Commons Sitting of 31 May 1894

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
MR. HOWELLsaid, he wished to call Mr. Speaker's attention to the Votes for last Tuesday, so far as they related to the proceedings on the London County Council (General Powers) Bill. He found nothing in the Votes relating to Tuesday which showed in any way that a clause to which objection was taken, and which was struck out of the Bill in consequence, was so omitted. The point being a most important one, he had to ask Mr. Speaker that the entry might be amended so as to show upon the face of the Votes that the clause really was omitted from the Bill.
*MR. SPEAKER: I suppose a new clause was inserted in the Bill.
MR. HOWELL: There was no new clause carried, Mr. Speaker.
*MR. SPEAKER: The entry is "Amendments made," and such entry covers the fact of an old clause being struck out.
MR. HOWELL: No; the Motion was carried without a Division.
"MR. SPEAKER: I do not see anything irregular in the entry.
MR. J. STUAETsaid, there could be no doubt that the facts were as stated by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell). The clause to which the hon. Member referred was omitted, and no new clause was inserted in the Bill.
*MR. SPEAKER: I had no notice that this subject was to be brought forward, but I will look into the question and see if there has been any irregularity in the entry. If there has been any irregularity I will see that it is rectified.
MR. HOWELLthanked Mr. Speaker for his statement, and said that he was sorry he had not been able to give notice of the question.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TOWER BRIDGE SOUTHERN APPROACH) BILL (by Order.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Consideration, as amended, be postponed till Tuesday."—(Dr. Farquharson)
  MR. BOULNOISsaid, it was rather unfair to those who were interested in this Bill that it should be put off from time to time. This was the fourth postponement, and unless be received an assurance from his colleagues on the London County Council that the matter would be really dealt with on Tuesday, he must object to the postponement.
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, the Bill was being postponed at the request of the agent representing the Opposition.
  MR. COHENhoped that the measure would be definitely dealt with on Tuesday.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next.

QUESTIONS.

  BENGAL DISTRICT MAGISTRACY.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Mr. C. A. Radice, promoted in The Calcutta Gazette, of 10th April last, to act as District Magistrate and Collector of Mymensingh, was, under orders of Sir Antony MacDonuell, acting Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, on the 24th of August last, condemned to forfeit his grade of acting joint Magistrate, and for
  6
  a year to receive no promotion, permanent or temporary; whether he is aware that in those orders it was stated that Mr. Radice not only acted in defiance of the law, but also in a manner calculated to inflict gross and unmerited indignity upon a respectable Brahmin landholder; that his proceedings showed a vindictive attitude; and that his conduct was absolutely indefensible, and constituted a very flagrant abuse of power; and whether, if the answer is in the affirmative, he will state upon what grounds the punishment awarded to Mr. Radice has been remitted by Sir Charles Elliott, and Mr. Radice promoted to a position of independent authority?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I believe that the facts are substantially as stated in the first two paragraphs of my hon. Friend's question. In reply to my telegram, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal reports that the appointment of Mr. Radice was to fill a temporary vacancy occasioned by the ill-health of a collector whom it was necessary to remove at once. He was on the spot, and no officer could have been sent from a distance without inconvenience.

  POST-CARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any prospect of an arrangement being come to by the Treasury with the Post Office under which the public can be given the privilege of using halfpenny adhesive postage stamps upon their own cards when sent through the post?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): A great deal of attention has been given to this matter, and a Committee is now sitting to consider certain questions connected with the supply of stamps and post-cards which, though not directly dealing with the matter to which the hon. Member alludes, may have an important bearing upon it, and it is therefore necessary to await their Report before coming to a decision.

INDIAN STAFF CORPS OFFICERS' GRIEVANCES.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any recommenda-

7
tions were made by Lord Roberts, when Commander-in-Chief in India, with regard to the grievance of officers of the Indian Staff Corps who are exposed to constant supersession in the course of their duties by officers of the British Service, owing to the more rapid promotion in that Service; and, if so, would he state what the recommendations were; whether the complaints of the Staff Corps have been duly considered by the Indian Government and the Secretary of State; and what, if any, decision has been arrived at; and whether he will lay upon the Table the Papers on this subject, including the Memorandum issued on behalf of the Staff Corps, and submitted to the Commander-in-Chief and Government in India?
*MR. H. H. FOWLER: The promotion of officers in the Staff Corps is still the subject of correspondence with the Government of India. Until that correspondence is complete, Papers cannot be presented to the House.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: When is the correspondence likely to be published?
*MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am sending out an important Despatch by tomorrow's mail. This is a very difficult question, and it is receiving most careful attention both at Simla and Whitehall.

RELEASE OF AN IRISH CONVICT.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTEH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a convict of the name of O'Leary has recently been discharged from gaol in Ireland; whether this man was convicted in connection with the murder of Head Constable Whelahan; and, if so, what was the term of the imprisonment to which he was sentenced; and whether he has now been discharged in the ordinary course, or as a matter of indulgence before the expiration of his sentence?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOE IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The convict named was released on licence on the 12th instant. He was convicted at the Wicklow Winter Assizes of 1887 of the Whiteboy offence of attacking a dwelling-house, arising out of the murder of Head Constable Whelahan, and was sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude. The other three men convicted for the same offence had been released on licence some time ago, and in
8
view of this I thought the time had arrived when this man might also be released. In the ordinary course he would have been eligible for release in June next year.

POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS AT TIEN-TSIN.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that at the British Settlement and Treaty Port of Tien-Tsin, China, the English inhabitants have no postal arrangements provided for them; whether he is aware that the Germans, the French, and the Russians have Post Offices there; whether 90 per cent, of the whole mail matter of the Settlement is British, and the trade with Great Britain and her Dependencies amounts to several millions sterling annually; whether he is aware that the British mails which now arrive at that important Treaty Port of Tien-Tsin are now handed over to the German Post Office there for distribution; and whether he will at once communicate with Hong Kong regarding this grievance?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): Tien-Tsin is a Treaty Port, and not a British Settlement. The question of the establishment of a post office there is one for the consideration of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

INDIAN RELIEFS.
MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what were the latest dates on which the troopships with the reliefs for the regiments serving in India arrived in Bombay during the present season?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The last four troopships arrived in India on the 17th of March, the 23rd of March, the 7th of April, and the 8th of April. These dates were exceptionally late, owing to the breakdown of the troopships.

BANKRUPTCY IN BELFAST.
MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of Petitions for arrangement filed each year since 1888 in the Local Bankruptcy Court, Belfast; the number of these which have been confirmed; the number which have been turned into bankruptcy; the composition offered in

9
each case of the debtors; and the dividends paid to creditors in each case turned into bankruptcy?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that 192 Petitions for arrangement were filed in the Belfast local Court of Bankruptcy between January, 1889, and the present date. Of these, 130 were confirmed, and 37 were turned into bankruptcy. I cannot, within convenient limits, state the amount of composition offered in each case, but I may state it varies from Is. in the £1 upwards. The dividends paid were likewise of variable amount, the lowest being about 8½d. in the £1. Several estates have not yet been closed.
MR. YOUNG: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant a Return of the dividends paid?
MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think there would be any objection to stating the sums without indicating the names.

PRINTING CONTRACTS IN WESTMEATH.
MR. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the three years' contract for the printing for the Grand Jury for Westmeath expires at the ensuing Summer Assizes, and that there was no presentment on account of this contract made at the County at Large Presentment Sessions on Saturday last; and whether he will take steps to see that this contract is properly advertised for competition according to law, and is not given away privately to favoured contractors?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Secretary to the Grand Jury informs me that he received instructions on Saturday last from the County at Large Presentment Sessions to publicly advertise for tenders for printing. These tenders will be laid before the Grand Jury at the next Summer Assizes.

POLICEMEN AND EVICTED FARMS IN IRELAND.
MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a policeman, named Reardou, stationed at present at Gowran, County Kilkenny, holds a farm, situate in Lar-kinstown, near Wexford, which was taken by the policeman's mother-in-law, Mrs. Margaret Culleton, after the former
10
tenants had been evicted, and made over by deed on Constable Reardon: and whether policemen are allowed to hold farms from which the former tenants have been evicted?
MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that Mrs. Culleton holds the evicted farm referred to, but has not assigned it to Sergeant Reardon. No special Regulations exist in reference to the holding of evicted farms by members of the Constabulary. They are not permitted to hold farms (evicted or otherwise) in the counties in which they are serving, but there is no Regulation prohibiting them or their wives from holding land elsewhere.

