MR. ROWLANDS: Is the Home Secretary prepared to relieve the Imperial Parliament from the consideration of the boots of the Metropolitan Police by handing over the police to the control of the London County Council?
  [The question was not answered.]
  MR. HANBURY: Who is responsible for the contract—the Chief Commissioner

  1641
  of Police or the Director of Army Clothing Contracts?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Director of Army Clothing Contracts has nothing to do with this matter.

  DURATION OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any limit as to the number of years for which a Government contract can be put out; and, if so, what that limit is?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am not aware of any such limit.

  THE SPANISH TARIFF.
  MR. RAWSON SHAW: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that the negotiations between England and Spain, concerning the Spanish Tariff, are now broken off, and that all goods on order at present in England must be delivered in Spain prior to the 1st of July, or be subject to higher rates; if so, whether the Government will take any steps which are in their power to obtain an extension of time for the numerous English manufacturers who will, under present circumstances, suffer severely, owing to the shortness of notice, and so enable them to execute their orders before any change is made?
  SIR E. GREY: We are not aware of any foundation for this rumour. The negotiations are not broken off, and Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that any change in the tariff rates to which British goods are now subject is impending.

  ALLEGED PIRACY BY ESSEX FISHERMEN.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the trial of certain Tollesbury fishermen and dredgers for alleged piracy, at the Essex Assizes, and to the observations of the Judge (Mr. Justice Day) that if the Legislature had time to devote to such objects as the preservation of the public oyster fishery, he thought they would do well to make removals of cultch, to the destruction of such fisheries, unlawful; and, if so, whether he would take steps to obtain a suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule, if
  1642
  the present opposition continues to the Bill now before this House having that object, so that it might become law this Session?
  MAJOR RASCH: As I have blocked the Bill referred to, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it is reasonable, seeing the Government have taken the whole time of the House, that I should allow a Bill which involves the destruction of the trade of my constituents, the fishermen and owners of the Tollesbury oyster fisheries, to pass entirely without discussion?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir; I have seen the newspaper account of the proceedings referred to by my hon. Friend. I venture to hope, having regard to those proceedings and to the widespread demand for the Bill referred to, that the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex will withdraw his opposition to the Bill. He is, I believe, the only Member in the House who opposes it, and who delays legislation which the other Members for Essex and the Fisheries Committees all over England are anxious to obtain, and which would be very much in the interests of the consumers of oysters. But I am not at present able to state what course it will be proper to take with regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend. In reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Essex, I cannot admit that the description he has given of the Bill is correct. On the contrary, it is far from being so. Still, that, of course, is a matter which involves argument.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it not the case that in the last Parliament the Government took non-contentious Bills as the first Order of the Day?
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to inform the right hon. Gentleman that I cannot withdraw my opposition.

  THE TUNIS-TRIPOLI FRONTIER.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to state what foundation there is for the statement published in the Press, to the effect that Turkish functionaries, while on a tax collecting tour through Tripoli, found that the Arab citidal at Kassar-Bugardin, in Tripoli, near to the Frontiers of Tunis, had been occupied, and was then in occu-

  1643
  pation by French troops, and that the inhabitants of Ghadames and Ghat have been brought into a great state of alarm by this occupation of Turkish territory, and, fearing a further French invasion, have demanded of the Turkish Governor General the adoption of defensive measures to provide against any such invasion; and whether Her Majesty's Government are able to say, or if not now able to say whether they will ascertain, if the Turkish Government has made to the French Government any protest or remonstrance against the occupation by France of Turkish territory in Tripoli?
  SIR E. GREY: We have no information as to the proceedings referred to. In 1890 the Porte formally reserved its rights over the hinterland of Tripoli, but we have no reason to believe that it has recently made any protest or remonstrance to the French Government.

  PRELIMINAEY EXAMINATIONS FOR THE ARMY.
  MR. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to various statements in the newspapers from time to time with regard to alleged want of proper supervision at the various centres during the period of local preliminary examinations for the Army, whereby certain candidates were favoured above others, and that teachers and others interested in the success of candidates were aid to have been on the committee of supervision; and whether, in regard to the Army Sandhurst Examination to be held at local centres, he intends to take steps to exclude from the conduct of the examination all local schoolmasters or tutors whose pupils may be under examination?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Local preliminary examinations for the Army are conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners, who inform me that the superintending examiners have in no case any connection, as schoolmasters or tutors, with the centres where the competitions take place. The superintendence and conduct of the examinations are exclusively vested in these examiners.
  MR. RENTOUL: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the serious statements made in the Army and Navy Gazette of June 2?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid I have not seen the paper in question.
  MR. RENTOUL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps in the matter?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The matter is under the control of the Civil Service Examiners.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.
  SIR A. SCOBLE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether pensions to the wives and children of members of the Indian Civil Service, which are provided from funds contributed partly by the members of that Service, and partly by the Government of India, are property liable to aggregation within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Finance Bill, or will be taken into consideration in estimating the value of the estate of deceased members of that Service?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): I have not been able to look into the provisions of the Indian Pensions Act, but primâ facie I should say that such pensions will fall within Sub-section (d) of Clause 2 of the Bill.

  THE CARDIFF SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can inform the House when the final dividend will be paid to the depositors in the Cardiff Savings Bank, and what the amount of the final dividend will be; whether those who refused the composition offered in the first instance will be paid on the full amount due, or only on the same terms as the other depositors who accepted 17s. 6d. in the £1; and whether he can state to the House the total cost of the liquidation, inclusive of all law expenses, to date?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I am informed by the Official Liquidator that he is now, with the sanction of the Court, engaged in distributing the first and final dividend to the depositors in the Cardiff Savings Bank. The dividend amounts to 3s. in the £1 on the balance found by the Court to be due to each depositor. Each depositor will be paid on the full amount so found to be due to him. The remuneration and costs are

  1645
  fixed and allowed by the Court. The total amount cannot yet be stated, but is expected to come out at about £9,600.

  IRELAND AND THE NEW ESTATE DUTY.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can lay upon the Table an Estimate of the annual payment to the Exchequer which will be required from Ireland, should the Finance Bill become law, on account of the new Estate Duties from the estates of deceased occupying tenants on the principal value of the tenant-right of their holdings?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I can make no such estimate. The probate statistics for Ireland do not show separately the amount derived from probate on the tenant-right of occupying tenants, which, being personalty, is at present subject to Probate Duty on the marketable value of the tenant-right. Should the Finance Bill become law it cannot possibly be taxed on a greater value. This applies to tenant occupiers. As regards tenant purchasers, in whose case the tenant-right is merged in the ownership, I may state, as there seems to be some misunderstanding, that the unpaid purchase-money will, of course, be a deduction from the value of their property before it is charged to the tax.
  MR. BARTLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any idea of what the amount will come to, roughly speaking?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And can he say how, unless in those cases where the specified value of the tenant-right has been fixed by the Court, such value is to be ascertained?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I can only reply that there is no separate account of the value procurable.

  INCOME TAX RELIEF CERTIFICATE.
  MR. BIDDULPH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in consequence of all applications for the return of Income Tax being only dealt with at Somerset House, thus causing great trouble and delay, he will give instructions for the district surveyors to grant certificates of relief and repayment in all cases where they are satisfied that the applications are bonâ fide and satisfactory?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Relief from Income Tax, by way of repayment, is directed by law to be made by the Special Commissioners, who act on the certificate of the District Commissioners. Apart from the purely legal question, there are insuperable administrative objections to surveyors of taxes being made a final court of appeal in these matters.
  MR. BIDDULPH: Will the right hon. Gentleman not give facilities to people instead of obstructing them?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If my hon. Friend will inform me what he wishes in the matter I will see if it can be done.
  MR. BIDDULPH: I only ask on behalf of the general public, because the matter is one of universal complaint throughout the country.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I can only ask my hon. Friend to send me particulars in writing showing how the public may be benefited, and I will then consider what can be done.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICERS AND THE FINANCE BILL.
  MR. THOMAS HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the heads of the Chancery and Probate Divisions of the High Court of Justice in Ireland have been consulted with reference to the provisions of Clause 13 of the Finance Bill; and, if so, what opinion they have expressed on the subject?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No official communications have passed on the subject. The Amendment proposed to Clause 13, which limits personal applications to Inland Revenue Officers to estates of £500 gross, will greatly modify the effect of the Bill, as far as it concerns the officials of the Probate Division of the High Court hi Ireland.

  WIGAN INCOME TAX COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(1) whether, in addition to the ordinary Commissioners of Income Tax in Wigan, there are appointed other additional Commissioners; and, if so, how many, and what are their names; and (2) whether it would be competent for any person seeking remission from unfair taxation to appear before the

  1647
  Commissioners by a non-legal representative?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: (1) I am informed that in the Division of Wigan there are no "Additional" Commissioners. Their duties are performed by the "General" Commissioners. (2) This is a matter which must be regarded as within the discretion of the Commissioners. I have already informed the hon. Member what is the strict legal position.

  DEATH SENTENCE IN INDIA.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received any information regarding the sentence of death alleged to have been passed by the Sessions Judge of Bhagalpore upon a young lad 10 years of age; and, if so, will be lay any Papers upon the Table of the House?
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I have made a full inquiry into the case, and I have read the Judgment of the High Court. The boy to whom the question refers was charged with taking a younger boy into an uninhabited house, and there robbing him and inflicting upon him grievous bodily harm. It appears that the prosecutor was wounded very severely, and was left in a state of insensibility. The High Court, in their Judgment, stated that there was no doubt that he was shockingly wounded. The case was tried before the Sessions Judge with two assessors. The Judge and one assessor were of opinion that the accused was guilty; the other assessor dissented from their verdict. Under the Indian Penal Code, the minimum penalty for an offence of this description is seven years' imprisonment, and the boy was sentenced in accordance with the Code to this punishment. But the Judge availed himself of the power conferred upon him by the Indian Reformatories Act, and commuted the penalty to that of detention for a period of seven years in a reformatory school. The boy appealed to the High Court at Calcutta, and the Judges of that Court, after a most careful consideration of all the evidence, were of opinion that it was not sufficient to justify a conviction, and they directed the release of the boy. In these circum-
  1648
  stances, I see no necessity for laying any Papers upon the Table of the House.
  MR. CAINE: The sentence has not been carried out?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No.

  CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND VIVISECTION.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Professor of Pathology in Cambridge University, printed in The Cambridge University Reporter of the 25th of May, wherein it is stated that Professor Filehne of the University of Breslau carried on work there during the Lent and part of the Michaelmas Terms; whether that work, referred to as research work, involved experiments on living animals; whether he is aware that Professor Filehne has not been returned as having been licensed or certificated last year at Cambridge or elsewhere; whether he will state how many experiments the Professor made, and of what kind; and if there should have been a breach of the law who is responsible for it, and whether any proceedings will be taken in regard to it?
  MR. ASQUITH: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, but to the second that Professor Filehne did not himself perform any experiments on living animals, and it is consequently unnecessary to answer the remaining questions. Any such experiments involved in his researches were performed by duly licensed persons. I think I ought to add that the question suggests that a distinguished foreign man of science, when residing in this country as a guest, committed a breach of the law, and that his hosts connived at his doing so, and that it would be well that before such questions are put adequate inquiry should be made to ascertain that there is ground for them.

  THE ACHILL SEED RATE.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether there is any foundation for the report that a police force has gone to Acbill Island to assist in the collection of the seed rate, and, if so, whether, under the present peculiarly distressing circumstances, he will advise the Lord

  1649
  Lieutenant to exercise his power to postpone the repayment of the loan?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is true that application has been made for a force of police to protect the rate collector while engaged collecting some £400 of arrears of rate due in Achill Island under the Seed Loans Act. Under the circumstances, in view of the distressed condition of the island, I have felt it my duty to advise the Lord Lieutenant that the time for the repayment of those arrears should be extended until September next, and therefore I presume the collector engaged by the Board of Guardians will not go any further. In any case, the police will not assist in the collection by protecting the collector.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS.

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, it would be recollected that objection had been taken that no sufficient preliminary Resolution had been passed to authorise Clause 15 of the Bill. He stated at the time that, if it were found to be so, he would move such a Resolution, and he had therefore put on the Paper a short Resolution which the authorities of the House considered adequate. It was—
    "That it is expedient to amend the provisions relating to the levying of Legacy Duty and Succession Duty and to the assessment of such duties."
    He understood, however, that it was desired that the Resolution should be more specific, and he had therefore incorporated in a Resolution the actual terms of the clause. He understood that the Leader of the Opposition thought it would be convenient to postpone any discussion until they came to the clause; and he therefore contented himself by moving—
    "That it is expedient that the value for the purpose of Succession Duty of a succession to real property, arising on the death of a deceased person, shall, where the successor is competent to dispose of the property, be the principal value of the property, and that provision shall be made for the payment of such duty with interest from the expiration of 12 months after the date of the death on which the succession arose, and
    1650
    the provisions of the existing law with respect to discount shall not apply."
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it is expedient that the value for the purpose of Succession Duty of a succession to real property, arising on the death of a deceased person shall, where the successor is competent to dispose of the property, be the principal value of the property, and that provision shall be made for the payment of such duty with interest from the expiration of 12 months after the date of the death on which the succession arose, and the provision of the existing law with respect to discount shall not apply."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, the right lion. Gentleman was correct in stating that the Leader of the Opposition thought it would be convenient to postpone any discussion till they came to the clause.
    *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, that the Notice on the Paper related to Legacy Duty and Succession Duty; but the Resolution moved referred to the Succession Duty only, and it would not enable them to deal with the Legacy Duty.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Opposition had been anxious to meet the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to this Resolution and not to interpose any difficulty to the passing of it. If it would not cover an Amendment of the Legacy Duty, the right lion. Gentleman might move another Resolution if it were found necessary.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he should be anxious to accommodate himself to the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsuggested that the reference to the Legacy Duty was necessary in consequence of a little slip in another clause. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved the Resolution in that form, and of course it would not be opposed.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHasked if that would not require another Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means to remedy the omission to which he had alluded?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he believed it could be done without a Resolution.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