COMPULSORY RETIREMENT FROM LAW OFFICES.
CAPTAIN GRICE-HUTCHINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Bill dealing with compulsory age retirement in the Law Offices at the age of 65, and which he stated in the House on the 2nd of April was to be at once introduced, is to be brought in?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,) (who replied) said: The Bill is being prepared, but it is impossible to give at the present time the precise moment of its introduction.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURT BUSINESS.
MR. J. STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the great congestion of business in some of the Metropolitan Police Courts, due to the increase of Local Government cases, he will authorise the cost of the necessary clerical assistance to Justices of the Peace to enable them to hold special Sessions for hearing School Board cases and summonses under such Acts as "The Public Health (London) Act, 1891," the Metropolis Management Acts, Adulteration of Food Acts, and the Housing of the Working Classes Act; and whether the jurisdiction of the Justices in such cases has been affirmed in a recent case in Kensington?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL(who replied) said: My hon. Friend has to-day forwarded me a complaint of the state of the business at one of the Courts which

11
I have Dot had time to look into. Otherwise, I have heard of no complaints of any great congestion of business existing at present in any of the Metropolitan Police Courts, and I think if there had been any such congestion I must have heard of it. If Justices of the Peace have jurisdiction to hear any cases over which Metropolitan Police Magistrates have jurisdiction, the Justices have jurisdiction over all the cases, and they could not be confined to hearing cases and summonses under the Acts mentioned in the question without legislation. It is true that the jurisdiction of Justices has been affirmed in a recent case in Keusington; but the question as to the decision in that case, and the course to be taken in consequence of it, is now under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown, and I think nothing should be done till their opinion has been received.

COALS FOR THE NAVY.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether ships of the Fleet coaling in the Firth of Forth take their coals from vessels which have brought the coals from Cardiff; and, if so, whether the coals could be had from the Scottish mines close at hand, and so save the expense of bringing the coals all the way from Cardiff?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWOKTH,) (who replied) said: In nearly every part of the world the normal supply for Her Majesty's ships is Welsh coal, as it is far more suitable than the local coal in most places. But small quantities of the best local suitable coal may be obtained when Welsh coal is not available.

LEEDS POST OFFICE.
MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will state the amount of money voted for the new buildings for the Post Office at Leeds in last year's Estimates, and the amount actually paid; if he can state approximately the date of completion; and whether it is intended to sell the present Post Office when the new buildings are occupied?
*THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): The amount voted in last year's Estimates for the new Post Office build-
12
ings at Leeds was £21,000, and the amount spent was £18,000. It is hoped to finish the buildings by Midsummer, 1895. The intention is to sell the old Post Office.

THE WALLACE ESTATE, LISBURNE.
MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a circular recently sent to the tenants on the Wallace Estate, Lisburne, requiring, under threat of proceedings, payment of the rent due at November last; whether he is aware that the tenants have been informed that the rents must in future be paid on the 1st of February in each year, as the rents have been judicially fixed, and the tenants have an opportunity of purchasing at a further reduction of 20 per cent, with the fee-simple for nothing; whether he is aware that the rent now required is known as "the lying term," and was not formerly demanded for more than 12 months after it fell due since it was allowed to stand over from the famine years; and whether, considering the practices already adopted on this estate, he will mention to the Laud Commission the desirability of a searching inquiry into the facts of purchases by the tenants in order to save them from paying prices in excess of what the Land Commission sanctions?
MR. J. MORLEY: The facts, I am informed, are correctly stated in the first three paragraphs. My hon. Friend is aware that in several cases, on the Commissioner refusing to lend more than a certain amount, the balance of the price was demanded from and paid by the tenant, and an agreement for the lesser sum as the price lodged with the Land Commission. This matter was the subject of a Judgment by Mr. Justice Bewley in July, 1893, and since then the Commissioners believe that the cash payments made by the tenants are set out on the agreements for purchase. The Land Commission cannot prevent purchasers paying any prices they choose, and its duties and powers with reference to the security are limited to seeing that the loan is satisfactorily secured, not to seeing that the price is fair, if the tenant chooses to pay part of the price himself.

THE STRABANE-LIFFORD ROAD.
MR. DANE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the result of the consultation with the Inspecting Officers of the Board respecting the carrying of the road leading from Strabane, in County Tyrone, to Lifford, in County Donegal, over the Great Northern and Finn Valley, and West Douegal Railways lines?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): The Board of Trade are being advised as to their legal position in this matter. As soon as a decision is arrived at it shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

FALKIRK TRYST.
MR. DANE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what has been the result of his inquiry as regards the accommodation for weighing live cattle at Falkirk tryst or market, in Stirlingshire?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): From the Report made to me by the Inspector whom I instructed to visit Falkirk in pursuance of my promise to the hon. Member, it would appear that a weighing machine is available for use at Falkirk tryst; but the information at present before me is insufficient to enable me to determine whether there is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Act, or whether the application for exemption from those requirements which has now been made to me ought to be granted. The matter is still, therefore, under investigation, but I hope it will not be long before I am in a position to acquaint the hon. Member with my decision.

NEWCASTLE WEST CLERK OF PETTY SESSIONS.
MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a letter was sent to Dublin Castle by Mr. William O'Sullivan, of Newcastle West, County Limerick, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Dawson, clerk of Petty Sessions there, for having used to him, at Newcastle West on the 11th instant, threatening language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, and of which letter an acknowledgment was received on the 21st instant; whe-
14
ther Mr. Dawson, after having received from Dublin Castle notice of the complaint, did, on the 24th instant (a fortnight after the alleged offence) issue a summons for assault against Mr. O'Sullivan, notwithstanding that a Petty Sessions Court had been held on the 18th instant; whether he is aware of the strong feeling existing in the district by reason of the conduct of Mr. Dawson in connection with this case, and his manner of discharging the duties in connection with his office; and whether he will call the attention of the proper authority to the matter, and inquire as to the very serious charges preferred against this officer under the late administration?
MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph. It is also a fact that the Petty Sessions clerk has summoned O'Sullivan for assault on the occasion in question; and, under these circumstances, it is undesirable to say anything in the meantime which might be calculated to prejudice the Magisterial investigation.

THE RECENT REVIEW AT ALDERSHOT.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on the occasion of the late Royal review at Aldershot the total strength of the Division was 17,600, and that only 11,600 men were on parade; that the deficiency of 50 per cent, is accounted for by sick 642, guard 187, recruits 815, and other duties 4,600; and whether the 4,600 men employed on other duties, such as servants, cooks, workshops, and clerks, who are not available for duty but who are returned as efficient, could be found by employing the Army Reserve?
*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): On May 17 the strength of the Aldershot Division was 17,864. Of these, 11,639 paraded, so that 6,225, or 35 per cent, of the strength, did not appear. Of the absent, 815 were recruits, 187 on guard, and 642 sick, leaying 4,581 to be accounted for. There were 414 at other stations on command, 100 were on leave, 338 were dismounted Cavalry and Engineers, 669 were men of the Army Service Corps and other services employed on transport and other corps duty; 1,578 men were at Pirbright for musketry practice, 545 were either attending classes, or in prison, or absent

15
on other grounds; and the balance 937, were employed as clerks, servants, cooks, and in workshops. Reservists could possibly take the place of some of these 937 men, but it would be pro tanto an addition to the number and to the cost of the Army.
MR. HANBURY: Is it a fact that there are 13,000 men who do not perform the duties of ordinary soldiers? What has the War Office done in regard to the recommendations of the Wantage Committee in this respect?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must ask for notice of that question.
MR. HANBUEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the 900 men he has referred to were officers' servants? There have been great complaints as to the number of these servants.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will inquire.

ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ENGLISH CRUISERS.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Journal of the Royal United Service Institution of the 15th of April, 1894, published under the authority of the Council, which includes five Admirals, two Naval Captains, and a member of the Naval Intelligence Department, to the effect that of English cruisers four, the Tourmaline, Ruby, Emerald, and Garnet, ought to be struck off the effective list; and whether these vessels are of such age and in such condition as would warrant this statement; if so, whether the Admiralty propose to withdraw them from active service?
*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWOETH: The attention of the Admiralty has not been called otherwise than by the hon. Gentleman's question to the statement quoted by the hon. Member. The vessels named are on the effective list. It cannot be stated when they will be withdrawn from service. The Tourmaline is on the North American Station, the Ruby in the Training Squadron, and the Garnet returning from the Pacific. These ships are efficient for the services on which they have been engaged. The Emerald is not in commission, but is available for service if required.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have the five Admirals and two Captains had
16
pointed out to them the fact that they have infringed the Queen's Regulations, and will they be censured for having done so?
*SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The hon. Member suggests that, because five Admirals and two Captains are on the Council of the United Service Institution which has published this statement, the Admiralty should censure them. The hon. Member will perhaps put his question down on the Paper.

THE OFFICIAL DEBATES.
MR. BAETLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state when the Index to last year's Official Reports of the Debates will be issued?
SIR J. T. HIBBEET: As my hon. Friend is aware, the last Session did not end until March 5 of this year, and the Debates filled a quite exceptional number of volumes, more than 13. I am informed that of recent years the General Index has never been issued within less than three months after the close of the Session, and sometimes not until five or six months after. It is hoped that the Index for last Session will be ready in about a month from the present time.
MR. A. C. MORTON: May I ask whether it is possible to have a weekly index of the reports, as, I believe, The Times already give in their reports?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot promise that, but I will consider it.

INDIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS.
SIR W. WEDDEEBUEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether up to last March in the Legislative Councils of the Governor General, the Governor of Madras, the Governor of Bombay, land the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, the majority of additional members were non-officials; upon what grounds this majority has been now disturbed in the Council of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal by the appointment of an official to the vacancy caused by the retirement of a non-official; and whether the instructions of the Secretary of State impose upon official members the duty of supporting the Government with their vote on all occasions?
MR. H. H. FOWLEE: No, Sir; it is not the case that there has always been a majority of non-officials among

17
the additional members. For instance, in the first quarter of 1892 the numbers of officials and non-officials were equal both in Bombay and in Bengal, and the same equality continued in Bengal during the second quarter. Under the Statute of 1861 only one-third of the Councillors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal need be non-officials, but the Rules made under the Statute of 1892 direct that the number of officials shall not exceed 10 out of 20, or one-half. When the Bengal Couucil was enlarged the Lieutenant Governor found it convenient for special reasons to have only nine official Councillors with 11 non-officials, but it was always intended that the number of each class should be equalised at the first opportunity, and this has now been effected. No such instructions as are described in the third clause of my hon. Friend's question have been given by the Secretary of State.

DECCAN AGRICULTURISTS' RELIEF ACTS.
SIR W. WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that a Bill (No. 7 of 1894) to amend the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Acts, 1879 to 1886, was introduced into the Legislative Council of the Governor General in April last; and that the proposed measure is based mainly on there-commendations made in their Report by the Commission appointed by the Government of India to inquire into the working of the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Acts; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commission, with the Appendices containing the evidence in full of the expert witnesses, such as the District Judges, the Special Judge, the Special Sub-Judges, and other subordinate Judges, deputy collectors, and mamlatdars?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: The answer to the first clause of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second clause, I will lay the Report, including the Appendices, on the Table of the House, if my hon. Friend will move for it.

VIVISECTION.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the apparent
18
discrepancies in the Inspector's Return of Experiments on Living Animals for the year 1893, wherein it is stated, in Table III., that three licence and certificate holders—namely, Messrs. Lin Boon Keug, Otto Lang, and Conrad Gerlaud, made no Return of any experiments performed by them, whereas, in Table I., the first two named are entered as having performed experiments, and, in Table II., the two last named are entered as having performed none; if he can state upon whose information and authority such statements, apparently contradictory, have been made and published; whether he contemplates renewing any licences or certificates attached thereto to any person or persons reported by the Inspector as having made no experiments under the licences and certificates during the preceding year, according to his Return for 1893, amounting to 49 licence and certificate holders; whether he is informed, either by the licence and certificate holders or by his Inspectors, of the number of animals made use of in the course of the 4,046 experiments reported by the Inspector in 1893; and if he will cause a Table to be prepared and laid before the House, showing the number and description of animals used in experiments in 1893, and also in the future?
MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: As stated in Table III. Of the Inspector's Return, no Return was received from Messrs. Lin Boon Keng, Otto Lang, and Conrad Gerlaud, nor from the late Dr. Romanes. The Inspector ascertained in the cases of Messrs. Romanes and Gerlaud, from inquiries at the laboratories where the licences were available, that they had not performed any experiments, and therefore included their names in Table II. From similar inquiries in the case of Messrs. Keng and Lang, he ascertained that they had performed experiments, and therefore included them in Table 1. The licences to persons included in Table II. are renewed from time to time, because for various reasons the licencees are unable to take up that work in one year, whereas they can in another, and some (such as Professor George Thomas Brown) hold such licences in case they may have to perform experiments with regard to the cattle disease, or for judicial purposes. The number of animals experimented upon may be taken as

19
closely corresponding to the number of experiments—namely, 4,046. The names of the kinds of animals are all reported to the Inspector, except those animals that are experimented on under Certificate C, or under a licence without a certificate, all such experiments being upon animals in a state of complete anæsthesia. The information which is to be gathered from Tables II. and III. is, I think, sufficient, and, in my opinion, there is no occasion for any further table.

THE BALFOUR COMPANIES.
SIB E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the statement by the Secretary of the Liberator Depositors' Committee that all the details and necessary materials for a public prosecution, with regard to the Jabez Balfour Companies, were sent to the Treasury by the Official Receiver more than six months ago; and, if so, why no action has been taken?
MR. BRYCE: The papers referred to were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, not by the Official Receiver, but by the Board of Trade, on dates varying from the 30th of October, 1893, to the 25th of April, 1894. The discretion as to proceedings rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions, who, I understand, is acting under the advice of the Law Officers. I have nothing to add to the answer already given to a similar question by the Solicitor General.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask whether, seeing that these Papers have been presented by the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides, he will put pressure on the Director of Public Prosecutions to take steps in this very important matter?
MR. BRYCE: The matter rests not with the Board of Trade, but with the Law Officers, and it is on them pressure, if any is necessary, should be brought to.
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will put a question to the Attorney General on the subject.

IRISH REGISTRY OF DEEDS.
MR. UARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether certain Second Division
20
Clerks in the Registry of Deeds, who have been called on to discharge the higher duties of the office, have been recommended for promotion by the head of the Department; whether he is aware that the Royal Commissioners, who reported upon the office in 1881, bore testimony to the high class of duties performed by the officers of the Department, and expressed an opinion as to the fair remuneration of these officers, and recommended the amalgamation of the Second and Third Classes of the old establishment to secure it to them; also that the Treasury Committee of 1885 strongly urged the adoption of the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners, and that the amalgamation was approved by the Treasury and carried out; and whether, having regard to the remuneration for these duties then so fixed, and to the pledges given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by himself on the 29th of March last, he will see that effect is given to the recommendation of the Department for the promotion of these clerks?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The duties of the clerical staff of the Registry of Deeds are such as are covered by the scale of salary of the Second Division and of staff officers of that Division. The old Upper Division establishment is, therefore, moribund, and no further appointments can be made thereto. It follows that the pledges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself, to which the hon. Member refers, have no bearing on the present case.