FINANCE BILL.—(No. 190.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress, 9th June.]
[SIXTEENTH NIGHT.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 10.
On Motion of The SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. Reid, Dumfries, &c), the following Amendments were agreed to:—
Page 8, line 16, leave out "proof to their satisfaction," and insert "being satisfied."
Page 8, line 17, after "been," insert "or will be."
*MR. BARTLEYsaid, he wished, in line 18, to insert "shall, if required," in lieu of the word "may," and he was willing, at the suggestion of the late Attorney General, to add the additional words "by the person accountable." He thought that this was not a matter as to which the Commissioners should have discretion. If the duty were paid they should be bound to grant a certificate.
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 18, to leave out the word "may," and insert the words "shall, if required by the person accountable."—(Mr. Bartley.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
*THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,)said, he thought the clause as at present worded was more convenient and less likely to give rise to trouble. He doubted if the change would be a good one.
*SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he should not so much object to the word "may" being retained. But it was obvious that if a certificate was to be given it should be on the request of the person accountable for the duty.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he thought the word "shall" was necessary under the new conditions set up by this Bill. He did not know whether the Solicitor General bore in mind that under the system of taxation here imposed the number of certificates to be issued would be simply
1652
enormous. He thought the Commissioners might be excused if for their own protection they took some steps to prevent the wholesale issue of certificates. For the present he was afraid that neither the Government nor the Inland Revenue Authorities had formed the slightest notion of the enormous number of certificates that would have to be issued under the Act.
Amendment agreed to.
SIR R. WEBSTERmoved to insert the words "person accountable for." He said he thought this Amendment was necessary. The clause contemplated the discharge of property from further claims in respect of duty. If these words were carried it would not only discharge the property, but the person accountable. When the certificate had been given there would be no further remedy either against the person or the property.
SIR J. RIGBYmade some remarks which were inaudible in the Reporters Gallery.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 8, line 20, to leave out "part of that estate," and insert "the estate or part thereof as the case may be."
*SIK G. BADEN-POWELLmoved, in page 8, line 10, at end, insert—
"Provided always that the said Commissioners shall allow to be deducted from the amount, payable for such full Estate Duty any sum or sums shown to their satisfaction to have been legally paid as Death Duties on property situate outside the United Kingdom, to the Government of the country in which the property is situate, and in which equivalent exemption is granted in respect of Death Duties payable there on property situate in the United Kingdom."
He said he wished to make the suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to saving the time of the House that the Amendment should be accepted without prejudice to any future settlement of the question.
Question proposed, "That those words-be there inserted."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W.HARCOURT,)said, he was obliged to the hon. Member, and he would tell him what the view of

1653
Government generally was in this matter. As regarded the method of procedure, he did not think it would be a convenient form to put, in any such important matter as this in the shape of an addition to Clause 10. He thought there must be a separate clause dealing with a matter of this consequence. The view of the Government was that whatever they did should be done for the colonies and not for all places outside the United Kingdom. In principle the Government was prepared to accept the principle set forth in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight. The object of that Amendment was to prevent the imposition of double duties—that was to say, where the colonies charged the duty that amount should be deducted from the charge made in this country. That he accepted in principle; but if they made that abatement to the colonies, the colonies should make the abatement to them so as to secure reciprocity. It would be necessary to provide proper machinery. The most convenient mode of securing this reciprocity would be by applying a clause by Order in Council when Her Majesty was satisfied that the conditions were fulfilled. He undertook to bring up a clause which he thought would be a satisfactory settlement of the matter.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which, so far, was satisfactory, he should not press his proposal. His object in putting down the Amendment was to prevent what appeared to be the payment of a double duty, or, at, any rate, a duty largely in excess of the Estate Duty. It seemed desirable that some system of reciprocity should be established so that the colonies should not be in the position any more than the Home Government to impose an excessive duty. He hoped, after what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the matter would be made to depend upon the principle of reciprocity being accepted by the colonies, and that when the right hon. Gentleman brought up his clause he would be able to say that an arrangement had been entered into with the colonies for a settlement of the matter.
*SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, ho was sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not come to his present
1654
decision when the question was raised on a previous occasion, because in that case much time would have been saved. However, he congratulated him upon the form which his decision had taken. The matter of reciprocity was a practical feature of his Amendment, which he was glad to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer had accepted. Upon that principle he hoped that some communication would be made to the colonies. He would like to point out that in South Australia the matter was not a question of an Order in Council but of Statute Law, and he was surprised that the present Government should have consented to make preferential arrangements which might be described as the thin end of the wedge of Protection. At the same time, he congratulated the Government generally upon the decision at which they had arrived.
SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he thought that the Government would meet with considerable difficulty when they came to apply the principle to property situated in foreign countries and also in many of our own dependencies. For instance, how was it to be applied to property in India and to those portions of our Eastern Possessions that were dependencies only of this Empire?
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not wish to discuss this question upon the present Amendment, but thought it desirable to wait until they saw what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed. He did not know whether there ought to be the same exemption in the case of foreign countries as in the case of the colonies. But while he suggested that the matter should not be debated at that time, he hoped, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not assume that the Debate upon this important question had been concluded. It might be necessary to bring it up again on Report or in the shape of an Amendment to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's clause.
*SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the abatement would apply to colonial and not to foreign property. He wished it to be distinctly understood that the Government made no pretension to legislate in the colonies with regard to taxation. They did not propose to impose any tax upon any person in the colonies. They

1655
only proposed that persons domiciled here should be subjected to certain taxation which would fall upon any British subject, and they only proposed to get from the executor here duty to the extent of the assets which were under his control. They did not propose to go into the colonies to collect money where they had no jurisdiction or authority, but only to collect the duty from the executor at home.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, this question of exemption or quasi-exemption ought to be very carefully considered before being embodied in a clause. They would be differentiating between the colonies and foreign countries, and they must take care to avoid the possibility of the colonies imposing a duty upon property in Great Britain. As he understood the subject persons would have to pay the same amount of duty in the long run, whether the principle of the Amendment were really carried out or not. The only question was, whether the tax would go into the coffers of the Colonial Government or into those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
MR. COURTNEY, said, bethought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated too decided a preference for the language in which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had worded his Amendment. He pointed out that the words of the Amendment exempted a man from the payment of taxation in regard to property liable at the death of the deceased to Estate Duty in the country where it was situated. That would include Legacy Duty as well as Death Duty. How would the Amendment affect property liable to taxation other than Estate Duty? Could any exemption be claimed in that case?
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that property in the colonies liable to any Death Duty there would be entitled to have this duty deducted from the Estate Duty.
MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the Legacy Duty as well as Estate Duty was payable here, and that the wording of the Amendment did not meet his difficulty.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELLthought that was so. It was such a case as that which he had specially in view when he
1656
drafted his Amendment, and which was precisely covered by it.
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, it was essential that they should bear in mind that the Government did not intend to establish in any form a differential duty as against English capital in favour of capital elsewhere. The Government must try to keep an even keel in the matter, and see that no advantage or disadvantage accrued to one party or the other.
MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought the question which had been raised was a very important one, and that the only way in which it could be fairly settled would be to arrive at some arrangement by which every colony would have the same rate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESmoved to omit Sub-section (2). He said he thought that everything that could be done under Sub-section (2) with the time limit could be done under other sections of the Bill without the time limit. He admitted that it was necessary that the Commissioners should have the power given to them by Sub-section 2, but it seemed to him that the only powers the sub-section conferred upon them were already given in other parts of the Bill.
Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause."
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to shorten the Bill, as anything in that direction would be a relief to the Government. He did not, however, think that it would improve the Bill to omit this sub-section. He should prefer that the sub-section should remain, even though it might overlap some of the other provisions of the Bill. He thought it was well to give the Commissioners an indication that estates should be wound up within two years.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that if the Attorney General considered the sub-section necessary he should not press his Amendment.
MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought it would be immensely difficult to get anybody to undertake the administration of an estate, when it was evident that after everything had been done it might take two years before the rate of the Estate Duty was determined. Some means ought to be adopted by which the unfortunate persons who would have to fulfil the duties of administrators might be relieved to a certain extent; otherwise he was afraid that some public Department would have to be appointed to administer estates.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GRANT LAWSONmoved (on behalf of Mr. T. H. Bolton) to leave out, in page 8, lines 22 and 23, "after the lapse of two years from such death." He said the object of this proposal was to omit the limit of two years which, under the clause as it stood, must necessarily elapse before an application could be made to the Commissioners. He thought that one of the terrors which this Bill would add, not to death but to survivorship, was that no estate could be wound up under it except after a very considerable period of time. The unfortunate people who came into property would be in the position of wards of the Commissioners or of suitors in Chancery in the bad old days. Why should it be said that two years must elapse before an application could be made to the Commissioners to fix the rate of duty?
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 22, after the word "applies," to leave out to the first "to," in line 23.—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he could do little more than repeat the reply he had given to the previous Amendment. He thought it was advisable to retain the limit of two years, and he could not accept the Amendment.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, there was a very important point underlying the Amendment which might have escaped the Attorney General's attention. As the clause was now framed, practically speaking no application could be made to
1658
the Commissioners for relief until after the lapse of two years. It was, however, absolutely necessary to make provision for certain kinds of property being dealt with before the expiration of that period. An Amendment appeared lower down on the Paper with reference to the sale of reversions. If an executor satisfied the Commissioners that he intended to deal with certain property for money or money's worth, it would, he (Sir R. Webster) thought, be absolutely necessary that there should be some means of making immediate application for a certificate of discharge. He should, therefore, have thought it would have been desirable to leave out the words "after the lapse of two years from such death," so as to give the Commissioners a freer hand. If, however, the Government thought that such a limit must be retained in the Bill some protecting words must be inserted for dealing with special cases. No doubt it was desirable that there should be somewhere in the Bill an indication of the period within which estates must be wound up, but his suggestion to the Government was that this was not the best clause in which to insert such an indication.
SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the Government had carefully considered this matter, and had had the benefit of the advice of those who were really acquainted with it. Under Clause 10, Sub-section 1, anyone could go before the Commission at any time and say that such-and-such circumstances ought to satisfy the minds of the Commissioners that everything had been done. Two years was a limit which might well be fixed, because by the end of that time the Commissioners would have come to know all about the property and could act without further investigation. As to the Amendments which stood later on the Paper, he could not now deal with them, but he thought that a great deal of unnecessary apprehension had been raised as to the case of reversioners. He hoped the hon. Member would not insist upon the Amendment.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, that after what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, he would suggest that the Government should consider whether "one year" would not be sufficient instead of "two years." That would be

1659
fixing a time limit—and a considerable time, too—after the death of the deceased, after which the Commissioners would exercise that discretion which this subsection proposed to give them. It would be an enormous advantage to all concerned that, consistently with the requirements of the Revenue Department, these matters should be wound up, or that the Commissioners should be able to wind them up if they were satisfied under the provisions of this second subsection. He did not know if that would commend itself to the hon. Member who moved the omission of the words, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman could not accept the Amendment this proposal might be acceptable.
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he would willingly give way in this matter if it were only a question of his opinion against those of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who knew as much as he did. But the Government had discussed the matter with officials who would be responsible for carrying out the Act, and knowing what they did as to the time occupied in the administration of estates those officials declared that they could not undertake the responsibility of the work with any degree of satisfaction unless they had a period of two years allowed them to turn round in. The effect of shortening the period to one year would, he was afraid, only lead to dissatisfaction through the necessity the Commissioners would be under in so many cases of refusing certificates at the end of the specified time. No doubt in many cases the matter might be settled in a moment; but where they were called on by the mere statement of the persons interested to fix the duty, unless more time than one year were allowed, they might not be able to do the work. He was not obstinately standing on his own opinion, but was guided in the matter by the views of the permanent officials.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had made a conciliatory speech, but, at the same time, one which might alarm the country by giving the impression that under the Bill certificates in many cases would not be given for two years. He understood that a term of years ought to be fixed which would not give rise to that dissatisfaction which the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested if the Com-
1660
missioners were frequently obliged to refuse certificates if the word "may" were altered to "shall." He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to mean that, though the Commissioners were not bound to give a certificate, yet it would give dissatisfaction—two years having been inserted in the Bill—if the certificate were refused at the end of the two years. A great deal naturally turned on the number of cases that might occur. He was afraid it would give the impression out of doors that the Government advisers thought there were a great many cases that would take longer than two years to deal with. He was sure the Inland Revenue authorities wished to do their utmost to reduce the time that would elapse before this important certificate was given. Would the Attorney General appeal once more to the Inland Revenue authorities before the Report stage was reached?
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the matter had been discussed at length already, and he could not promise any change in the view of the Government. However, the authorities would be put in possession of everything said in the Committee on the subject. The matter would be put before them again, and if they thought the Bill could be altered it should be done.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the period of two years might well be adopted if in the sub-section the words "the Commissioners may determine the rate of the Estate Duty" were altered to "the Commissioners shall determine the rate of the Estate Duty."
MR. BYRNEsaid, he thought some such phraseology as this might be adopted: "shall, unless they see good reason to the contrary." He did not want words put in which would compel the Commissioners at the end of two years to give a cerficate; but if they added these words they would differentiate from the former clause.
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the Amendment that ought to have been carried was the one they had just passed, and in regard to that the Attorney General said the great virtue of it was the time limit. He spoke once before on this Bill on the subject of a time limit, and he then proposed that the executor should have 12 months and not six months in which to wind up the estate,

1661
when he was assailed by the learned Attorney General, who said he was encouraging habits of sloth; now, when he wished to hurry up the Commissioners, the learned Attorney General asserted they should be allowed to have two years. But there were circumstances that day that caused him not to press the Amendment to a Division, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR R. WEBSTERwished now to move the Amendment to leave out of line 25 the words "and the several persons entitled thereto," as he could not understand what was the necessity for these words. He understood it was the duty of the Commissioners, after the period of two years, to fix what the rate of the Estate Duty should be, and he quite agreed in thinking that should be done. The person accountable ought to give a full statement of all the property, but it seemed to him it would be unfair that the Commissioners should be entitled to ask for information as to "the several persons entitled thereto." It might be a difficult thing for a person to give the information, though he agreed the Commissioners would be entitled to ask for full information, according to his best knowledge and belief, of all persons entitled thereto. He failed to see under what circumstances the information as to the "several persons entitled thereto" would affect the question the Commissioners had to solve, and having regard to the earlier provisions of the Bill it seemed to him these words were really unnecessary.
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 25, to leave out the words "and the several persons entitled thereto."—(Sir R. Webster.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that the information to be furnished would be according to the person's best knowledge and belief, and therefore there was no difficulty about the matter. The person was simply told he should give a satisfactory account, and in some cases he only could go so far as to say that he knew nothing of any other property or
1662
of any other person interested in the property, and that would be a full and complete statement. But why should not a man connected with the estate in that way be called upon to do that, and to say whether or not he knew certain properties and that he believed the owners to be so-and-so?
*SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he did not wish to appear pertinacious, but the words were—
"A full statement to the best of his knowledge and belief of all property passing on such death and the several persons entitled thereto,"
If the hon. and learned Gentleman was in the position of controlling the Department they would not have so much difficulty, but he might shortly be in higher places. A man would have to go and make inquiries before he was supposed to have discharged his duties, and he submitted the hon. and learned Gentleman had not sufficiently considered the meaning of the words.
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the information to be given the Commissioners might affect material questions, as in the case, for instance, of settled property, whether the settled property ought to be aggregated or not: that would be of great importance to the Commissioners to know, and they had a right to have the information.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that in consequence of the discussion that took place just now, and the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), he had handed in an Amendment to leave out of line 26 the word "may," and insert the word "shall." He submitted that, in this place, "shall" was the proper word to use. The clause presumed that the persons should have given a full statement of all property and the persons entitled thereto, and therefore it ought not to be left optional to the Commissioners to determine the rate of interest.
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 26, to leave out the word "may," in order to insert the word "shall."—(Sir R. Webster.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
*SIR.J. RIGBYsaid, that in reading the context it would be found that