SIGHT TESTS FOR RAILWAY SERVANTS.
DR.MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps, if any, the Board of Trade proposes to take respecting the correspondence passed between the Board and the Railway Companies bearing on the subject of the method of sight testing practised by the Companies; and is the Board satisfied that every precaution is now being taken for the public safety?
MR. BRYCE: The correspondence already before the House shows that the Companies are fully alive to the importance of this subject, and are endeavouring by a system of tests to do what is necessary in the interest of public safety on the lines of the recommendations of

21
the Committee of the Royal Society. The Board do not propose to take any further action at present, but the matter shall not be lost sight of.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken to carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Westminster Abbey, dated the 24th of June, 1891, that no time should be lost in removing the houses in Old Palace Yard, which not only conceal to a great extent the architecture of the Chapel of Henry VII. and the ancient Chapter House, but are also a constant source of danger to the Abbey from fire; and whether he will give the House an assurance on the part of the Government that no step of any kind shall be taken which would involve any of the ground so cleared being built upon without the matter being fully discussed and decided by the House of Commons?
*MR. H. GLADSTONE: For some time past negotiations have been in progress for acquiring the property required for the removal of the houses in Poet's Corner and Old Palace Yard which were condemned by the Royal Commission on Westminster Abbey. Arrangements have already been arrived at for the purchase of certain interests, including that of the freeholders, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; and in other cases there is a good prospect of early settlements being effected. I do not think it will be found necessary to apply to Parliament for compulsory powers of purchase. When possession of the property has been obtained, which cannot be before the middle of next year, it is intended as soon as possible to demolish the buildings. The public will then be in the best possible position to judge what ought or ought not to be done. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will not come to any final decision on the question of a monumental chapel without giving Parliament a full opportunity of expressing its views thereon.

HANBURY CHARITY, LANGTON.
MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when
22
the new Scheme for the administration of the Hanbury Charity at Langton, which has been in hand two years, the first draft of which was published in March, 1893, and the amended draft submitted to the Committee of Council on Education on the 10th of February last, is likely to come into force?
*THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLANU,): Various objections and suggestions with reference to the Scheme were received during the month of publication, and the Department are at present in commuuication with the Charity Commissioners on the subject of proposed amendments. It is hoped that the Scheme may be very shortly approved.

IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in arranging the conditions on which new tenders will be asked for the mail services between Loudon and Kingstown, the principles laid down in the Treasury Minute of the 19th of October, 1855, will be acted on by providing for the most perfect passenger communication, and the use on the cross channel passage of large and commodious steamboats ensuring the greatest comfort, convenience, and speed; and if it will be made a condition that the mileage rate of passenger fares by both railway and steamboat shall not exceed the current mileage rate of passenger fares by unsubsidised express trains between London and Edinburgh?
*MR. A. MORLEY: The comfort and convenience of passengers will not be overlooked, and parties tendering will be asked to give particulars of the accommodation for passengers which they are prepared to provide, as well as of the dimensions and sea-going capabilities of the vessels offered. I am afraid I can give no pledge that the passenger fares between London and Dublin shall be adjusted to the current rates chargeable between London and Edinburgh.
MR. W. KENNY: When will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give out the tenders?
MR. A. MORLEY: I cannot say. The matter is being very carefully considered.
MR. MACARTNEY: Is the question of acceleration by land as well as by sea being considered?
MR. A. MORLEY: Yes.
MR. FIELD: Will an effort be made to provide third class carriages on these lines?
*MR. A. MORLEY: That is not a matter which affects the Post Office, and could not be made a condition of the contract.
MR. SEXTON: What degree of acceleration will be required? Will it be specified in the forms of tender?
MR. A. MORLEY: We propose to ask for tenders at varying rates of acceleration.

RE-DIRECTED LETTERS.
MR. WOLFF: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why an additional postage is charged on circulars in open envelopes for re-direction from the House of Commons to the private residences of Members; and whether, in view of the number of these circulars received by Members of Parliament, he can see his way to abandon this charge?
*MR. A. MORLEY: Under the present Regulations, which were decided upon by the late Government, all halfpenny postal matter is liable to additional postage when re-directed. I have no power to make an exception in favour of hon. Members.
MR. ROBY: Could not the charge be remitted on postcards?
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: And on newspapers too?
MR. T. M. HEALY: Why not charge an increased rate?
MR. BARTLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to the Postmaster not to forward circulars, but to leave them here till called for?
*MR. A. MORLEY: If there is a general wish I will do so, but I believe they are not forwarded at present to Members who do not wish to have them. [Cries of "Yes."] Any hon. Member can ask the Postmaster not to forward them.

RETURNING OFFICERS AT LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS.
MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: I beg to ask the President of the
24
Local Government Board whether his Department is issuing instructions appointing the clerks of Boards of Guardians the Returning Officers for the elections of the new Urban District Councils, instead of leaving the appointment to the existing Urban Sanitary Authorities, as apparently contemplated and ordered in "The Local Government Act, 1894"?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVEE,): The Local Government Board have not yet proceeded to prepare instructions as to the elections referred to, which cannot take place before November next. The question as to Returning Officers, with several other questions which have arisen as to the Regulations, will be carefully considered in connection with the preparation of the Order.
MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: But is not this question of appointment clearly defined in Section 79, Sub-section I?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: We think not.

MOSS LITTER FOR ARMY HORSES.
MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, considering the exceptionally high price of straw, he can see his way to allow licensed victuallers who have to provide billets for Her Majesty's troops to supply moss litter instead of straw, or, failing this, to raise the price allowed for billeting?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Moss litter is not generally approved of by the Military Authorities, and probably the price of straw will not remain at its present high rate.

WORCESTER POLICE AS FIREMEN.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is a fact that he has notified the City of Worcester that allowances paid to constables as firemen being of a fixed and permanent character they should be taken into account in reckoning pensions, subject to the ordinary deductions; and, in such case, if he will cause a Circular to be issued to the various Constabulary forces on the subject, or other notification made, so that the present divergent practice in this matter may be made more uniform?
THE SECEETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have intimated to the Watch Committee of Worcester, who, in pursuance of Section 2 of the Police Act, 1893, have directed that certain members of the Force shall be employed partially as firemen, and shall receive in respect of such service certain fixed weekly allowances; that such allowances, being permanent and in the nature of extra pay, should be made subject to the usual rateable deductions, and should betaken into account in reckoning pensions. In other boroughs, however, the allowance to police employed as firemen are not of this fixed and permanent character, and cannot, therefore, be so taken into account. Such a Circular would not be required for counties, nor even for all boroughs, but only for those in which the powers given by Section 2 of the Police Act, 1893, had been exercised, and certain constables had been told off to act partially as firemen. The Home Office has no evidence of great divergence of practice, and the Circular hardly seems necessary.

FERMANAGH TELEGRAPHIC SERVICE.
MR. M'GILLIGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether lie is aware that in the town of Rosslea, County Fermanagh, which is a polling centre at times of Parliamentary elections, and where large fairs are held, there is no telegraph station; and that the nearest one is four miles distant, involving an extra cost of 3s. on each telegram to and from Rosslea; and whether, inasmuch as less important places have telegraph stations, will inquiries be made with a view to establish a telegraph station at Rosslea?
MR. A. MORLEY: I find that in January, 1886, the residents were informed that a telegraph office could not be established at Rosslea unless a guarantee wore forthcoming to secure the Post Office against loss. In April of the same year a statement to the same effect was made in answer to a question in this House. I shall be glad to cause fresh inquiries to be made, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

FEES IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
26
land whether pupils attending National schools under the control of the Commissioners of Education, or attending any of the model schools, pay school fees; and if any request has been made to pupils in these schools to pay fees?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Education Act of 1892 provides that where the average school fee in 1891 was in excess of 6s. such excess might be charged to the pupils, but such excess only. In 1,071 schools there was such excess, and in all these cases the excess fee may be charged. As a matter of fact it is charged in a great number of such schools, including all the model schools but one. The number of schools to which the Act applies is 8,234, and of these school fees have been entirely abolished in 7,163.

VALUATIONS OF ELECTORAL DIVISIONS.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-laud whether any steps have been taken to prepare the Return granted respecting the valuations of electoral divisions of Parliamentary polling districts; and when may it be expected that it will be laid upon the Table of the House?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Commissioner of Valuation reported that the preparation of the Return referred to at the present time would necessitate the employment of additional clerks, and suggested that he might be allowed to defer it until about the 10th of July, when the present pressure on his Department would be relaxed and the work could be taken in hand by his permanent staff without extra expense. To this arrangement I have, under the circumstances, assented. The Commissioner expects to complete the Return by the end of July.

DUBLIN VETERINARY COLLEGE.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the purpose of starting the Veterinary College in Dublin with a sum of £15,000; and whether that measure will be immediately introduced?
MR. J. MORLEY: The introduction of the Bill referred to awaits the completion of a necessary preliminary now

27
in the hands of the promoters of the scheme.

THE DIVERSION OF CHARITIES.
MR. ARCH: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether any official information exists as to the charities and their annual value which have been diverted from such objects as food, doles, work for the unemployed, apprenticeships, or clothing, by the operation of or under the Endowed Schools Acts to educational purposes, and showing the nature of such education, whether elementary, or middle class, or other; and where the information is to be found?
*THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. F. S. STEVENSON,): The information down to December, 1885, is to be found in Appendix 7 of the Endowed Schools Committee, 1886–87. It is brought down to date in the paper handed in by Mr. Richmond to the Committee now sitting, and will be printed together with his evidence.
MR. DODD: Is there any objection to having the Paper printed now, so that we can see it before the Committee report?
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: That is a matter for the Treasury, whether it is worth while to have re-printed a document which is already accessible to hon. Members.
MR. DODD: It was only printed for the Committee and not for the public. The newspapers did not publish it, because they could not get at it.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: It will be public in the course of a few weeks.
MR. DODD: What is the amount of the funds which will have to be added to the Return referred to?
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I can only give the figures approximately. The amount mentioned in the Return of 1886–87 represents an income of rather more than £15,000 a year. The funds mentioned in the paper will probably increase it by £5,000.

LEVEL CROSSING FATALITY AT CAMBORNE.
MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evidence at the
28
coroner's inquest, on the 28th instant, upon the death of William Wyatt, who was killed while in charge of the gates at the Stray Park level crossing at Camborne; whether he is aware that it appeared that the deceased was a coal heaver, who worked as a rule in the Company's coalyard at the station, 300 yards away, and was only taking the duty of gatekeeper at the crossing as a relief for the regular gatekeeper; that for years it had been the custom for coal porters to relieve signalmen after their regular day's work as coal porters was over; that, except on special relief days, when they worked for 11½ hours, the shortest day's work for the gatekeepers would be close upon 15 hours; and that there was no telegraphic or other communication between Cam Brea station and the Dolcoath crossing, so that the deceased had no notice of the approach of the train, which on this occasion was a special; and whether he has power, and, if so, will he exercise his authority, under "The Railway Regulation Act, 1893," to require the Great Western Railway Company to adopt proper precautions for the safety of the public and of their officials, and to shorten the hours of their servants, in harmony with the rider appended by the coroner's jury to their verdict, in which they state that the Railway Company are guilty of great neglect of duty in not having either interlocking signals or telegraphic communication at Stray Park crossing, and that the hours of gatekeepers are much too long?
MR. BRYCE: The Board of Trade have not yet received the Coroner's Return in this case, but they have communicated with the Railway Company with regard to the accident. The General Manager states that he will make inquiries into the arrangements for working the crossing and inform the Board of the result. He adds that the man had been on duty 9 hours 42 minutes. If any representation is made to the Board of Trade under the Act referred to alleging that the hours worked by the gatekeepers are unreasonable it shall receive attention.
MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully examine the evidence in this case? It was stated that not only this man but other men worked inordinately long hours—sometimes as

29
many as 15 hours? Will the right hon. Gentleman also direct his attention to the absence of telegraphic communication between the crossing and the station, seeing that danger is caused to the public owing to trains coming along without notice?
MR. BBYCE: If any statements bearing on the subject of hours of works are forwarded to the Board of Trade they will be considered. We will also consider anything calculated to ensure the safety of the public.
MR. CHANNING: Were the Board of Trade represented at the inquest?
MR. BEYCE: I must ask for notice of that.

AGE OF OFFICIALS IN DUBLIN CASTLE.
MR. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many officials connected with the Government in Ireland, and how many employés in Dublin Castle, are over 65 years of age, and why the rule for their retirement when past 65 years of age is not enforced?
*SIR J. T. HIBBERT (who replied)said: The Order in Council of the l5th of August, 1894, which prescribes compulsory retirement at 65, applies only to persons coming within the definition of
"all permanent officers in the Civil Service drawing salaries or placed on scales of salary in excess of those of the Second Division."
The Treasury has no means of knowing the ages of officials in Ireland generally: but in the case of officers included in the definition just given, it is the duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General to call attention to any payments of salary to persons over 65 in contravention of the Order, and the head of the Department concerned has to satisfy the Comptroller and Auditor General that the Order is being complied with. The only officers now serving in Ireland whose term of service has been extended by the Treasury beyond 65 years of age are Sir Patrick Keenan and Sir Richard Sankey, and the reasons for their retention are given in the Parliamentary Returns, No. 145 of 1892 and 117 of 1894 respectively.

THE ANGLO-BELGIAN AGREEMENT.
SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary
30
of State for Foreign Affairs when the offer of the strip from Lake Tanganyika to Lake Albert Edward was first made to this country by the Congo State; whether, by a Despatch of August, 1892, Egypt reserved her rights over the Equatorial Province; and if it is true that Germany and France have both lodged protests against the Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the King of the Belgians as representing the Congo State?
*THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): I must defer answering the first two questions, which have only just appeared on the Paper, until to-morrow. The French Ambassador has addressed a Note stating that France makes full reserve in respect of the Agreement. No communication has been made to us by the German Government. This answer applies to a question on the same subject by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield.
SIR C. W. DILKE: Have the Government heard from Berlin that communications have been sent from there to Brussels?
SIR E. GREY: I cannot make statements as to communications addressed to other Powers.

PROTECTION FOE THE SCOTCH FISHERIES.
SIR L. LYELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if gunboats of the Niger class are to continue through this season to protect the fishing in the North of Scot-laud, and Orkney and Shetland; and if these gunboats are taken off this service will they be replaced by vessels of at least equal speed and endurance?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: No departure from the usual arrangements for protecting the fishing in the North of Scotland, and Orkney and Shetland, is contemplated. Subject to unforeseen exigencies, the Niger will take up those duties shortly.

HACKNEY UNION VACCINATION OFFICER.
MR. BOUSFIELD: I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the three applica-

31
tions which have been made by the Hackney Board of Guardians in reference to the remuneration of Mr. E. Robinson, the vaccination officer for the East District of the Hackney Union; whether he is aware that such officer has to devote the whole of his time to his duties, and received for his services last year only £43 17s. 4d.; and how the Local Government Board has dealt with such applications?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The Local Government Board has three times refused to sanction the increase of the salary of the vaccination officer of Hackney. The diminution in the income of this officer has arisen no doubt from the Guardians not living: instructions for the prosecution of offenders under the Vaccination Acts; and the ground of the Board's decision has been that they consider that the hardship so far as regards the vaccination officer should be met by the Guardians discharging their duty in the enforcement of the law instead of by increasing the rate of payment to the officer.
MR. BOUSFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make such a representation to the Hackney Guardians?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: We have addressed a strong representation to them.

POLICE AT GOVERNMENT FACTORIES.
MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the rule at the Government factories as to the employment of police; whether they are members of the Metropolitan Police; and whether they are periodically changed; and, if so, at what intervals of time?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: At Woolwich, Enfield, and Waltham Abbey the Metropolitan Police are employed; at Birmingham the local police force takes the duty. The arrangements of the force as regards personnel are entirely under the Police Authorities.
MR. HANBURY: Are the police, as a matter of fact, ever changed?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe that men of good character are sometimes employed at the factories for long terms. Whether, and when, the police at these factories should be changed is for the Metropolitan Police Authorities to determine.