1663
"may" was directory only, whereas "shall" would be obligatory, and therefore it would be very unfortunate indeed, taking the limit of two years, if they adopted this Amendment. They were dealing in some cases with estates belonging to persons having interests all over the world; in the other cases, where people died without any really recognised heirs, or without any heirs at all, there were cases where for months and even years it was doubtful who ought to administer the estate; and there were numerous cases in which two years would be a very small time indeed in which to get an approximate knowledge of the items of the property or of the persons interested in it. He agreed that taking things generally two years was enough, and in that time they might hope all these matters would be settled, but to say that after two years in all cases there should be a discharge given was going too far. Such a discharge would operate in favour of exonerating people who wanted to defraud the Revenue and escape the payment of the duty they ought to pay, and to adopt the Amendment would be an inducement to them at every stage to linger out the proceedings and prevent all being discovered, and at the end of two years they might say to the Commissioners, "We have kept you at arm's length all this time, and now in obedience to the Statute you are obliged to give a certificate." This ought not to be, especially when from their conduct they might almost be satisfied there was something behind that was suspicious.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that if the Commissioners at the end of two years were not to be directed to fix the rate of duty on the estate the whole value of the clause disappeared. Whether two years or not was the proper period to fix he would not at this moment undertake to say, but it would be monstrous if they were always to keep these accounts open and to keep the liability of persons accountable for this duty open. Under this Bill an entirely new principle of accountability had been set up; it was not merely that they were to be accountable for the property that came into their hands, but for a vast amount of other property of which they might be supposed to know something, and for which they were to be accountable. Under those circumstances, this
1664
tremendous burden ought to be capable of being removed at some period or other. The period chosen by the Government was two years, and, that being so, it was nonsensical to say that it was only to be removed if the Commissioners chose. That would destroy the whole value of the sub-section. To carry out the intention of the sub-section he thought it was very necessary to substitute the word "shall" for "may."
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that considering the immense amount of information the Inland Revenue officers had, considering the great store of learning there was at Somerset House, considering they had had years to collect that information, and considering that the Government were giving power to enable them to get information from everyone, whether he knew anything about it or not, he was sure two years' time was sufficient to wind up the estate, and at the end of that time it was only reasonable to say the matter should be wound up. There would be no loss to the Revenue. They asked that the Commissioners should be compelled to do—what? To determine the rate of the Estate Duty on the property for which the person accountable was to pay. If any further property was discovered it could be taxed, and the only loss that could occur to the Revenue would be in the case where the estate was on the margin of one of the steps of graduation when the property coming in afterwards might have entitled them to a higher rate of duty. Except in very rare cases there would be no loss of Revenue on the undiscovered property.
MR. COURTNEYcould not understand what objection there was to make the language of the Statute a little more rigorous by transforming "may" into "shall," accompanied by the qualifying words which had been suggested.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that the word "shall" occurred at the end of the sub-section in a very much more important relationship. The word "may" occurred only in relation to the determination of the Estate Duty, whereas the word "shall" had reference to the giving of the certificate; therefore, the original drafting of the clause appeared to be weak.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 166.—(Division List, No. 115.)
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he wished, as a result of the discussion that afternoon, to move the following Amendment at the end of line 31 of the clause:—
"But any person aggrieved by the refusal of the Commissioners to determine such rate, or by the rate so determined, may appeal to the High Court in the manner directed by Rules of Court."
The hon. Member said, it was quite obvious there might be cases of hardship if the Commissioners were to refuse to determine the rate and wind the matter up. The Inland Revenue Commissioners acted at present with great kindness to those who applied personally to them, and acted justly to everybody as far as possible. But because that was so now, and had been so in the past, it was no reason why it should always be so, and it was not desirable they should have, in the future, an uncontrolled power of keeping these matters open. As they had just passed the word "may" in this clause and made it optional, it was only reasonable they should now proceed to say that if anybody was aggrieved by the way the option of the Commissioners was exorcised he should be allowed to appeal to the High Court. He begged to move the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 31, after the word "discharge," to insert the words
"but any person aggrieved by the refusal of the Commissioners to determine such rate, or by the rate so determined, may appeal to the High Court in the manner directed by Rules of Court."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR J. RIGBY, in opposing the Amendment, said, if it were accepted it would deprive the Commissioners of that class of information they now got as strictly confidential. The Commissioners might have a reasonable suspicion that all the facts had not been disclosed; they might receive some credible but unofficial and private information that such was the case, and it would be outrageous to bring all these matters before the High Court. The Commissioners would have
1666
no power to bring evidence of this character before the High Court of Justice, and the High Court of Justice might decide that the Commissioners ought to give a certificate and they might not know the reasons—which might be potent and sufficient—that the Commissioners had for refusing. The reasons that the Commissioners had for so acting might be good reasons, but not supported by strictly legal evidence. It could not, therefore, be put before the High Court, which in these circumstances might decide against the Commissioners without having the proper materials before it for dealing with the subject.
SIR R. WEBSTERpointed out that a practically similar Amendment, which he had moved to Clause 7, was accepted by the Solicitor General. The actual words of his Amendment were these—
"Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners under this sub-section, may appeal to the High Court within the time and in the manner directed by the Rules of Court."
His lion, and learned Friend the Member for Thirsk had moved a similar provision with reference to the decision of the Commissioners under the clause now being discussed. He should have thought there was not much difference, and that practically the same Amendment having been accepted to a former clause, it might now be accepted to this. This was a matter which might properly be reviewed by the High Court and he thought there were very fair grounds for asking that the Amendment should be accepted.
MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Commissioners were to give a certificate after two years unless there was something serious to prevent them. If that was the case, surely it was only fair that the Court should judge whether the Commissioners were acting reasonably or not. The Attorney General said it would be a matter of the absence of knowledge which would prevent the Commissioners giving a certificate, but surely in the interests of the public and of everybody, if there was this absence of knowledge it was time, after two years, that this matter should be ended, and he entirely objected to the idea laid down by the Attorney General that these cases were to stand over, dependent upon secret knowledge which the Commis-

1667
sioners might have. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Commissioners might have some secret evidence which might prevent them giving a certificate, but which they did not like to put into the witness box of the High Court. But these were the very cases they ought to look after, and he entirely objected to the notion that the Inland Revenue were to be the judges in this matter because of some secret evidence which nobody could appeal to or understand. They had passed a clause giving the Commissioners the right to go to any person they liked and demand information concerning an estate, whether the man knew anything about it or not, simply because the Commissioners might think he ought to know. Take a simple concrete case. There was a dispute between those who had to administer an estate and the Commissioners concerning the property. The Commissioners would say that they had reason to believe that there was more property in the estate than was shown by the affidavits and other evidence. Those persons who were administering the estate would say there was not, and the Commissioners would say they had reason to believe from those mysterious persons whom the Attorney General had referred to that there was further property. If that was the state of the case, how could it be settled except by an appeal to the High Court? These would be all large cases, in which there would be a good deal of conflicting evidence, and therefore it seamed to him only common justice that both parties should appear before an impartial tribunal by whom the difference could be settled. According to the Attorney General, they were to leave it absolutely to the Commissioners, who were to be the judges in their own cause and were not to give that appeal which, it seemed to him, every person in the country ought to have a right to if he felt himself aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners. Inasmuch as they had retained the word "may," and were leaving it absolutely to the Commissioners to say whether they would or would not give these certificates—which were practically the title-deeds to much of the property—great hardships might be inflicted in many cases, and he hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would press the Amendment to a Division.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 209.—(Division List, No. 116.)
*MR. T. H. BOLTONmoved to insert a new sub-section enabling persons intending to deal with reversions in respect of which duty would become payable to apply to the Commissioners for a certificate fixing the rate of duty chargeable, the property thereupon to become freed in the hands of purchasers or mortgagees from any higher rate. He said that the liability to aggregation introduced an element of uncertainty into the value of reversions. The duty might, at a future time, when the reversionary interest fell into possession, be very largely increased, and that fact would militate against the saleable value of the reversionary interest. The variation would amount to 5 per cent. In the ease of a stranger in blood the full duty might be very considerable, amounting to as much as 18 per cent. This proposal was necessary in the interests of persons desirous of mortgaging or selling their reversions as well as Insurance Companies and others purchasing reversionary interests, and would be a mere act of justice to all the persons interested.
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 31, after the word "discharge," to insert as a new sub-section the words—
"(3) Any person intending to deal with a reversion in respect of which duty will thereafter become payable may apply to the Commissioners for a certificate fixing the rate at which duty is to be charged on such reversion, and such certificate when made shall free the property in the hands of purchasers or mortgagees from any higher rate of duty."—(Mr. T. II. Bolton.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that the Commissioners already possessed under the earlier part of the Bill the power of granting certificates. Why should the purchasers and vendors of reversions be picked out for exceptionally favourable treatment? The purchase of reversions was by its very nature a speculative business, because there were so many elements of uncertainty about the value of a reversion; and that uncertainty would not be appreciably increased by the fact that the rate of duty was not fixed. In order

1669
however, to further progress with the Bill and to assist business without giving an undue preference to one form of property, he would promise to bring in a clause enabling the Commissioners to come to a compromise where it was desirable.
*SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that this Amendment raised one of the many cases in which the Bill introduced difficulties and hardships without any advantage to the Revenue. The learned Attorney General did not seem to have grasped the point, because he said that under a previous part of the Bill the Commissioners could give a certificate. But that was only on payment of the duty and after the death of the deceased. But reversioners often required to deal with their reversions 10, 20, or even 40 years before they fell in. Again, the learned Attorney General asked why should reversioners have a privilege which was not given to other property. For the simple reason that other property passed outright. Consols would be as saleable as before, but reversions would not, because it would be impossible to ascertain the duty. In hundreds and thousands of cases it was of great importance to raise a sum on reversionary rights to start a young man in life; but, unless this Amendment were accepted, this would become practically impossible, because no one could calculate beforehand what the value of the reversion would be. He hoped, therefore, the learned Attorney General would see his way to accept this Amendment.
MR. BARTLEYurged that a reversion was often valueless to a man unless he could sell it or raise money upon it, and a variation of 5 per cent, in the duty to be charged would often make all the difference between a reversion being worth anything and worth nothing. The whole scope and scheme of this Bill was to put an enormous hardship on owners and reversions, and this clause would only put them in a fair position with regard to other properties. No doubt the law ought not to encourage the sale of reversions, but the fact was that the Bill as it stood would make it necessary for all but rich men to sell them by putting the holders in a most unfair and awkward position, whereas it would be more in accordance with public policy to offer people facilities for keeping them. He regretted that some plan had not been
1670
adopted which would render the clause unnecessary; but the clause as it stood would render sale compulsory, and would make the inheritance of a reversion really a misfortune to a man. Only rich persons and Insurance Companies would be able to hold reversions, and the result would be that the Exchequer would suffer loss. The result of the Bill would be that reversioners would be treated with great hardship.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, the attention of the Committee had been chiefly directed to reversions expectant on the decease of father or mother, but the Amendment ought also to be considered with regard to reversions on the termination of leases; and it was not in the public interest that there should be any impediment to dealing freely with the whole leasehold property of London or in any other part of the country. Facilities had already been given for the payment of Estate Duty while properties were in possession, and it was only fair that dealing with reversionary interests where necessary should not be made in many cases practically impossible.
*MR. BUTCHERurged that without the Amendment the Bill would interfere with a large legitimate and increasing business done by Insurance Companies. As they would be, of course, bound to protect themselves against the risk of having to pay the highest Estate Duty, their margin of safety would often make a difference of hundreds of pounds to a reversioner. Unless the Government was prepared to say they would interfere by legislation with the sale of reversions altogether, it was only fair that this facility for dealing with them should be given. He therefore urged that they should accept this Amendment or indicate their intention to insert a provision on similar lines.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that was an important point. The difference represented by uncertainty would be so substantial as not only to reduce the amount to be paid by an Insurance Company on purchasing a reversion, but would cause the Company to hesitate in some cases to entertain the transaction at all.
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, this point raised the question of beneficial interest accruing on death. It was doubtful whether reversions were really property passing on death, and therefore

1671
whether they ought to be taxed under this Bill. The Attorney General had urged that reversions were, under any circumstances, speculative and that purchases of them must therefore be speculations in any case. But that might be said of every investment—that it involved uncertainty. These investments, on the other hand, were purchased on carefully framed actuarial tables, and the purchases were spread over a sufficient number of transactions to give an average of certainty. An ordinary part of the business of Insurance Companies was that of averages. By bringing in the principle of graduation the Government left it absolutely uncertain what the rate on the reversion would be, and in such a case the actuary would be of no use. He had never met an actuary who was able to tell what a man would leave another at his death; and until the table which gave information of that kind was framed, it would be impossible to give the rate on a reversion. The Amendment would enable the holders of reversions to raise money on the reversions to start themselves in life; and it seemed hard that that should not be so.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that perhaps the explanation of the action of the Government in regard to this clause was to be found in the fact that the case of holders of reversions would be met by the new clause which the Government were about to introduce. But if that were not so, an answer might be given to the case which had been made in support of the Amendment. It had been shown that the holders of reversions would be under the Bill placed in the position of being only able to sell their reversions at a much lower rate than now, owing to the uncertain character of the charge that would be imposed on reversions by the Bill. He should like to know specifically, from the Government whether they thought the new clause they were about to introduce would meet the difficulty?
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the Government had promised to bring in a new clause to protect what they called commercial transactions. His answer to the right hou. Gentleman opposite was that the clause would not include the present case, but what was sufficient for the present case was Section 41 of the Succession Duty Act.
SIR J. LUBBOCK: Will the hon. Gentleman speak up? We cannot hear him here.
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he was only answering an argument he thought was not of any interest to the Committee. It was said that holders of reversions would be worse off under the Bill than at present. If people were not worse off by the operation of the Bill the Government would not get any Revenue.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, his complaint was that, at present, holders of reversions knew the rate they would have to pay; but nobody knew what the rate would be under the Bill.
*SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, a reason against graduation; but there were overwhelmingly better reasons in favour of it. The Government had already given the holder of the reversions the opportunity of paying the rate down; and if they postponed the payment of the rate it was for their own benefit they would do so. What was asked by the Amendment was that the holder of a reversion could go to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and say, "We want to sell this property; fix a final duty upon it now before you have time to investigate the matter, simply because it will be convenient for us and convenient for the reversionary interest purchasing Companies." He desired to speak of those Companies with respect, because he knew they performed a useful function. It was said that, unless the rate was fixed, the Companies would be obliged, in order to cover themselves, to exact the maximum; but if the Companies carried on their business by exacting the maximum in every case, they would soon have no business to carry on, and they ought to have none, for the business would go to people who would be more reasonable, and would strike an average.
MR. BYRNEsaid, the Solicitor General had not dealt with the argument in support of the Amendment. A man who was entitled to a reversion knew, under the existing law, the duty that would be payable in respect to it; and, therefore, if he desired to sell the reversion there would not be the slightest difficulty about it. Under the Bill, however, the man would not know what would be payable on his reversion until