DEPORTATION FROM HONG KONG OF A DESTITUTE IRISHWOMAN.
DR.KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to a letter, dated 3rd March, 1894, addressed, by order of the Governor of Hong Kong, by Mr. J. M. Thompson, Colonial Secretary, to the Guardians of the North Dublin Union, in reference to the deportation from Hong Kong of Mary M'Gann, a destitute Irishwoman, of weak intellect, resident in that Colony; whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this case; and whether he intends to propose legislation to remedy the present state of the law regarding the deportation of destitute Irish-born persons who have settled in England or the Crown Colonies?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have been furnished with a copy of the letter referred to in the first paragraph. It appears the woman left Ireland some 32 years ago for America, whence she proceeded about five years ago to China in company with a lady. She returned with this lady to England, her passage being provided by the Hong Kong Government, and was sent from Portsmouth to Dublin by the Salvation Army. The only other case resembling this, of which the Local Government Board have cognisance, is a removal from the Channel Islands in 1884. I have already stated that I am considering the propriety of introducing legislation, should a suitable opportunity arise, regarding the deportation of Irish born persons from Great Britain.

THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has given formal notice to the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company and to the London and North Western Railway Company, or to either of them, of his intention to seek for new tenders for the accelerated mail service between London and Dublin?
MR. A. MORLEY: Yes, Sir; I have.

WALTHAM CORDITE FACTORY.
COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will instruct the Superintendent of the Government Cordite Factory

33
at Waltham Abbey to limit strictly the explosion of the Settling Pond, so as to ensure a minimum of inconvenience and alarm to the inhabitants of the town?
*THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The intervals of time at which these explosions are effected are limited; but the action of the waste nitroglycerine is somewhat capricious, and an occasional loud explosion takes place. Measures are being taken to reduce this inconvenience as much as possible.

VOLUNTEERS AND THE CIVIL SERVICE.
VISCOUNT BURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make arrangements for granting to members of Volunteer Corps, employed in the Civil Service, the same opportunities for leave of absence for the purposes of attending camps of instruction or drills of their regiments as are extended by many employers of labour to their men?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am afraid that I cannot go beyond the answer given by the late Government on April 5, 1892, to a similar question as regards Easter. It was then pointed out that as the services of the gentlemen referred to are required by one employer—the State—in two different capacities, it was not possible to lay down a general rule such as the noble Lord desires; but it was added that heads of Departments would no doubt do their best to give reasonable facilities, subject always to the exigencies of the Public Service.

FOREIGN GOODS.
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, under the 16th section of "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," which prohibits the importation of goods bearing the name or trade mark of any manufacturer, dealer, or trader in the United Kingdom, unless such name or trade mark is accompanied by a definite indication of the country in which the goods were made or produced, the Commissioners of Customs have power to admit a foreign-made article, bearing the name of a trader in the United Kingdom, unaccompanied by an indication of origin?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. REID,)(who replied)said: No, Sir; the Commissioners have no such power.

THE NEW ESTATE DUTY.
MR. LEON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, under the present system of collection of the Income Tax, an owner of lauds or tenements in his own occupation, whose total income is under £150 a year, and who has borrowed upon mortgage a portion only of the value of the property from a Building Society, whose total income is also under £150 per annum, repayable by monthly instalments to cover principal and interest, in which the interest is less upon each payment, and is not distinguishable from the principal, is compelled to pay Income Tax under Schedule (A) upon the whole annual value of the property, and is unable to obtain a return of the tax; and whether he can state in what way a return of the tax in such a case can be obtained?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W.HAHCOUBT,): The Inland Revenue have entered into an arrangement with certain Building Societies, the effect of which, shortly, is to limit the payment of Income Tax to such profits as accrue to persons with taxable incomes. They are prepared to extend the terms of that arrangement to any Building Society. Some of the Societies to whom it has been offered have declined it. This loads to hardship to borrowers in certain cases. The Inland Revenue are now considering the whole question, with a view to remedy such hardship.

PAYMENT OF OFFICIAL EXPENSES AT PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decisive vote given on Friday last in favour of the payment of official expenses in connection with Parliamentary elections, it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry out the Resolution of the House?
SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government are considering this matter. I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the latter part of his question.

SERVICE ANNUITIES AND THE ESTATE DUTY.
MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the provisions of the Finance Bill, the widow and children of Civil and Military officers, who have subscribed to provident funds, will be unable to receive any portion of the annuities secured to them until they have paid Estate Duty, which would be equal to from six to nine months' pension; and whether he is prepared to mitigate the grievance thus caused to persons deserving of special consideration?
SIR W. HARCOURT: I will consider what steps can be taken to prevent undue delay in the payment of such annuities consequent upon the imposition of the Estate Duty.

THE FINANCE BILL.
MR. BILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Estate Duty, to be levied under Clause 2 of the Finance Bill, on property situated out of the United Kingdom, will be levied on the full capital value of such property as it exists, before, or after it has been subjected to the payment of Death Duties in the country or colony in which it is situated?
SIR W. HARCOURT: Legacy or Succession Duty is not now payable on the sum required for the payment of Death Duties in any foreign country or colony, and as Clause 2 of the Finance Bill only requires—
"Such property when situate out of the United Kingdom to be included if it is liable to Legacy or Sucession Duty,"
it follows that the amount to be included is the amount of the foreign property less the sum paid for Death Duties in the foreign country or colony.

IRISH WHISKY AND GERMAN SPIRIT.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that German spirit is conveyed in large quantities from Belfast and elsewhere to Bristol, where it is converted into so-called Irish whisky and put into Irish whisky casks previously shipped for this purpose as empties from Glasgow and Greenock, and then re-shipped from Bristol to Belfast and other places in Ire-
36
land as real Irish whisky; and whether,, in the interests of native manufacturers and consumers generally, an inquiry will be instituted respecting the manipulation and sale of this foreign mixture sold as Irish whisky?
SIR W. HARCOURT: I am informed by the Revenue Authorities that German spirit is not conveyed in large quantities from Belfast to Bristol, the whole quantity of such spirit imported at the former port being small and practically all used for methylation; that the greater part of German spirit imported at Bristol (averaging about 80,000 gallons a year) is used for British compounds, which could not be converted into "Irish whisky." The rest is used for general trade purposes. After careful inquiry, no trace can be found of the conversion of German spirit into so-called Irish whisky at Bristol. With regard to the casks, the only empty spirit casks which can be traced as coming from Glasgow or Greenock to Bristol are used by a Bristol firm for storing and maturing spirits of their own production, produced under supervision of the Inland Revenue. The only spirit which can be traced as being sent from Bristol to Ireland is spirit produced by the Bristol company above referred to. If the Board of Trade were provided with any information of a sale of spirits under a false trade description in contravention of the Merchandise Marks Act they would inquire into the matter and take such steps as may be necessary.

FRENCH CUSTOMS TARIFF.
DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any, and if so what, products of the United Kingdom are admitted duty free into France, or are otherwise favoured by the tariff of that country, in consequence of the reduction of the duty on French wines, which has been effected in pursuance of the Treaty of 1860 and subsequent agreements with the French Government?
*SIR E. GREY (who replied)said: The Treaty of 1860 is no longer in force, and the subsequent arrangements between Great Britain and France do not contain any stipulations in regard to the tariff. The rates of Customs Duty now levied in France are regulated by the domestic law, and not by any Treaty with Great

37
Britain. The last Treaty was negotiated in 1882, and was laid before Parliament then, but it contains no stipulations with regard to Customs Duties.

THE LOSS OF THE "SOBRIETY."
MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when, where, and by whom any inquiry was held into the loss of the Grimsby smack Sobriety, with four hands, last April; and why no intimation of such inquiry and its result has been communicated to the widows or relatives of the deceased fishermen, or can be obtained by them at present?
MR. BRYCE: Depositions on oath were made on the 9th of April by the skipper and boatswain of the Basset Hound before the principal officer of Customs at Hull, A deposition on oath was also made on the 10th of April by the second hand, who was the only survivor of the crew of the Sobriety. Copies of those depositions were supplied to the solicitors for both vessels, and would also be supplied to the relatives of the deceased persons if they applied for them. A statement was also made and signed by the second hand of the Sobriety before the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Grimsby on the 9th of April. Reports were made to the Department by the Board's officers at Hull and Grimsby; but as they were based on ex parte evidence, the Board do not think it desirable to communicate them to the parties, especially as a formal inquiry has been ordered into all the circumstances of the case.