1673
the death of another person, for that other person's estate and property would all have to be considered before the rate payable on the reversion could be determined. The amount of the duty might be 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 per cent.; it was impossible to say what it would be, and the purchaser of a reversion would naturally give a less price for it than at present, for he would calculate that a much higher rate of duty would be payable when the reversion fell in. That uncertainty would make the reversions much more difficult to deal with after than before the Bill. At present young men of 25 or 30 who had reversions, and who desired to start in life, or emigrate, or set up in business could sell their reversions, and get their full and ascertained value. In future, unless some form of compromise, such as that suggested in the Amendment, was arrived at, they would not get the full price of their reversions. What they would get was a price less the calculated high rate.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the Committee ought to understand clearly that the Attorney General would not give to holders of reversions the relief sought in the Amendment.
MR. MOULTONsaid, the main argument of the other side was that persons owning reversions would be in a difficulty, because they would not be able to tell the rate at which they would be taxed. That was perfectly true, and the answer was, because no one could tell the rate. If they were going to graduate the rate according to the wealth of the person at whose death the reversion fell in—as would be done in every case—neither the Inland Revenue Commissioners nor any other person could tell how rich the man would die, and consequently would be unable to tell the rate at which the reversion would be taxed. To calculate what the rate would be was a thing beyond the human mind. It was a new risk, a new element of uncertainty, that was absolutely inseparable from the plan of graduating the duty according to the wealth of the person who died. They must accept that risk or uncertainty as one of the consequences of graduation. It was one of the minor inconveniences of graduation, and if they were not prepared to accept it they must give up graduation, because it was quite impossible to separate one from the other. But they had decided in favour of graduation,
1674
and, having so decided, they must recognise that the rate at which reversions were to be taxed was beyond the wisdom of man to foresee.
MR. GIBSON BOWLEScongratulated the hon. Member for Hackney on discovering America. The hon. and learned Member had just found out that no one could tell the rate of duty payable under the Bill. Why, that was the point which the Opposition had vainly endeavoured to drive into the heads of hon. Gentlemen opposite in all the discussions of the Bill; and he was proud that they had at least carried conviction to the open mind of the lion. Member for Hackney The Attorney General, having as an afterthought consulted the Succession Duties Act, told the Committee that under Section II of that Act there would be no difficulty in dealing with those reversions. But that was because at present the duty was fixed; and because the Commissioners of Inland Revenue could from the estimated value of the reversions fix the duty upon it. No man could tell what the rate would be under the Bill; and therefore they would turn reversions out of the region of property by preventing them from being buyable and saleable. A pretty mess they had got reversions and everything else in under the Bill. But he thought the Government would find it absolutely impossible to apply this new principle that was called graduation.
*SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Hackney contended that persons who held reversions were no worse off than anyone else under the Bill. Let them test that. If a man had Consols or railway shares he could sell them, and the Bill would not damage their sale, for he would get just as much for them after the Bill as before it. But the holder of a reversion was in a totally different position. He could not sell it at its full value, for no one would know what the duty on it would be; and, therefore, the Bill affected a man holding reversions in a different way from a man who held any other class of property. "But," said the Attorney General, "if the Insurance Offices charge too much they will get no business; and the offices which strike an average will get the business." But why should not the Commissioners of Inland Revenue strike an average? If that were done, the holders of rever-

1675
sions would be able to deal with them. This was not a matter that affected the revenue at all; and unless they accepted the Amendment they would lower the value of a great amount of property in the country, without doing any advantage whatever to the revenue. The question affected a great number of persons. For instance, a widow had a life interest in railway shares and other property, which on her death went to her children. It was often of the utmost importance to children to be able to raise money on their reversions in order to make a start in life. The Government, by their action, were imposing a great disadvantage on those people, and the arguments they had advanced against the Amendment showed that they really had not grasped the effect of their Bill.
Question put.
The Committee divided: —Ayes 123; Noes 167.—(Division List, No. 117.)
*SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he begged to move to leave out the words "or property," in line 33, so that the sub-section would read—
"(3.) A certificate of the Commissioners under this section shall not discharge any person from Estate Duty in case of fraud or failure to disclose material facts, and shall not affect the rate of duty payable on any property afterwards shown to have passed on the death, and the duty thereon shall be at such rate as would be payable if the value thereof were added to the value of the property on which duty has been already paid."
He had understood from the discussion on the previous clause that in cases of fraud or failure to disclose facts for which no defence could be pleaded by persons accountable for duty, those persons could be punished by a large fine at the discretion of the Commissioners and the Court, which fine would have to be paid by those persons themselves, and would not come out of the property. Therefore, as the offence against which the subsection provided was a personal offence, and not one committed by the property or beneficiaries, the property ought not to be made liable. He did not know why these words "or property" were inserted, but the point was a legal one, and he did not propose to speak upon it with authority. He moved the Amendment, in the hope of eliciting some information.
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 33, to leave out the words "or property" —(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)
Question proposed, "That the words 'or property' stand part of the Clause."
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman desired that the granting of a certificate should be a discharge of the property affected, whether or not the certificate was obtained by fraud or failure to disclose facts. The right hon. Gentleman considered that the immunity should not attach to the person but to the property, and said, "Why do you not release the property?" The answer was, "If it has not been sold to a purchaser who buys for valuable consideration, why should it not be charged?" The duty was charged on the property, and why should the property not pay?
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, his point was that the person accountable was the person who might be supposed to be guilty of the fraud or suppression of facts. He was punishable under the Bill, and would remain so under the Amendment. Why, when he was not a beneficiary or owner of the property, should the liability to pay rest upon the property as well as on the person who committed the offence?
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, it should rest upon the property for the reason that, although the beneficiaries might be innocent persons, they would be represented by the person accountable, and they would derive benefit from the fraud. The Amendment was intended to release the property from liability to duty under certain conditions, and in so far as it would do that it was against the interests of the Exchequer. He did not think they ought to release the property where there had been a fraud unless the rights of some third innocent party intervened. That, he thought, was an intelligible line of policy. He had put down an Amendment which would give all the protection which was necessary to innocent persons.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the learned Solicitor General had put his case clearly, but the Amendment raised a matter as to which the Government had not gone far enough. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment would only give protection to bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. In

1677
the Interpretation Clause there was no definition of "bonâ, fide purchaser for valuable consideration." Take the case of a person who had acquired the property under a marriage settlement, and had not paid money for it; would he be a "bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration"? The position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol was that the Government did not go far enough. It was not fair that the property should be charged where they had a person liable to heavy penalty. To except all beneficiaries would be going too far, but it was clear that the words used were too narrow, and that unless the clause were amended, or necessary words were inserted in the Definition Clause, all transactions other than those of "purchasers for valuable consideration" would for all time remain chargeable with the duty.
*SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that unless the words "or property" were omitted they would not gain what they expected by the abandonment of Clause 8. If the Amendment were not accepted the sub-section as it stood would have the effect of putting an end to all transactions on the Stock Exchange, because it would be impossible for anyone to safely buy either stocks or shares in case they should have formed part of the estate of a deceased person which had not paid the proper amount of Death Duty. He believed it would be found impracticable to require that a certificate to that effect should be given with the ordinary transfers.
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he could assure the right hon. Member for the University of London that bona fide purchasers in the sense referred to would be sufficiently protected by the clause as it would stand.
COMMANDER BETHELLasked if the Solicitor General would be good enough to explain whether, if there was an evasion of duty from whatever cause, on the estate again passing and a fresh duty being imposed, the old duty would be payable by the beneficiaries?
MR. R. T. REID: Yes.
COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, it seemed extremely hard that a future owner of the property should be liable to make good, after an indefinite lapse of years, and after having paid the Estate Duty due on his own account, any part
1678
of the duty that, either from fraud or mistake, had not been paid on a former succession.
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that where the liability to duty was in the nature of a charge on the property the liability was not diverted by the granting of the certificate, should that certificate have been obtained by fraud. A second death would involve a second duty.
COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he thought that was the case. Though he agreed it was fair that the estate should be liable for the whole duty, if it had not been paid owing to fraud, he thought it was hard that a later possessor having paid his own duty, if the former Estate Duty had been defaulted, should be chargeable for that duty. The default might have taken place through a mistake on the part of the Commissioners themselves; nevertheless, the future possessor might have to bear the consequences. This was a case which should be taken into consideration, especially in view of the immense duty that would now have to be paid.
MR. BARTLEYsaid, a point which struck him was that when there was really fraud or evasion the clause would be found to offer no protection to the Revenue at all, as in such cases the property would certainly be sold, and the State had no power to recover against a bona, fide purchaser. That seemed to him to show the weakness of the clause, and the property had passed to somebody without sale, it would always be liable for any charge, whether owing through fraud or otherwise. What a person would have to do, supposing fraud had been committed, would be to part with the property to a third person, when all claim on it would be barred. It was a provision, therefore, that might often hit with great hardness a perfectly innocent man, while it offered a loophole of escape to the rogue, that was sure to be taken full advantage of.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the liability under this clause would be a * serious one to impose upon estates. The liability was one which would never cease. Even after the lapse of centuries it would still exist, and could be enforced. In short, this clause, like the other clauses of the Bill, contemplated eternity —and two or three days more. This was not a liability which should be im-

1679
posed upon an estate. In the Succession Duty Act there was nothing corresponding to this provision,' although that Statute contemplated these things, and provided that bona fide purchasers should not be liable. If fraud was committed, it would be largely owing to the negligence of the Commissioners, who were armed with largely increased powers under the Bill for obtaining information and ascertaining facts. Either they would have got all the facts together—in which case it would be their own fault if they were misled—or else they had not got them, in which case they would not have performed their duty. Instead of there now being a stronger case for imposing this unfair charge, there was now a weaker one, having regard to the powers of the Commissioners. It seemed to him that the penalty for fraud should be confined to the person who committed it.
Question put.
The Committee divided: —Ayes 125; Noes 63.—(Division List, No. 118.)
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 38, after the word "paid," to insert the words—
"Provided, nevertheless, that a certificate purporting to be a discharge of the whole Estate Duty payable in respect of any property included in the certificate shall exonerate a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice from the duty, notwithstanding any such fraud or failure."—(Mr. R. T. Held.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
*MR. BUTCHERsaid, he was authorised by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight to say that he accepted the Amendment as amended.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that before they parted with the clause, he would like to point out that it introduced a new principle of aggregation, making the third embodied in the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11.
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he proposed to leave out from the word "reason," in page 8, line 39, to "death," in line 41. The words proposed to be left out limited the cases in which composition for the Death Duties could be accepted by the Commissioners. He had a very strong impression that no estate would ever be wound up under that Act, and no duty would ever be received by the Exchequer under that Act, except by some composition being arrived at, which would avoid the necessity of anybody attempting to understand that Act, or trying to put it into practice. He thought it desirable, therefore, that there should be every encouragement of composition. There was no need to limit the section, which was after all a permissive section, in which their old friend the word "may" appeared. There were lives other than those covered by the words he wished to omit tinder which it was desirable that there should be composition. There might be cases in which the property was scattered all over the world, or in which part of the property consisted of a ship which had sunk in some distant sea, and which might or might not be raised again, or there might be an estate dependent upon the fact whether a man was or was not alive, who, for instance, had gone with Nansen to the North Pole, and had not been heard of for some years. Indeed, a hundred other cases might be mentioned in which it was desirable that compositions should be effected. It was for that reason that he wanted to go back to the beautiful simplicity of the Succession Duty Act of 1853, which had been pointed to as a model of legislation, and which had, as they knew, held its own for a number of years. The clause he suggested that they should follow was Clause 39—" Powers of Commissioners-to compound duties "—and it provided for composition in any case in which the Commissioners deemed it expedient to exercise their authority.
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 39, to leave out from the word "reason" to the word "death," in line 41.—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he could not accept the terms of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, but at the same time he was quite prepared to meet him in a way he would probably deem to be satisfactory by the insertion in line 41, after the word "death," of the words "or from any other cause."
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment—(Mr. R. T. Reid)— agreed to.
*LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he was not sure that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Solicitor General would cover the purposes of his Amendment. The question of the succession of a man at an advanced age had been overlooked by the Bill. Take the case of a man of 70 years of age succeeding to property. They found in such a case that the expectation of life was eight years, and the consequence was that such a man would have to spend the remaining years of his life in paying the duties. It appeared to him extremely hard that this matter had not been regarded in this proposal for taking the duties upon the principal value, and he hoped that in this clause there might be some limit placed which would give persons of advanced age some relief. The case for some Amendment was stronger when they got to the case of a man of 80 years of age succeeding, which often happened where the persons interested were brothers. A man of that age would only have four or five years expectation of life, and it would be a great hardship to throw upon him the heavy burden of paying what would practically be a double duty during those years. He would have been waiting many years for his succession; he might have grandchildren, and when he was so far advanced in years might find himself brought into a large landed estate, the payment of duty on which would leave him for the first four years to live entirely without income. He trusted that the Solicitor General, and those who advised him, would consider the case, and see if it was possible to devise some plan under which persons of this advanced age should be separately considered, as against those who succeeded when they
1682
were young. He moved, after the word "reason," to insert "of the age of a person succeeding to the property or."
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 159, after the word "reason," to insert the words "of the age of a person succeeding to the property or."—(Lord Burghley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that the speech of the noble Lord was really directed against the principle of the Bill. He was afraid that it was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. This clause was intended to enable the Commissioners to compound in cases where, for various reasons, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of the Death Duties. The noble Lord proposed that where the successor to property was of advanced age the Commissioners should have power not merely to arrive at a rough estimate of what the duty should be, but to mitigate the amount of the duty. He should be very glad indeed if he could say anything that could be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he was afraid that he could not candidly hold out any hope that such a revolutionary change as was proposed in the principle of the Bill could be adopted. He thought the noble Lord must have anticipated that the Amendment could not be accepted.
MR. BARTLEYsaid, the fact that it was necessary to move this Amendment was another proof of the statement that the Bill appeared to effect considerable injustice in all directions. If a man succeeded to a property at a great age, it surely must be reasonable that the duty should be paid on a different scale from that enforced when the successor was a young man. Of course, it would be said that the whole principle of the Bill was against the Amendment. He must acknowledge that this was quite true, and it was a point which the Opposition had been fighting all along. The matter did not affect him in any way, because unfortunately he should never succeed to anything, but he thought that the provisions in the Bill ought in some way to be made more fair to those who late in life succeeded to property. It