OFFICIAL INQUIRIES INTO LOSS OF LIFE AND PROPERTY AT SEA.
MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the question of an immediate inquiry into any loss of life at sea was thoroughly and most carefully considered by the Royal Commission on the Loss of Life and Property at Sea, and that they unanimously recommended in their Report that whenever a ship comes into port on board of which an accident has taken place at sea which has occasioned loss of life, some public judicial inquiry, in the nature of an inquest, should be held forthwith by an independent judicial officer, who should receive evidence on oath as to the causes
38
of such accident, and that the evidence so given might give occasion to further proceedings of a criminal character by the Director of Criminal Prosecutions; and that the Report of the Royal Commission was drawn up by the present President of the Local Government Board, and signed by the present Secretary to the Board of Trade; and under what Statute or authority the Board of Trade are empowered to postpone an official or judicial inquiry, in view of possible litigation between shipowners in the Courts of Law?
MR. BRYCE: I am aware of the recommendation to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and the Board of Trade have endeavoured without legislation to give practical effect to that recommendation by arrangements the details of which I shall be happy to explain to-the right hon. Gentleman if he so desires. With regard to the last paragraph of the question, the Admiralty Division of the High Court is (under the "Shipping Casualties Investigation Act, 1879,") a Court of Appeal from decisions of Courts holding official inquiries resulting in the suspension or cancellation of the certificates of masters or officers. In collision cases where proceedings are pending in the Admiralty Division official inquiries are postponed in order to avoid the possibility of conflicting decisions, and the consequent necessity for a second resort to the Admiralty Division by way of appeal.
MR. HENEAGE: I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman unfairly, but is it not the fact that under Section 45 of the Act of 1883 the Local Superintendent of the Board of Trade is bound to inquire into the statements of the surviving hands of a vessel which has been run down, and either to endorse their statements or make such representation as shall enable the Board of Trade to take proper action?
MR. BRYCE: I have not the Statute before me, but I do not think there is anything inconsistent in what I have said with such a provision.

SIR WATKIN WILLIAMS WYNN.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government have yet considered the case of Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, who was con-

39
victed of cruelty to a horse on the 5th of March?
MR. ASQUTTH: I understand that notice of appeal from this conviction has been given. Until the appeal has been determined, it would be premature for the Government to take any action. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the matter will not be lost sight of.

FOOD ADULTERATION IN SCOTLAND.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether in the County of Midlothian and other Scottish counties there are any Inspectors under the Food Adulteration Acts; whether he is aware that milk supplied to the ploughmen and other farm labourers in lieu of wages is believed to be often adulterated with a large percentage of water; and whether he will have these matters inquired into, with a view to the law being properly enforced?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I have made inquiry into this matter, as it affects the County of Midlothian, and am informed that several complaints of adulteration of milk and cream have been made to the County Medical Officer, and that the County Council have now resolved to appoint an analyst and an Inspector under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act. Analysts have already been appointed in 14 other Scottish counties.

NEWTON ABBOT WORKHOUSE SCANDALS.
SIR S. NORTHCOTE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what action has been already taken by his Department in connection with the Newton Abbot Work-house inquiry; and what further action, if any, he proposes to take in this matter?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: As the result of the inquiry into the complaints preferred by the late nurse of the Newton Abbot Workhouse, the Local Government Board have required the immediate resignation of the matron of the workhouse. The medical officer and some of the other officers of the workhouse have also tendered their resignations, but the Board have directed that the inquiry should be re-opened, with a view to the
40
fullest investigation of the whole administration of the workhouse.

SCOTCH EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS.
SIR H. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can hold out hopes of the introduction of a Bill during this Session supplementing the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, whereby educational affairs in each parish under a given limit of population might be placed under control of Parish Councils?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I doubt whether such a measure could be carried this Session. The Local Government Bill for Scotland now before the House will remove the most important difficulties that would now attend such a measure by establishing a Parish Council, or Committee of a Parish Council, in all but a very few School Board areas.

PROMOTION IN THE ARMY.
MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that, by an Army Order of November last, all Majors not promoted before the 1st July will be required to pass an examination; whether the effect of this Order will be that a considerable number of senior officers will be obliged to go through an ordeal from which officers of less service will be exempt; and whether, so as to reduce any necessary hardship or anomaly of this kind to a minimum, he will consent that all Majors who were second in command at the time the Army Order of November last was issued, maybe excused from passing the new examination for promotion to Lieutenant-Colonel?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: After June 30 no officer will be promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel until he has shown that he is qualified to perform the duties attached to that rank; for which purpose he would have to be examined by a Board of superior officers in subjects which every Major is expected to know. Sufficient warning has been given to enable officers to prepare for this examination, and facilities are afforded for exercising command over the three arms; but as promotion is not by seniority, it is inevitable that whenever the new system starts some officers of less service will have been promoted, while Majors of longer service have thus

41
to prove their capacity. I should not be willing to sanction the delay suggested by the hon. Member, inasmuch as an examination in professional knowledge which is essential for a Commanding Officer cannot be regarded as a hardship.

PENSION STOPPAGES.
MR. BURNIE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that a naval pensioner at Swansea, named Griffiths, having been imprisoned with respect to a debt owing by him, has, during his imprisonment, had his pension of 7s. per week stopped by the Admiralty; and whether he will see that the money detained is paid to Griffiths?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,) (whoreplied)said: The amount of pension withheld has been repaid to Griffiths. It was stopped under a misapprehension.

GLASGOW FACULTY OF PROCURATORS.
MR. MACLURE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that several members of the Faculty of Procurators in Glasgow in practice and holding solicitors' licences act as Justices of the Peace in the County of Lanark; and whether this is in strict conformity with Scotch Law?
*THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOCR,, &c.): If the statement in the question is correct, I do not think that the action of the Procurators referred to is in conformity with the provisions of the Act 6, Geo IV., c. 48.
MR. MACLURE: I will repeat the question on Tuesday.

TENDERS FOR INDIAN STORES.
COLONEL HILL: On behalf of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any list is kept at the India Office of firms who are invited to tender for supplies for the Government; and whether the issue of notices inviting tenders is confined to firms on such list; and, if so, what are the qualifications which enable a firm to be placed on the list?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: A list of firms known to be capable of executing contracts for stores required for Indian service is kept at the India Office. The
42
issue of invitations to tender is confined to firms on this list, except in cases where the requirements are notified by public advertisement. The only qualifications for admission to the list of contractors is proved ability to execute contracts.

OFFENCES UNDER THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
COLONEL HILL: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that early in the year a small amount of cement was landed from the ss. Edenmore in the docks of Liverpool to be re-shipped in the same Company's ss. Kilmore, for Kunstendjie; that this cement was found not to be properly labelled under the Merchandise Marks Act, and has been confiscated by the Customs Authorities, although it was only on the quay for transhipment, and although everything was done and promised to be done to remedy the unintentional defects in the marking; and whether he will cause this case to be inquired into and due restitution made?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Two hundred and forty-three barrels of cement were imported at Liverpool ex Edenmore, from Antwerp, on the 7th of March last, and were entered on the usual Free Entry. The barrels were labelled "Portland Cement, First Quality," without any qualifying words indicative of the country of production. The importation, therefore, was in direct contravention of the provisions of Section 18 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and the goods were accordingly seized by the Board of Customs, who have declined to release them. Goods in transit are liable to the same restrictions under the Merchandise Marks Act, and the Regulations made to give effect thereto, as goods imported for home use in the United Kingdom.