1683
must not be forgotten that the Bill did not wholly apply to rich people. This clause would affect a large number of small persons, who had been severely hit by the fall in agricultural prices and agricultural land—persons who were at one time considered to be well-to-do but who, though they still had to keep up a certain position, were very badly off, and hardly knew how to turn. If two or three of these lives should fall close together, and the taxation was raised upon the value as estimated by this Bill, the result must be disastrous, not only to those who succeeded to the property, but to the people who were employed upon it. Although he did not think there was any chance of the Government giving way upon the point, he was of opinion that it was necessary to enter a protest against the hardship that would be inflicted by the clause, and to bring it before the attention of the country. The only way in which the duty could be met would be by cutting down those items of expenditure which really affected a great number of other persons. Of course, it would be said that men ought to cut off their own luxuries and enjoyments, and no doubt this they would have to do as they had had to do in the past, but when the question arose of having to pay these duties at an advanced age, it was evident that the burden must fall upon those persons who were connected with the estate. He thought, therefore, that some relief should be given when men succeeded to estates late in life. It was for this reason that he endeavoured at an earlier period to secure the adoption of an Amendment, providing that the life interests should be paid upon according to the average duration of life. He thought that to grasp at the duty on the whole principal value in cases where a man was likely to enjoy the property only for a few years or even months was to go beyond what was wise and politic.
Question put, and negatived.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid he had several Amendments to move, with the object of making clear what he thought was the intention of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the clause. He thought that in order to make the meaning clear it should be pointed out throughout the clause that the duty was to be payable in respect of interest and not in respect
1684
of an estate or part of an estate. His first Amendment was to leave out from "power" to "circumstances," in lines 5 and 6 of page 9, and to insert "as to."
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 5, to leave out from the word "power," to the word "circumstances," in line 6, and insert the words "as to."—(Sir R. Webster.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he quite recognised that the purpose of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendments was to make the clause clearer, but he could not accept the first of them, though he would be willing to agree to the others.
Question put, and agreed to.
On Motion of Sir R. WEBSTER, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
Page 9, line 7, after "all," insert "or any of."
Page 9, line 8, after "property," insert "or interest."
Page 9, line 10, after "property," insert "or interest."
Page 9, line 12, after "property," insert "or interest."
SIR R. WEBSTERthen proposed at the end of line 12 to insert "and shall give a certificate of such discharge." He said bethought these words had been forgotten in the drafting of the clause. They appeared in a previous clause.
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 12, at end, to add the words "and shall give a certificate of such discharge."—(Sir R. Webster.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not think these were proper words to insert. Clause 10 dealt with cases in which in exceptional circumstances it was desired to grant a special certificate. The purpose of Clause 11 was to enable the amount deemed to be payable to be assessed. When this was done it would not be necessary to have a certificate. He would ask the hon. and learned

1685
Gentleman not to press the Amendment, which was not on the Paper, and which, therefore, he had not had an opportunity of considering carefully.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that as to the Amendment not being on the Paper, he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he himself had submitted Amendments in manuscript form. It was proposed uuder the sub-section that where an amount was estimated which was not primâ facie the proper amount it should be accepted in full discharge of all payments of Death Duties. If there over was a charge which should be embodied in a certificate it was this. However, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would not accept the Amendment, he (Sir R. Webster) would have to put it down for a later stage.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he thought there was no case superior in claim to this for the granting of a certificate. Where such a composition as was here provided was made, it might be for the purpose of clearing up all outstanding claims of paying the duty and selling the estate, but unless they could add this certificate the title would not be complete. Under Section 41 of the Succession Duty Act, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware, provision was made for a composition in a certain case—a different case to that contemplated in the clause, it was true—and a certificate was given.
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the words might perhaps be inserted if the right were reserved to him to move them out at a later stage if he considered it necessary.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, it would be much better to have the words in the Bill on going into Report. The draftsman could then see at a glance what consequential Amendments would he necessary, if any.
*MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Government desired the draftsman to have an opportunity of considering the case. They said that if on consideration they found that the Amendment was unobjectionable they would assent to its insertion. They could not consent to put the words in now for the reasons the hon. and learned Gentleman had given.
MR. CARSONsaid, the Amendment proposed by his lion, and learned Friend was fair, and ought to be acceded to. As he (Mr.
1686
Carson) was anxious to protect the Revenue, he would ask the Government to consider the desirability of putting in a similar sub-section to Sub-section 3 of Clause 10, because if the certificate was to be a discharge in this case it should not be a discharge if any of the incidents mentioned in Section 10 arose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, this clause was one on which the Committee would be glad to hear what were the intentions of the Government. He had put an Amendment down on the Paper to raise in a most convenient form a question as to what the policy of the Government was. The clause, as it stood, in his judgment, was wholly inconsistent with the Bill in the shape it now assumed. He had pointed out in an Amendment— which he was still foolish enough to think would have reduced this complicated scheme to a reasonable shape— how graduation and aggregation might have taken place with reference to the amount of benefit received. By that Amendment the Government would, he believed, have secured as much money as they would get under their own scheme, and it would have been much more easily collected. He had pointed out the inconsistencies of this clause, regarded as the analogue of the Probate Duty. He wanted to know how the Government proposed to deal with the question of settlements and the appropriation of the duties. The clause did not seem to be complete in its present shape, and he therefore moved to insert at the beginning of the clause the following words:—
"In the case of property which does not pass to the executor as such."
He hoped they would have some statement from the Government on the subject.
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 18, at beginning, to insert—
"In the case of property which does not pass to the executor as such."—(Sir R. Webster.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that at an earlier period of the proceedings he had

1687
stated that the Government had a perfectly open mind. It was a question of distribution, and he was quite willing to accept the Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. R. T. REIDmoved to leave out, in line 19, from the word "may," to the word "be," in line 20, the words proposed to be left out being—
"Without affecting the amount of Legacy or Succession Duty on any Legacy or Succession."
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 19, to leave out from the word "may," to the word "be," in line 20.—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
MR. R. T. REIDmoved to omit Subsection (a).
Question, "That Sub-section (a) stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
SIR R. WEBSTER SIR R. WEBSTER moved, in page 9, line 28, after "who," insert—
"Being accountable for or authorised or required to pay the estate on any property."
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. BYRNEthought the words of Subsection (b) carried more than was intended by the Government. As it literally stood, it would include a right to go against the person entitled to any sum charged on such property. He would be quite satisfied if the Solicitor General would look into the subject.
MR. R. T. REIDwas understood to say that he had frequently stated that the duty was not payable upon any property except that which would pass at the death. Anybody who had a charge upon the will or settlement made by will would contribute towards the Estate Duty. He would look into the matter.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13.
MR. KNOXmoved, after the words "thirty-three," line 36, to insert "thirty-five and thirty-six." He said the object of the Amendment was
1688
to restore the old law, by which, in the case of properties of a gross value under £300, a duty of 30s. only was imposed. The Bill, as originally drawn, would have increased the duty to £3, which would have been a heavy burden on small estates.
Amendment proposed, in line 36, after the words "thirty-three," to insert the words "thirty-five and thirty-six."—(Mr. Knox.)
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
MR. R. T. REIDmoved to insert the word "gross" instead of the word "net" in the sentence "where the net value of the property, real or personal." He said, the responsible administrative officers had found that if a net figure were inserted instead of a gross figure as the measure of the conditions in which the section was to apply many deductions would have to be made, and the machinery available was not satisfactory for the purpose. Later he would move to alter £1,000 to £500 as a consequential Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 41, to leave out the word "net," and insert the word "gross."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'net' stand part of the Clause."
MR. CARSONsaid, he desired to express to the Government the thanks of many persons interested in this provision for the manner in which they had listened to their representations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had had numerous deputations, even from Ireland, and he had met them with every consideration.
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the Government were originally very anxious, as far as they could, to give relief to the small estates. It was then represented to them that "£1,000 net" might not represent what was commonly known as a small estate. A large estate with heavy incumbrances would come in that category. Therefore, he had consented to substitute for the "£1,000 net," as originally in the Bill, "£500 gross," that being the sum which the Revenue officials could properly deal with, and he was

1689
glad to find that the gentlemen who had waited upon him with regard to this matter had accepted that proposal as a fair settlement. The object, therefore, of this Amendment was to carry out that alteration in the Bill. In addition to that, the Government proposed that estates under £300 should only make a single payment of 30s. as at present. He was very desirous that that principle, which was originally introduced in 1881 by his right lion. Friend the Member for Midlothian as a relief to the small estates, should be moderately extended, and they had extended it to estates up to £500, estates between £300 and £500 being required to make only a single payment of 50s. He hoped that the difficulties which were reasonably feared would be removed by this Amendment.
MR. GRANT LAWSONexpressed the opinion that the Amendment would operate harshly in the case of small estates. They had in the Act of 1881 a definition of what "gross" meant as compared with "net." The gross value of an estate in Clause 33 was said to be the value without any deductions for debts or funeral expenses. In the case of an estate of the gross value of £1,000, if they took off the debts and funeral expenses they might bring it down to £100 in actual value, on which a fixed duty of 50s. must be levied, so that the person who succeeded to it would be paying 2½ per cent, on the value he received. By Clause 14, if a man received £100 he would only pay £1, but the Amendment would have the effect of making persons succeeding to estates such as be had mentioned pay 50s., the amount appropriate to a value of over £500. It seemed rather hard that small properties should have increased duties put upon them by this Amendment.
MR. KNOXsaid, that a case where the gross value was £1,000 obviously would not come under this clause at all. It would only apply to cases where the gross value was under £500, and, therefore, where the net value was £100 the duty would only be £1.
MR. GRANT LAWSONremarked that if a man received £100 he would pay £1; but if the gross value was £500, reduced by debts and funeral expenses to £100, there would be a fixed duty payable of £2 10s.
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the Government did not contemplate that. If it were the case it ought to be met, and if the hon. Member would put down an Amendment it should be considered. That certainly was not the intention of the Government, and as at present advised he was of opinion that the Amendment would not have that effect.
MR. BARTLEYsaid, it appeared to him that to meet certain difficulties an alteration was to be made which must mean that a larger taxation would be required of smaller estates than was originally proposed in the Bill. He would point out that the net value might very often be very much less than the gross; therefore, really, what many persons had been looking to would not take place, and small estates up to £1,000 would really not derive the benefit that was anticipated under this Bill. Under the present Amendment small estates varying from £500 to £1,000 must pay more than was originally contemplated in the Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, these little estates were not to be charged with the Estate Duty, but the charge was to be replaced by fixed duties levied under the Act of 1881. He must say that in many respects this was an advantage, because, as he had previously pointed out, under the guise of a reduction of duty there really was, under the system originally presented in the Bill, a considerable increase of duty on smaller amounts, as, for instance, £300. As the Bill now stood without amendment, whereas the present duty would be a fixed sum of 30s. under the Bill, in the case of a widow it would be £3 instead of 30s. He thought, therefore, this Amendment was in the right direction, only he warned the Solicitor General that these smaller estates brought in large sums to the Exchequer. He did not know whether the Government were fully aware of what they were doing by letting off these small estates. Seventy per cent, of the number of estates which came in for the charge were estates of under £1,000, and the amount was £13,700,000; therefore, when they came to exempt estates under £1,000 they were rather running a risk. He did not believe hon. Gentlemen opposite realised how much they were going to give up by it. His firm conviction was that, instead of

1691
getting more duty out of the system established by the Bill, they would probably get less—perhaps at least £1,000,000 less—and therefore he warned the Solicitor General to be careful how far he proceeded in the diminution of the duty on small estates.
Question put, and agreed to.
On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendment was agreed to: — Page 10, line 1, leave out "or," and insert "and."
MR. R. T. REIDmoved, in page 10, line 3, to leave out the words "one thousand," and insert the words—
"Five hundred pounds, but where the gross value does not exceed three hundred pounds the fixed duty shall be thirty shillings, and where the gross value exceeds three hundred pounds the fixed duty shall be fifty shillings."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. GRANT LAWSONmoved to amend the Amendment by inserting the word "net," instead of "gross," in the two instances in which the latter word occurred. He contended that if "net" were inserted there would be a benefit and advantage to small people. They would then only pay duty upon what they got, and would pay but a small duty, because 30s. on a net value of under £300, and 50s. on a net value of between £300 and £1,000, would be a small duty. If the estates were made to pay on their gross value they might be imposing a very heavy tax indeed, because whereas the gross value might be anything up to £500, the net value might be nothing, the estate might be bankrupt, and yet the fixed duty had to be paid. When the owners of small estates found that, instead of getting relief they were only going to have the option of coming under the general rule, there would be a grievous disappointment. Everybody else was to be taxed upon the net value he received, but it appeared by the Amendment that these people were to be taxed at a rate appropriate to the gross value they received, which might be much larger than the net value. He begged to move to insert "net" instead of "gross."
Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert the word "net" instead of the word "gross."—(Mr. Grant Lawson)
Question proposed, "That the word 'net' be there inserted."
SIR W. HARCOURT: I am not sure that that would be in Order.
THE CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID): I was just going to point that out. In line 41 the word "net" has been struck out in order to insert the word "gross," and, as far as I can see, it seems inconsistent to put "net" here instead of "gross."
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that on the point of Order it appeared to him that what they had already passed was the limit at which people might come under the protection of this clause, and they agreed that when people came into an estate of a gross value of £500 they should be entitled to place themselves under the protection of this Clause 13. That was a very different matter from considering what they should be taxed on when they had placed themselves under the protection of this clause. He submitted there would be no inconsistency in saying that those who came into an estate of £500 should come under the clause, and when they had placed themselves under the protection of the clause that they should only be taxed on the net value of what they received.
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that to meet the Amendment would be to defeat the whole arrangement of the Bill, and to go back again to the evils which they desired to remove.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think the Amendment to the Amendment would be inconsistent with what the Committee has already decided, and therefore I rule it out of Order.
MR. KNOXdid not think the Amendment of the Solicitor General ought to be received in any carping spirit, and it was perhaps the most important yet made in the Bill. The lion. Member for Thirsk said that this concession, inasmuch as it was restricted only to those cases in which the gross value was under £300, was of little value to poor people, and that the provision of a fixed duty would operate harshly upon them. Surely the hon. Member forgot that they had had ex-

1693
perience of the working of this provision, so far as estates under £300 were concerned, since 1881. During that time it had proved a most valuable provision for the most deserving class of the poor— those who had small savings and small debts. In Ireland it had been most valuable, especially in the case of the best of the small farmers. He ventured to thank the right lion. Gentleman for the concession he had made, and he thought this concession removed one of the greatest blots on the Bill as first introduced. He thought the hon. Member who had criticised this Amendment forgot that the procedure under this clause was entirely optional, and in any case, when it would seem to the executor more advantageous to go under the general provisions of the law, he could do so; but where the debts as well as the estates were small, and where, obviously, it was to the interest of the executor to proceed under this section, he could do so with small legal expense as well as with the payment of small duty.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESconsidered it was unfortunate that the Government had introduced these words "gross" and "net," which did not occur in the Act of 1881. In the previous Act it was the value of the whole that was taken, whereas the words "gross" and "net" were really very ambiguous words. He quite appreciated the intention of the Government, which was to diminish the charge on small estates and have a fixed charge, and he recognised the great amount of risk there was in fixing what they were pleased to call the "gross" sum. As regarded that, he did not at all think it would have quite the effect intended or contemplated. He would point out, however, that they were now introducing three different kinds of property into the Bill when the Bill itself, throughout, contemplated only one kind of property—namely, the bald and naked amount that passed on death after all deductions had been made. This Amendment contemplated two other kinds of property, gross and net. He believed the intentions of the Government were good.
*MR. BUTCHERsaid, they had now got to the point where they were not dealing with millionaires, but with poor people. As the Amendment of the Solicitor General stood, a man who came
1694
into a net estate of £20 might have to pay 50s., and he would say why. No doubt the first part of the clause left it optional to a man to say whether he should go under the Act of 1881 or not, whereas the Solicitor General's Amendment said that where the gross value did not exceed £300, 30s. should be charged, and where it did exceed £300, 50s. should be charged. There was nothing optional about the Amendment, which was obligatory. What would be the effect of that? Take the case of an estate of the gross value of £500, which was brought down by debts, and so on, to a net sum of £5 or £20. Was not the effect of the Amendment of the Solicitor General to make the duty 50s., and was not that entirely inconsistent with the next clause, which provided that where an estate exceeded £100, and was under £500, the duty should be £1?
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member for York was really answered by the speech of the hon. Member for Cavan, who had pointed out that this system which they were now extending had acted most beneficially in relieving the small owners, and the Government were quite confident that this would continue to he the case.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, there was really no quarrel between the two sides as to the object of the Government with which they both agreed—namely, to give relief to the smaller owners of property, but the question was whether the actual Amendment of the Solicitor General carried out that intention or not? It had been pointed out that if they went to the gross value the net value of a property might be little or nothing, and therefore they ought not under these circumstances to charge any sum, even as small as 50s. The argument of the hon. Member for Cavan was that it was optional with a person to decide whether he should come under the provisions of this clause or under the ordinary provisions of the law. But the Member for York had pointed out that while the early part of the clause was voluntary the words of the Solicitor General would appear to be obligatory. There was no liberty of action left to the 'person to decide whether he should come under the provisions of the Act or should take protection under the clause they were now considering, and, therefore, a great hard-

1695
ship might fall upon the small owners of property in consequence of a clause introduced for no other purpose than to give relief. The question before them was not one of principle, but was concerned with the question whether the Solicitor General's Amendment did or did not introduce an element of obligation into this clause which was not to be found under the Bill. That was a point which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not met.
MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite meant precisely the same thing. He thought if they looked at Clause 33 of the Act which they incorporated—the Act of 1881—it would appear that this altered scale would only apply on the initiative being taken by the persons themselves. If it appeared there was any real doubt on the point, the Government would take care that their intention was carried out.
MR. BARTLEYentirely agreed with what had been said as to the great use and importance of these fixed small sums, and he had hoped that the system was to be exteuded more than it was. The Solicitor General had raised the limit to £500, as compared with £300, but the wording of the Bill led him (Mr. Bartley) to believe that it would have been raised to £1,000 net, and he was sorry he had been disappointed in that respect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment (Mr. R. T. Reid) agreed to.
MR. R. T. REIDmoved, in page 10, line 5, to leave out all the words after "section," and insert, as a separate sub-sectiou—
"(3) Where the net value of the property, real and personal, on which Estate Duty is payable on the death of the deceased, exclusive of settled property, does not exceed £1,000, such property for the purpose of Estate Duty shall not be aggregated with any other property, but shall form an estate by itself; and where a fixed duty or Estate Duty has been paid upon the principal value of that estate, the further Estate Duty and the Legacy and Succession Duties shall not be payable under the will or intestacy of the deceased in respect of that estate."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that after the discussion of a quarter of an hour ago he did not quite understand how the word "net" came into the Amendment. It was then said that by bringing in the word "net" they brought into the clause an amount of difficulties which it would be impossible to deal with; and, in fact, the word was ruled out of Order.
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the word "net," was necessary in order to distinguish between the gross amounts with which the Committee had previously been dealing and the net amounts to which they had now come.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that there would be four different aggregations of property, and three different kinds of property, under the Bill, and it would be very difficult to work all these estates with their different duties. He argued that the proposed exemption from Legacy Duty would be found to work out very strangely. In estates between £500 and £1,000 the successors were to pay the new Estate Duties, and in consideration of that were to be let off without paying the Legacy or Succession Duty. Let the Committee mark how that would work. At present the widow paid no Legacy or Succession Duty; but a stranger on £500 of personalty paid 12 per cent., or £60. The proposed exemption would let the widow off" nothing, while it would let a stranger off 10 per cent. He believed, moreover, that the loss to the Revenue would be a heavy one, although the actual gain to that class of the community that most required relief would be but small.
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that sometimes he was told he was going to get millions more than he calculated upon, and sometimes that he had over-calculated the probable Revenue by a similar figure. He hoped, however, to find at the end of the financial year that his own calculation—which was founded on the opinion of those who had experience in the matter—was the correct one. He was glad that the hon. Member for Lynn Regis only objected to the proposal on the ground that the Revenue would lose considerably. If that were so, he was quite willing to confess that he would rather the loss should arise in the way proposed than in any other way. The greater part of the Revenue, it must be

1697
remembered, was derived from small properties, and it was a just principle, in his opinion, that any relief in taxation that was introduced should begin with proprietors at the lower end of the scale. He believed that 70 per cent, of the properties on which Legacy and Succession Duty were paid were small properties; and yet people imagined that the Revenue was raised on the owners of large properties. The far greater proportion of the Revenue of the country was raised from people who had only hundreds and not from people who had thousands. If, therefore, they were to lose even considerably owing to the exemption and allowance that they were willing to concede to the small owners as set out in the clause he did not think for that reason the Committee ought to object to it.
MR. A. J. BALFOURagreed with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just said, that neither the hon. Member for Lynn Regis nor any other gentleman on his side of the House made any objection to the relief that was proposed to be granted to the smaller owners in the clause. He would point out, however, that it was not fair to the Committee that the scheme should be finally considered that evening, as the Amendment had been only a short time on the Paper and they had no time allowed them to really go into the matter. He hoped that the points raised would be very carefully considered by the Government before the Report stage. The chief point was that the proposal of the Government was more likely to assist those who required assistance the least, and leave those where they were who required relief the most. Everyone granted that an estate of £1,000 left to the widow required relief more than an estate of £1,000 left to the stranger. The widow paid no Succession and no Legacy Duty, and she was to be left as she now was; but when the Government came to deal with brothers, cousins, and others, in proportion as the scale of consanguinity became more remote the generosity of the Government increased until they came to the stranger in blood, when they open wide their purse-strings. The Government ought certainly to find some other and more equitable method of relief. His hon. Friend the Member for Lynn Regis had worked out the figures in regard to this matter very carefully, and
1698
the Government must surely feel that their scheme of exemption required amendment. The Opposition did not quarrel with the proposed exemption, but they felt that the exemption should relieve those who required relief most; that their charity should not be confined to the stranger at their gates and denied to the widow and the children.
SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman complained of inequality of treatment between the widow and the stranger. That matter would be considered before the Report.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
*SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, there were so many Government Amendments to the Bill that the Committee were really constructing a new Bill, and constructing it in a manner very inconvenient for the Committee, because they were only able to see the Amendments of the Government bit by bit the morning they were asked to discuss them. He thought the present Amendment a most important one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the proposed exemption on the ground that the taxation was mainly obtained from small properties. That was all the more reason why the Committee should be careful of what they were doing in that respect. He should like to point out that, besides the anomaly of the inequality of treatment between the stranger and the widow, there was the further anomaly that they were by this Amendment placing taxation on economy and giving a benefit to extravagance. Take the case of two men who each came into a settled property—it might be of large amount. One man by economy increased his estate to £2,000, or more; it was graduated, and he had to pay Estate Duty; the other lived up to his income and was let off. That constituted a premium on extravagance and a penalty on thrift.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had defended the action taken in the proposed new clause on the ground of the improper burden of their taxation at present on small people as compared with great. He had always said that was so in respect to indirect taxation. The burden of indirect taxation must necessarily bear more on the poor than on the rich, but the balance was readjusted by direct taxation. He

1699
should, therefore, protest against the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to direct taxation. The right hon. Gentleman had said that 70 per cent, of the estates which came within the purview of the Legacy and Succession Duties were under £1,000. That was perfectly accurate; but it showed nothing whatever as to the burden of taxation as between the poor and the rich. The question was not the proportion of estates under £1,000 and above £1,000; but the burden of each separate estate above £1,000. His right hon. Friend had said the same with respect to the Income Tax. Everyone who looked at the Income Tax amounts knew that no reduction could be made on the Income Tax amounts because they did not tax the individual with respect to income, except under one or two Schedules. The incomes of the rich were received under Schedules (A), (B), and (C), in driblets; that was to say, tax was paid on a large number of small amounts. So that the number of small amounts on which the tax was paid must not be regarded as showing the number of poor people who paid Income Tax. He had thought it necessary to interpose at this stage because of the authority attaching to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and because, on this occasion, those observations could not be regarded as weighty. The Amendment on the Paper did not go on the lines which had been already followed. They had dealt with gross value that did not exceed £300. That affected small people. They then jumped to estates the net value of which did not exceed £1,000, irrespective of settled property. They might have a millionaire under this provision — a millionaire who might so arrange his estates as to bring himself under the £1,000 limit of personalty. If they were going on these lines they should have dealt with gross and not net amounts, in which case they would be certain of dealing with small people. He thought that the words "exclusive of settled property" should be omitted, because if they were continued they might bring in people with ample revenues who were able to provide for their children, and had never been under pecuniary pressure in any shape or form. Before the Report stage was reached, it seemed to him it would be
1700
advisable to reconsider the whole method of dealing with the matter so as to secure immunity from severe taxation of what was, strictly speaking, small estates, and not small portions of the estate of a man amply endowed with fortune.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, there was one thing he did not quite understand. The proposal provided for a net estate of not exceeding £1,000 exclusive of settled property. Then it was provided that further Estate Duty should not be paid, and this was only payable on settled property.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 (scale of rates of Estate Duty) stood as follows:—

14. The rates of Estate Duty shall be according to the following scale:

Where the Principal Value of the Estate

Estate Duty shall be payable for every full sum of £100, and for any fractional part of £100, over £100, or any multiple thereof at the rate of

£

£

Exceeds

100 and does not exceed

500

One pound.

Exceeds

500 and does not exceed

1,000

Two pounds.

Exceeds

1,000 and does not exceed

10,000

Three pounds.

Exceeds

10,000 and does not exceed

25,000

Four pounds.

Exceeds

25,000 and does not exceed

50,000

Four pounds ten shillings.

Exceeds

50,000 and does not exceed

75,000

Five pounds.

Exceeds

75,000 and does not exceed

100,000

Five pounds ten shillings.

Exceeds

100,000 and does not exceed

150,000

Six pounds.

Exceeds

150,000 and does not exceed

250,000

Six pounds ten shillings.

Exceeds

250,000 and does not exceed

500,000

Seven pounds.

Exceeds

500,000 and does not exceed

1,000,000

Seven pounds ten shillings.

Exceeds

1,000,000 and does not exceed

—

Eight pounds.

The rate of the further Estate Duty where the property is settled shall be 1 per cent. for every full sum of £100, and for any fractional part of £100 over £100 or any multiple thereof.

MR. BARTLEYsaid, he desired to move an Amendment to substitute a new scale. He had put down two scales on the Paper. He could not move both, but he moved the first, and possibly it would save time if the Government would announce their intention of accepting one or other of them. The point was this: According to the clause there was a sharp change in the amount of duty payable, the sudden increase being largest at the bottom of the scale. On an estate which did not exceed £500 the Estate Duty was £1 per cent. Directly it exceeded £500 and up to £1,000, the whole estate had to pay £2 per cent. Thus, an estate worth exactly £500 would pay £5, but one worth. £501 would not pay £5 5s., but would pay a sum over £10; similarly, an estate of £1,000 would pay £20, but one of £1,001 would pay £30, and so on. Wherever there was a rise in the scale a great jump would take place, not only in the duty payable, but on the whole scale from the beginning. He would impress on the Committee that this seemed an unfair way of calculating the Estate Duty, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer resisted the Amendment the effect would be that the effort of the possessor of an estate would be to prevent it from reaching a certain point of value. Wherever the estate was in value near one of these fictitious dividing lines, every effort would be made to prevent it crossing the line. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to accept the scale proposed in the Amendment, of charging at the same rate on any fractional excess, it would be fairer and there would not be the same inducement to keep down the value of an estate at a critical point. He had worked out several cases under his Amendment. The proposal would operate in this way: Taking an estate

Where the Value of the Estate

Per Centage.

Exceeds—

£

£

Exceeds

100 and does not exceed

500

One pound for every full sum of £100, and for any fractional part of £100.

Exceeds

500 and does not exceed

1,000

One pound for the first £500, and two pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of '£100.

Exceeds

1,000 and does not exceed

10,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500; and

Three pounds for every further full sum of £ 100 or fractional part of £100.

of £40,000, on the scale laid down in the Amendment the duty would be £1,560, as compared with£1,800 under the Bill; on an estate of £120,000 the duty would be £5,825, as compared with £7,200; on an estate of £500,000 the duty would be £31,635, as compared with £35,000. There was a difference here, but it would be observed that the greatest proportion in difference was at the bottom of the scale; but, while he admitted that on the face of it there would be a certain loss to the Revenue, such loss would be largely, if not entirely, made up by the fact that there would be no inducement to keep the amount, possibly fictitiously, a little below the right margin. If a man knew that the addition of £1,000 to the value of his property would increase the duty A per cent, on the whole estate, the tendency would be to try and keep the estate below that figure. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to accepting the first scale—though, that was a fair one—perhaps he would assent to the second, which, though drawn on similar lines, was rather more favourable to the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly think it fair or right that if a man's estate was simply £1 more than that of another it should have to pay more than double in Estate Duty. It might 'be that in all these schemes and systems of taxation anomalies and hard cases were not to be avoided, but at any rate the Committee should do its best to reduce them to a minimum. It could not be considered fair that, owing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scale, a man who had saved only £500 should leave his family more at death than the man who had saved £501.
Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 17, to leave out from the word "scale," to the word "The," in line 36, in order to insert,

Where the Value of the Estate

Per Centage.

Exceeds—

£

£

Exceeds

10,000 and does not exceed

25,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500.

Three pounds for the next £9,000; and

Four pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.

Exceeds

25,000 and does not exceed

50,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500.

Three pounds for the next £9,000.

Four pounds for the next £15,000; and

Four pounds ten shillings for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.

Exceeds

50,000 and does not exceed

75,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500.

Three pounds for the next £9,000.

Four pounds for the next £15,000.

Four pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000; and

Five pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.

Exceeds

75,000 and does not exceed

100,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500.

Three pounds for the next £9,000.

Four pounds for the next £15,000.

Four pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000.

Five pounds for the next £25,000; and

Five pounds ten shillings for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.

Exceeds

100,000 and does not exceed

150,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500.

Three pounds for the next £9,000.

Four pounds for the next £15,000.

Four pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000.

Five pounds for the next £25,000.

Five pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000; and

Six pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.

Exceeds

150,000 and does not exceed

250,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500.

Three pounds for the next £9,000.

Four pounds for the next £25,000.

Four pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000.

Five pounds for the next £25,000.

Five pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000.

Six pounds for the next £50,000; and

Six pounds ten shillings for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.

Exceeds

250,000 and does not exceed

500,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500.

Three pounds for the next £9,000.

Four pounds for the next £25,000.

Four pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000.

Five pounds for the next £25,000.

Five pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000.

Six pounds for the next £50,000.

Six pounds ten shillings for the next £100,000; and

Seven pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.

Exceeds

500,000 and does not exceed

1,000,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500.

Three pounds for the next £9,000.

Four pounds for the next £25,000.

Where the Value of the Estate

Per Centage.

Exceeds—

£

£

Exceeds

500,000 and does not exceed

1,000,000

Four pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000

Five pounds for the next £25,000.

Five pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000.

Six pounds for the next £50,000.

Six pounds ten shillings for the next £100,000.

Seven pounds for the next £250,000; and

Seven pounds ten shillings for every further full sura of £100 or fractional part of £100.

Exceeds

1,000,000 and does not exceed

1,000,000

One pound for the first £500.

Two pounds for the second £500.

Three pounds for the next £9,000.

Four pounds for the next £25,000.

Four pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000.

Five pounds for the next £25,000.

Five pounds ten shillings for the next £25,000.

Six pounds for the next £50,000.

Six pounds ten shillings for the next £100,000.

Seven pounds for the next £250,000.

Seven pounds ten shillings for the next £500,000; and

Eight pounds for every further full sum of £100 or fractional part of £100.

Question proposed, "That the words 'where the principal value of the estate' stand part of the Clause."
*SIR W. HARCOURT: I am aware of the objection the lion. Member refers to—namely, that wherever you have a considerable interval or jump from one scale of duty to another the persons who are at the bottom margin appear to pay a good deal more than those who are at the other end of the scale. But that is an inconvenience with which we are already familiar in that part of our taxation, which is subject to jumps of this kind. Take, for instance, the Income Tax, and the £400 limit. A man just below the limit pays about £9, while at £405 he pays £13 10s. True this is an inducement for a man who has just over £400 a year to endeavour to make his income, say £399, but that cannot be helped. I will give another instance. In the case of the Probate and Estate Duty, a man with property amounting to £10,010 pays, under the existing duty, £404. If, however, the amount of the estate is £9,990 he pays £300 Probate Duty; that is to say, a difference of £20 in the corpus makes a difference of £100 in the amount of the duty paid. Therefore, it is not in this scale that the difficulty arises for the first time. No doubt people may endeavour to get just below rather than just above a margin in the scale; but it must be borne in mind
1706
that the Government had taken care in this scale not to rise on a very rapid gradient of duty. After £10,000 we only rise by stages of a½ per cent. I do not see how the difficulty the hon. Member has pointed out is to be avoided if you are to have what is so essential in these cases—namely, a simple scale. The hon. Member opposite has produced a rival scale, and recommended it for our adoption. But it is too elaborate—too iutricate—and—what is a very important argument with me—it would produce much less money than the scale we ourselves propose. I do not suppose that fact will weigh so much with the hon. Member as it does with me. Admitting the inequalities the hon. Member has pointed out— and which I have shown exist in our present system of taxation—I fear for the reasons I have given we must adhere to our scale.
COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, the great advantage of his hon. Friend's proposal was that it modified the great jump in the Government scale, and to that extent it was more fair in its operation than the Chancellor of the Exchequer's scale. It would make some difference to the Exchequer so far as he had worked it out; but, on the other hand, it would make a person who had an estate feel that he was being treated much more fairly than if he was under the Govern-

1707
ment scale. Such a man would be much less likely to endeavour to evade the higher scales under the scale in the Amendment than under that in the Bill. The scale of the Amendment would by no means remove the inequalities of graduation; still, if the lion. Member saw fit to divide the Committee on it he should vote with him, as ho thought it would give the greatest advantage to people with the smallest fortunes.
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the proposed scale was intricate. If the right hon. Gentleman would glance at the Succession Duty Act of 1853 he would see that two-thirds of the pages of that Act consisted of scales of figures in themselves decidedly intricate. As to the proposal of the Government, its effect in certain instances would be that the man who died best off would leave a less sum to the beneficiaries than the man who was worse off. If a man died and left an estate of £49,990, the duty on that estate would be 4½ per cent., or £2,250; whereas the estate of the man who died worth £50,010 would pay 5 per cent., or £2,500 10s. The poorer man of the two would thus leave a larger amount to be divided amongst his relatives.
SIR W. HARCOURT: That, as I showed, happens now under the existing state of things.
MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the fact that there were anomalies existing was no reason why fresh and greater anomalies should be created. He had applied his hon. Friend's scale to the same figures, and he found that the estate of the man who left £49,990 would pay £1,920, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be slightly the poorer, but the other estate of £50,010 would only pay £5 more, which would make the estate of the man who was supposed to die richer larger than the other, and there would not be the ridiculous state of things which he had shown would exist under the scale in the Bill. And what would be the effect of adopting the more rational scale? There would not be the great fights which were to be anticipated when they were getting near a step of graduation. These fights would not only be with the Inland Revenue Commissioners, but among the beneficiaries themselves. Each man account-
1708
able for duty would be fighting against the others as to whether they had not raised their estimate £5 or £10, thereby involving the whole estate in an extra amount of duty. There would be a great battle raging for ever with the Inland Revenue Commissioners. The Commissioners were said to have boasted that they had never been into Court on a question of value; but when such great prizes were to be won for the Chancellor of the Exchequer under this Bill, as a half per cent, on a large estate, the Commissioners would not consider that they were doing their duty if they did not go into Court, and try to shove the estate up to the highest possible grade in the scale. For the sake of peace among the beneficiaries, and peace between the executors and the Inland Revenue authorities, he hoped his lion. Friend's more equitable scale would be adopted.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Everyone who heard the defence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his scheme must have felt that it was not a very powerful one. The right hon. Gentleman did not in any sense rely upon the theories or equities of the case. He gave them up at once. He said, in regard to the points to which attention has been drawn, "There are unhappy anomalies—they are difficulties incident, unfortunately, to every scale. They are to be found in our present system. We admit these anomalies; we deplore them; but we must submit to them." Well, for my part, I do not feel disposed to submit to them if they can be avoided. Why should we? It is true that under the Income Tax there are jumps in the scale, as there are in the Death Duties, but I do not think any man has ever been prevented from trying to get a bigger income because he would be subjected to a higher proportion of Income Tax; but I can readily believe that, under the present scale of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a man might easily be deterred from saving beyond a certain amount. He might say, "What is the use of saving more? If I increase my store, the increase may not go to my heirs. Why should I go to the trouble of keeping myself out of the enjoyment of my fortune for the satisfaction of increasing the receipts of the Chancellor of the Exchequer." Some hon. Members may think that there is no material gain

1709
resulting from the fact that people save. With these hon. Members I cannot agree. I do not deny that it may be better to have many moderate fortunes than a few large ones; but the question here is not the augmentation of moderate fortunes at the expense of the larger ones, but whether the owners of large fortunes may not think it right to spend more money during their lives, instead of saving for the benefit of their successors and of the community. For my part, I consider that the greatness and prosperity of this country has arisen largely, if not wholly, from its superior wealth, and its superior wealth is largely attributable to the fact that it has always been worth while for people of large means 10 save for the sake of their heirs, if not for their own sakes. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will follow me when I point out that this question of saving is not a question of small fortunes against large fortunes. If a rich man saves it is as important to the community as if a poor man saves. Everything that diminishes the accumulation of capital must diminish the wealth of the country, whether it be invested at home or abroad. A man whose fortune is close to one of the arbitrary limits fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have no motive for accumulating any further capital. He has nothing to get by it. He had better squander it on his own amusements, so far as he is concerned. I do not know that anyone, whatever their opinions on this Amendment, would consider that a desirable thing. That is a motive coming into operation that does not exist in the case of the Income Tax. No man, I venture to think, was ever prevented from increasing his income by the reflection that next year, if he makes an honest return, he will have to pay not only more Income Tax, but much more than he would have had to pay if he had kept at the other side of an arbitrary division. When you come to accumulated fortunes, and the taxation of capital amounts, a different argument comes into play. I imagine you will not merely have controversies with the Inland Revenue Department, and the various persons accountable for the money which has passed, upon which my hon. Friend has adverted with so much ability, but you will have other motives brought into play which it is not to the benefit of the public that we
1710
should encourage or give an artificial stimulus to. Let it be noted that, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer calls in examples which he has been pleased to follow in these cases, and points out that there are these breaks and jumps, with the anomalous results following referred to, let me observe that the whole matter is greatly aggravated from beginning to end by the principle of aggregation. That principle must have been a curse to the draftsmen of the Bill, and will be a curse to the officers who have to carry the Bill into effect. As I have said, the difficulties inherent in any scale of duties are aggravated by the fact that Government insists on this principle of aggregation. I do not question now that we have to have a system of graduation. That was decided at an early stage of our proceedings; but, in Heaven's name, let us attempt to find a scale which will not carry with it evils not absolutely inseparable from aggregation—accidental accretions to the system of aggregation which we might avoid if we attempted to do so! What is the evil of complication that the right hon. Gentleman complains of? The evil of the large mass of figures in the Amendment really affects nobody but the printer. The difficulty of dealing with this scale would be nothing compared with the other problems the Inland Revenue have to solve. There can be no difficulty in deciding what the estate has to pay, however elaborate be your scale. The Government have not taken measures to avoid obscurity and complication in the general drafting of the Bill. The Government have made this Bill more difficult to understand than any other Bill ever presented to Parliament, and therefore we ask the Government to adopt a scale of graduation in place of their own, which, while it may add a little to the length of the Bill, will not make the Bill more complex or more difficult to understand or administer, but render it far more just to the taxpayer, to the beneficiary, and to the public, and less fruitful of difficulties which will lead to litigation. There may be objections to the scale proposed by my hon. Friend, but I regret that the Government have not set themselves to work to find some method of carrying out their own principles, be they good or bad, without carrying in its train consequences

1711
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself admitted may produce evil results—results that may lead to the defrauding of the Revenue, if not to great injustice in individual cases, and which may lead to endless difficulty, controversy, and litigation.
SIR W. HARCOURT: The greater part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks have been addressed to the subject of graduation and aggregation. He has said that the scale in the Bill will induce persons not to save money.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was obscure. What I meant was that if a man has a fortune, say of £990,000, there is a positive premium in the Bill for him not to add a single sixpence to that fortune. I speak not so much in the interests of the man as in those of the community at large, who benefit largely by the accumulation of capital, and this Bill will not encourage it.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I have more confidence in human nature than to believe that in such a case as that mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman a man would be induced not to add to his capital merely because the Chancellor of the Exchequer would thereby get a hundred or two more of that money.
MR. BARTLEY: £2,500.
*SIR W. HARCOURT: In the case of a man with £9,990, I do not think he would be restrained from adding another £20 to it out of consideration for the Exchequer. You may put your hypotheses as much as you like, but human nature operates in cases of this kind. But I will not argue on theory in this matter any more. I have said what I have to say on that. I have done my best, through the Inland Revenue authorities, to ascertain what the loss to the Revenue would be if either of the scales proposed by the hon. Member were adopted instead of that in the Bill, and it is estimated that the loss, even on the scale more favourable to the Revenue, would amount to £600,000 or £700,000. I cannot afford to lose such a large sum as that. If the Committee adopted the scale I should have to alter the graduation, and might have to go up to 10, or perhaps even to 12 or 15, per cent, to recoup what the hon. Member's scale would take from me. The scale in the Bill is a moderate one, and it will prove far less difficult in administration than the scale proposed by
1712
the hon. Member. As to the Bill being complicated, I said at the very commencement that it would be found to be so, because we shall have to deal with all the various complications arising out of the law in England with regard to settled and real property. I have always recognised the complicated character of the Bill, and have stated more than once that the Government have an open mind as to the best way of dealing with the complications attending it. We know that the Bill would require to be closely scrutinised, and hoped to receive assistance from the microscopic examination to which it would be subjected. The Government are convinced that the form of scale we have adopted is the best for administration, and we do not believe that, with the intervals we have fixed and the plan of graduation we have adopted, it will be found to be oppressive to the taxpayer.
MR. WYNDHAMasked what the perfunctory defence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer really resolved itself into? The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the analogy of the existing law. But he seemed to forget that this principle of graduation had hitherto been administered to testators and the public in homoeopathic doses. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude was like that of a doctor who because his patient had already taken medicine, insisted upon his swallowing dram after dram of belladonna and nux vomica. The right hon. Gentleman would extend the principle of graduation to a much greater extent than it had ever obtained. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill was already intricate, and he also declared that his system of graduation was simple, and that if the Amendment were adopted he would be compelled to extend the system of graduation. Then, they appealed to him to render the Bill a little more simple and the graduation a little more complex. Do not let them have a pyramid of three steps to climb, but rather easier stairs, which will be accessible to the people of the country.
MR. GOSCHEN: I do not quite understand the defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman says he would lose £600,000 if the Amendment were adopted. How much of that would he lose in the present year? What is it he wants, and for what

1713
does he want it? He has laid down some standard in his own mind that he is to produce a certain sum by the Death Duties, but the great increase he expects will arise in future years. He has not told us for what purpose he requires the £2,000.000 or £3,000,000 which he then expects to get. Supposing he loses £600,000, by how much will he be put out in his Budget in the present year? Clearly not £600,000, but only by the proportion of the sum he expects to get this year. I protest against the right hon. Gentleman's attitude when he says, "I expect a certain sum, and intend to get it out of the Death Duties," and offers no further explanation. Does he want the money for expenditure he foresees and estimates, or only for expenditure that he thinks may occur? Never has such a proposal been put before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what the ultimate loss will be, but we do not recognise that he requires the alternative gain; and if he cannot prove that he needs the money for the present year surely it is open to the House to consider whether the scale proposed by my hon. Friend is juster than in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has not defended his own scale. He merely says he wants a problematical sum, God knows for what purpose! [Cries of "Oh!"] That is so. Possibly he may not be in Office when this large addition which is to come from the Death Duties accrues to the Exchequer. At any rate, we have never had the slightest explanation of what is to become of the increased millions which are to accrue from this extraordinary scale, and, under the circumstances, I do not think the House of Commons will be much influenced by the prospective loss of the right hon. Gentleman unless it could be shown that it would land us in a deficit. The right hon. Gentleman thinks human nature will be on his side, and that no one will forego an increase of property for the sake of remaining below a particular line on which he will have to pay increased duty. But the right hon. Gentleman forgets that not only may it be a question of expenditure, but a question of parting with money to sons or other relatives during the lifetime of the testator. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is opening the door, as he has done throughout the Bill,
1714
to a number of influences which will operate against the Exchequer. Surely human nature, to which the right hon. Gentleman has appealed, will tend to make a man give away during his lifetime so much money as will bring his estate under the scale which the right hon. Gentleman establishes. It is in that sense that the wild jumps of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are against the Revenue and the interests of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that human nature will not operate in this matter. It appears to me, however, that the Government would be much more likely to secure the Revenue which the right hon. Gentleman desires if there were a more gradual graduation and nothing to foster a desire to get below certain lines which will be certainly fostered by the scale of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to argue this question. He has done on this occasion what he has done before. He has quoted to us the views of the Inland Revenue—"We shall lose so much money." How have the Inland Revenue arrived at that result? Have they taken into consideration the loss that must result from the desire to remain below a certain line? I feel confident that any system of this kind will defeat its own object. The scale proposed in the Amendment is far more just and equitable than the seale in the Bill, and would produce exactly the same sum.
SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman asks me, "Why are you raising upon the Death Duties these millions, of which you will only get little advantage during the present financial year?" I desire to give a very plain answer to that question. I should in any event have submitted to the House of Commons a plan which had for its object to equalise taxation upon the Death Duties on all owners of property. That is a reform which, in my opinion, is both necessary and just. Glad I should have been if those millions had been applicable this year to have relieved the people of this country from other taxation which bore hard upon them. I hope, whoever may be my successor, that he will use those millions for that purpose. I wish I could feel confident that those millions will not be wanted for ever-increasing expenditure. If the people and this House should ever

1715
come to the conclusion that the vast and growing expenditure has gone far enough; if ever they should put a stop to that which caused the growing taxation, then those millions in the future which the just taxation under this Bill will yield will be available for relieving the people from taxes which unjustly bear upon them.
MR. GOSCHEN: We now see placed before us some prospects which hitherto have been concealed from us. This is the first time that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated this view to us, and I am not sorry he has done so. The right hon. Gentleman has put it as though there was to be an equalisation of taxation under this system. How did he defend his argument? It is not equalisation of taxation, but the right hon. Gentleman has introduced a system of graduation which he could not defend upon its merits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been able to show that these jumps are fair. At all events, he has only endeavoured to do so by referring to the Estate Duty and the Income Tax. It is enough for the Party behind him that he should say, "We shall get more money." The right hon. Gentleman has not been candid enough to explain that this graduation scheme was as urgent to personal as to real property.
SIR W. HARCOURT: What I want to say is this: the reform I desired to introduce was au equalisation of the duty upon all property, the graduation upon all property, and an aggregation of the whole. That is the principle upon which the Budget is founded, and the graduation depends on the amount of the jumps and the intervals of rise in the scale.
MR. GOSCHEN: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says this is merely a question of jumps, but he does not deal with it. He does not attempt to prove that the system is fair or just. I ask the Committee whether it is fair or statesmanlike on the part of a Minister in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold out to his Party the inducement, "We shall get so much more money by this scheme for the relief of other taxation, and that justifies the disadvantages of this scale? "I repeat that the right hon. Gentleman is offering a temptation and a suggestion and a bribe which is no justification at all of the methods which he attempts to
1716
establish. Of course, we are helpless on this point. Hon. Members opposite outvote us, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows that he need say nothing more to them than that he wants this money in order to relieve taxation, and under these circumstances he is indifferent to all the arguments which are put to him with regard to the injustice of this tax. He does not attempt to meet my argument; in fact, he leaves all our arguments aside. He does not attempt to grapple with them; but he turns round, and upon a general political issue he says, "If you give me the power for which I ask I shall endeavour to relieve taxation." These are not the methods by which his great Leader, the Member for Midlothian, would have met his opponents. If we had had him in the House he would have endeavoured to prove the justice of every position he took up, and he would have engaged in argument and not in appeals to popular passion and opinion. Throughout the discussion on this Bill we have felt the absence of a desire to argue fairly the important questions raised. The right hon. Gentleman, I say, appeals to political passion and popular opinion, and we hear no argument whatever as to what will be in the end best, from a financial point of view, either for the Exchequer or in the interests of taxation for the future.
MR. EVERETT, said he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was intended to be a Budget for the million. Could not the right hon. Gentleman see his way to accept the proposal of the hon. Member opposite in regard to graduation up to £10,000, and recoup the Exchequer what would be lost by increasing the charge on amounts over £1,000,000? It would be a popular way of dealing with the matter.
Question put.
The Committee divided: —Ayes 151; Noes 114.—(Division List, No. 119.)
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. A. J. Balfour,)—put, and agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY—REPORT.
Resolutions [20th June] reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1894–5.
  CLASS I.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1895, for a Grant in Aid of Expenses caused by an Accident on the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway."

  CLASS II.
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,715, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1895, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he wished to make some further remarks with regard to the boycotting of Mr. Bradley. The House would remember that on Wednesday last the Chief Secretary made the statement—
  "It is quite true that Bradley suffered some annoyance, but this has now practically ceased. His customers are going back to his mill, and no other trouble is anticipated."
  He had since received a letter from Mr. Bradley stating that his trade as a miller had been utterly destroyed, that he was boycotted at fairs, that a carpenter who had worked for him had been boycotted, that no farmer would give him land for potatoes, and that he had been obliged to erect a forge for the shoeing of his own horses. This did not look as though the annoyance had practically ceased. Now, Mr. Bradley was a man of the highest respectability. He was a member of the class from which the Lord Chancellor was selecting persons for appointment to the office of Magistrate. Mr. Bradley was as incapable of misleading either himself or the Chief Secretary as any Member of that House. The Chief Secretary, however, relied upon the police. He (Mr. Russell) said, upon his own responsibility, that the police in this division had actually and absolutely perverted the facts of this case. It must be understood that he was making no general charge against the police. He knew, in fact, that they were an exceptionally able body of men. But while he wanted to make it clear that he
  1718
  was making no general charge against the police, he repeated that they had thoroughly perverted the facts in this case, and that the boycott of Mr. Bradley was as real to-day as it was upon the day that the meeting was held. Why did not the Chief Secretary order a prosecution in a case of this kind? The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that if he made an uproar the state of things would be worse. He (Mr. Russell) would tell the House why the right hon. Gentleman did not prosecute. The reason was that he would have to rely on the ordinary law, inasmuch as he had discarded the Crimes Act, and he knew that if he resorted to the ordinary law the jury empannelled at the trial would consist of persons who were concerned in this boycott. The right hon. Gentleman knew that his hands were tied behind his back, and that a prosecution would not be of the slightest use. Here was another matter arising out of the Debate of the previous day, to which reference ought to be made. The following letter, dated the 19th of May, had been written to Mr. Bradley by a Magistrate and an independent man with whom Mr. Bradley had had business dealings for 25 years—
  "Dear Sir,
  As you may easily guess, I cannot send the goods you want at present. If I did I would lose all my trade."
  In face of a letter of this kind, what folly it was for the Chief Secretary to say that the trouble, as far as Mr. Bradley was concerned, had practically ceased and that there was no necessity for action I On the previous day, in the absence of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), whom he was glad to see present now, he had read an extract from a speech delivered by that hon. Member at Nenagh in the month of April, and reported in The Freeman's Journal, and he asked the Chief Secretary whether he endorsed the hon. Member's language. In the course of the speech the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) said—
  "I hear that evicted farms are being taken in some parts of Ireland—I trust not here. If they are being taken it is not the fault of the Government, it is the fault of the people themselves. I am not afraid to tell the people that they are not working hard enough. Organise on the old lines; practise the old principle. You are free to do it now. Do not blame the Government, blame yourselves."

  1719
  The Chief Secretary had, in his speech on the previous day, boycotted the how. Member for East Mayo. He (Mr. Russell) had asked whether the Government had entered into any arrangement with the hon. Member for East Mayo that authorised the hon. Member to use such language in Ireland? What did the hon. Member mean when he said that if evicted farms were being taken it was not the fault of the Government? What did he mean when he advised people to resort to their old practices and to work on the old lines—that was to say, the practices of the lines of the Land League? What did he mean when he told them they were free to do it now? Did not such language convey that if they resorted to the old practices and worked on the old lines the Government would not interfere with them? If it did not mean that it did not mean anything. The Chief Secretary for Ireland might say that he was not responsible for the hon. Member for East Mayo. The hon. Member, however, was a Member of the Party which boasted that it held the Government in the hollow of its hand. Everybody knew that this was true. It was a most serious thing for a Member in the position of the hon. Member for East Mayo to tell the Irish peasantry that they were free to work on the old lines, and to go on in the old practices, and that the Government would not oppose them. There was only one other point to which he wished to refer— namely, the proposal of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to give a sum of £15,000 to aid in the formation of a Veterinary College in Ireland. He did not object to the object, which was a good one, but he objected to the taking of the £15,000 from a fund voted by the House for intermediate education in Ireland.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): Will the hon. Gentleman pardon me? The proposal I made to a certain body of gentlemen in Dublin has nothing to do with the Veterinary Department. They proposed to found a College, and I said—"If you comply with certain conditions I specify, I will ask Parliament to sanction the taking of £15,000 for this College."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Has that nothing to do with the Veterinary Department?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Clearly it has not. It is a proposal to bring in a Bill asking Parliament to allocate a certain £15,000.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: And would the College have no relation to the Veterinary Department?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I really do not know. I think not. The charter of the College is not even drafted.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then under the circumstances I will not proceed further with the matter. [Home Rule ironical cheers.] I do not understand the jeers of hon. Members opposite. I am quite willing, on the statement of the Chief Secretary that he thinks it does not come under this Vote, to leave the matter there. I will now ask the Chief Secretary to give us some illustration of the state of affairs in Ireland, and especially in Kilkenny, as illustrated by his speech yesterday, and by the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, which I have quoted.
  MR. J. MORLEY: With regard to the question of the Veterinary College, of course the proper occasion on which the hon. Member should make any observations he has to make on my proposal is when I introduce a Bill for allocating the sum of £15,000. With reference to the case of Mr. Bradley, the statements I made yesterday were statements founded on information supplied to me from the only source to which I can look for information as to the condition of Ireland or the condition of Kilkenny or any other county—namely, the high and responsible police authorities in the district. The information I conveyed to the House was information that had been conveyed to me. The hon. Member asks how it was that I was not aware of all the facts, or rather allegations, that have been addressed to him by Mr. Bradley. I have nothing whatever to say against Mr. Bradley. I know very little about him. I have, of course, followed the circumstances attending the meeting, as it was my duty to do, but I have nothing whatever to say about Mr. Bradley. I think that those who listened to the Debate that took place between the how and learned Member and me yesterday, however, will understand me when I say that I cannot offhand accept any allegations made by the hon. Member as to any

  1721
  given case of boycotting. [Home Rule cheers.] He tells me he does not impugn my good faith.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: You are impugning mine.
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, I am not.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Then what do gentlemen opposite mean by that cheer?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I was only saying that, just as he does not impugn my good faith about a variety of points on which our information differs, so I do not impugn his sincerity or good faith; but before I accept either of the letters he has read, I must certainly be allowed to ask for the opportunity of testing the statements they contain. If he will give me the letters I will inquire into his general statements. Meanwhile, I am persuaded that it is impossible that the Police Authorities should have conveyed to him such general information as I have stated to the House unless they had good reason for doing so. The hon. Member says that I do not take proceedings in this case and in other eases because I have discarded the Crimes Act. Supposing the meeting had been summoned for Kilkenny before the late Government went out of Office. I believe the proclamation bringing Kilkenny within the operation of the Crimes Act had been withdrawn. No doubt, it could have been put in force again; but does he believe that the late Government would have issued the proclamation again for one single case? I do not believe it, and I do not believe that either the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Jackson) or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will say that they would have done so. The hon. Member has given up the police.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: What right has the right hon. Gentleman to say that? Did I not state that I made no charge generally against the police; that I confined my attack to this case, and to the police responsible for this case? I guarded myself against any general charge against the police.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I must repeat that the hon. Member has given up the police, at all events in the County of Kilkenny. It is quite true that he said he was not attacking the whole 11,000 or 12,000 men in the Irish Constabulary; but he has given up the only body of police who were competent to give any evidence on
  1722
  this subject. Well, he gives up the police; he gives up juries; and the only men in Ireland to whom he thinks the Government can look for justice are the Resident Magistrates. I do not take as low a view as he does of the organisation and the administration of the law in Ireland. He asked me a question as to a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I hope my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo will not think ill of me if I say that I did not at the time, and do not now, know how to put a precise construction as far as the action of the Government is concerned upon his sentences. But if the hon. Member asks me whether there is a compact between my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo and myself, and whether the Government have, in order to please the hon. Member for East Mayo, consented to connive at and wink at boycotting and at the mischief which has followed and may follow from boycotting, he knows very well what my answer will be. He knows that since I have been responsible for the administration of Ireland there has been no winking at or connivance with boycotting, and that no effort has been left undone to prevent any injustice being perpetrated in Ireland. There is no compact between me and gentlemen opposite that I, as the man responsible for executive action in Ireland, should abstain from doing my duty. The hon. Member yesterday had a fair field for impugning the exercise of my authority, and what a case did he make Whatever compact I 'may or may not have made, he could not produce a single case which was worth a farthing to show that I have in any respect failed to preserve order, to put down outrage, and to maintain a state of things as far as the Administration is responsible for the state of things in Ireland, which neither he nor his friends were able to produce during their period of six years with all the machinery of the Crimes Act.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he had only to remark, in reference to the observations made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone in regard to his speech, that he did not consider it to be his duty nor the duty of any Member of his Party either to seek or to require authority from any Government for any language they used to their

  1723
  constituents in Ireland. They were responsible for any language so used to the people in Ireland and the Members of their Party. He had only further to say that in his judgment in that speech, and in other speeches he had recently delivered in Ireland, he had not broken the law. He had no doubt that when he did break the law the Chief Secretary for Ireland would bring him to account.
  Resolutions agreed to.

SEA FISHERIES (SHELL FISH) BILL. (No. 274.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MAJOK RASCHsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bryce) how long he was going to try and force this Bill down the throat of the House without any Debate. Could he not give the Essex Members half-an-hour's discussion upon it?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. T. E. ELLIS, Merionethshire): I will ask my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether he can accede to the wish of the hon. and gallant Member; but I must point out that the hon. and gallant Member is the only Essex Representative who opposes the progress of this Bill, and that one of his colleagues the other night made au appeal to him to allow the Second Reading to pass.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, he was the only Essex Member who was responsible for the fishing on the coast of Essex. He represented the Burnhain Native Oysters, and it was his duty to stand up for the men who caught them.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL ACT (1884) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 88.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSasked for some explanation of the reason for the introduction of the Bill.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I shall be pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the information he seeks for. The fact is, it has been discovered that a sum of money amounting to £6,000 was provided by the ratepayers of Bristol to rebuild the Bishop's Palace burnt in the old Bristol riots. That money was spent on the existing palace at Gloucester, and when the diocese was divided into two it was obviously unfair that the whole of it should go to the diocese of Gloucester and none to the diocese of Bristol. The proposal of this Bill is, therefore, that the diocese of Gloucester shall give £200 a year to the future diocese of Bristol. It is simply a fair transfer, agreed upon by both Gloucester, and Bristol of £200 from one diocese to the other.
  MR. CRILLY: I object.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I would appeal to the hon. Member not to oppose the Second Reading. The Bill is supported by all parties in Bristol.
  MR. BRYCE: I would join in the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CRILLY: I would respond to the appeal which is made to me, but, in view of the attitude which the associates of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) in this House have taken up in regard to other Bills, I feel that I cannot do so.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I hope the hon. Member will not persist in this attitude. I know nothing about the other Bills he refers to. This is purely a local measure.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I should like to join in the appeal made by the right lion. Gentleman. This is a Bill which will be productive of great good if it is passed.
  MR. CRILLY: After the appeal that has been made to me by my hon. Friend I will withdraw my objection, which was only made in view of what had been done by gentlemen sitting on the Benches near me.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

PILOTAGE BILL.—(No. 287.)

  SECOND HEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *SIR A. ROLLIT, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said its object was to enable masters of vessels to pass the pilotage examination and then pilot their own vessels, without re-examination, as at present, upon a change of owners.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir A. Rollit.)
  MR. BRYCEsaid, the Bill had only been printed one day, and he had not had time to examine it.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. (No. 163.)
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 19) BILL. (No. 262.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL. (No. 269.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL. (No. 231.)
  As amended, considered; to be read j the third time To-morrow.
  LOCOMOTIVE THRESHING ENGINES (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 292.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

ARBITRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. [Lords.]—(No. 290.)
Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
House adjourned at five minutes before One o'clock.