DERBY DAY.
SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, with reference to the Motion for the Derby Adjournment, which has been defeated on the last two occasions, whether you are of opinion that it is competent for a private Member to again make such a Motion, which has previously been permitted as a matter of

43
custom, though not according to the strict Rules of Order of the House?
*MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the defeat of the Resolution last year affects the right of a private Member to bring it forward again if the hon. Gentleman thinks there is anything in the circumstances of the present year which makes it different to those of last year.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION.
  SIR W. HARCOURTrose to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business have priority on Wednesday; that, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Friday at Three of the clock; that Standing Order No. 11 be suspended, and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to the other days of the week; that the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and the proceedings thereon be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5."
  I think I may say that a Resolution of this character has been for some time anticipated. Indeed, the Amendment to it standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Helen's rather indicates that; for the preamble of the Amendment, though in some sense it administers admonition or chastisement to the present and previous Governments and Parliaments, does not dispute the urgency of the present occasion, and, after admonishing us in this matter, proposes to grant our request, which, of course, is very satisfactory. This Resolution is proposed on the ground of urgency, and urgency under exceptional circumstances. I know it is supposed that I have postponed the Resolution till to-day with some sinister object with reference to the Orders of the Day. I do not say that is unnatural suspicion, but I ask the House to believe that it is unfounded. The real truth is, I was ignorant of what the Orders of the Day were to be yesterday, but what I did wish to see was the sort of progress we were likely to make in Committee on Monday and Tuesday on the Finance Bill. I found this Motion upon no complaints against any section of the House in the past, nor do I found it upon any anticipations of unfair dealing with public business in the future. I should be quite unjustified in
  44
  assuming that the House of Commons or any Party in it were not desirous and did not intend to give absolutely fair play to measures which have for their object to make provision for the Public Service. Those are questions that are not in themselves of a highly Party or controversial character, the discussions in Ways and Means providing for the extraordinary supply which we have already voted for this year. Now, I need not refer to the exceptional circumstances of this year, of the overlapping Session of last year, of the change of Government which took place, all of which have reduced the ordinary margin which is at our disposal. With reference to the Finance Bill, I am the first to acknowledge that the measure contains large and novel principles which justify and demand proper examination by the House of Commons. In these days it is idle to refer to precedents, because I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Leader of the Opposition might think I was going back to feudal times. I am rather ashamed in his presence to remind him of the advantages I possess over his comparative youth, and especially to inform him of what took place 40 years ago at the time of the Succession Duty Bill. I can just recollect that Bill, though I was not in the House, but I would inform the right hon. Gentleman' that that Bill was fought with the greatest animosity. It raised new principles; it taxed new property; it was a very elaborate Bill. It was a Bill of 55 clauses, and any gentleman who looks at it can see it was a measure of a most technical and controversial character. That Bill was really analogous to the first part of the Budget Bill, because in these days it was the practice to have separate Bills. There was a Bill for the Succession Duty, a Bill which included the question of the Income Tax; there was an Excise Bill, and there was a Customs Bill. The time consumed upon them was 28 days. But what happened in the case of the Succession Duty Bill—a Bill at least as contentious and more than twice as voluminous as the present Finance Bill, containing, as I have said, 55 clauses, whereas the present Finance Bill has 20 clauses? There were two days taken on the Resolution when principles were discussed. On the First Reading there was

  45
  no opposition and no Debate. On the Second Reading there was one short Debate. On going into Committee there was another Debate, and in Committee on the 55 clauses there were six days occupied. We have already occupied three days on the first clause. The Report took up one day and the Third Reading one day. So that that Bill occupied 12 days of the time of the House of Commons. I admit frankly the accuracy of an observation made by the hon. Member for King's Lynn when he said that all the principles raised by this Bill were included in the first clause. That is true, and that I believe to be the proper way of drafting such a Bill. You should, as far as possible, place before the House of Commons in a condensed and comprehensive manner all the principles which you intend to embody in it; and the subsequent clauses should be, as they are here, supplementary to those principles, and in the character of machinery. Therefore, I do apprehend and anticipate that when we have disposed of the first clause the progress of the subsequent clauses will be accelerated. We have got this Bill in Ways and Means to dispose of; and, also, the Supply of the year. It is quite plain that when I speak of urgency on the eve of the 1st of June that is a case which the House of Commons will consider with a view to placing further time at the disposal of the Government. I perfectly admit the preamble of the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helen's, that this is not the best manner of dealing with the question of Government time. I quite think that the House ought to consider in the future the re-adjustment of its time as between the Government and private Members, and with that admission on my part I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to insist upon his preamble, arriving, as he does, at the same conclusion as ourselves. Now, I daresay I shall be asked by the supporters of the Government what measures we intend to promote, and the opponents of the Government will perhaps be still more anxious to know what measures we intend to drop. I am sorry to say that I can give no information on that point until the Finance Bill has passed through the House. It is perfectly obvious that we cannot do this, because the time at our disposal must depend on
  46
  the margin of time we have after the passing of the Finance Bill. If I entered to-night into the competition of rival friends and of united foes I should never get to the end of the discussion. I should be overwhelmed by the kindness of the one and devoured by the other, and I decline at the present time to give information which I really am not in a position to give. Of course we shall endeavour, as far as we can, to satisfy the pledges we have given, and the expectations we have held out. That I say to our friends. I cannot expect that we should satisfy our opponents; that would be probably asking too much. No doubt we make a large request to the House; and we can only make it in the hope and in the expectation that, if the House should grant it, they will grant it because they have confidence that it will not be abused by Her Majesty's Government.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business have priority on Wednesday; that, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Friday at Three of the clock; that Standing Order No. 11 be suspended, and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to the other days of the week; that the Reports of the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and the proceedings thereon be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think everybody must feel that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in undertaking the task which he has just performed, has performed it in a tone and a temper seldom to be expected from an opponent. He has made as light as possible the proposals of the Government. I go further, and I make the admission that at this time of the year, when the Government business is considerably in arrear, and when a great deal of necessary financial work of the year is still to come, some proposal of this kind to still further trench on the time of private Members was to have been expected. But I confess that I should have liked to see the demand for time accompanied by some more explicit statement as to the policy of the Government. I do not wish, I do not expect, the Government so early as May 31 to go through the painful operation of slaughtering the innocents. That will have to come; the massacre need

  47
  not have been anticipated by a month, and we cannot expect the Government publicly to give up the hopes which no doubt they have privately ceased to entertain, at so early a date as that at which we have now arrived. But it must be recollected that the Government have only told us, in asking for the time of the House, that they wish it for the Finance Bill and for Supply. No pledge or assurance has been given with regard to other measures, and I think in these circumstances the Government should have limited their demand for time to the subjects they have explicitly told us they mean to deal with. They give us no promise, no pledge, and no indication with regard to their intentions on other matters; and therefore I think they might properly cut down their Resolution to the limits of their own announcement and explanation of that Resolution, and only ask for the time of the House and for precedence for the Budget, while refraining from the immense generality of the powers they have asked for in the Resolution on the Paper. I think, therefore, it will be well worth considering whether it would not be proper to move as an Amendment to the Resolution that it should be limited to the Finance Bill and the operations in Supply. The right hon. Gentleman has very carefully refrained from throwing any blame or any imputation on any section of the House with regard to the discussion connected with the Budget, and I am sure he did so, not merely from the natural reluctance of any Leader of the House to introduce irritating subjects of debate into discussions which he naturally wishes to get over as quickly as possible, but from a sincere conviction that the Budget is a matter necessarily demanding great attention on the part of the Members of the House. The right hon. Gentleman recalled to our minds the great Debates in point of ability of the gentlemen who took part in them which occurred when the Death Duties were first proposed; and he told us that, controversial and novel as the subject then was, and complicated as the Bill was, yet the then House of Commons was able to get through their work in the relatively small number of six days in Committee. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has accurately represented the history of those days, but I have had the
  48
  privilege of talking to one of the most distinguished of those men who took part in the Debates, and, unless my memory has deceived me, that authority gave me to understand that one of the chief reasons why the Death Duties were so soon disposed of was because there were only about three gentlemen in the House who understood them. Either, therefore, we are much more intelligent than our predecessors, or we know much more than our predecessors, or we are more ready to discuss that which we do not understand. I do not know which of the three alternatives is the one we ought to select; but, at all events, I can imagine no Government in these days, from whichever side of the House it may be drawn, would for a moment anticipate that a Budget like this one, or like the old Budget imposing the Death Duties, could in 1894 ever be got through the House of Commons after so brief a discussion. The right hon. Gentleman rightly anticipates that when we have passed Clause 1 our progress through the Bill will be more rapid—at least, it will be, as far as I can judge. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn a picture of the mode in which this Bill has been drafted, which he says is the pattern to which the drafting of all Bills should conform. It is a very good way to draft a Bill from the point of view of getting it through the House of Commons, but I am not sure that it is equally good for future interpretation by the Courts of Law or by the offices which have to employ it. To cram all the leading propositions into one clause, and to make all the other clauses of the Bill mere machinery, has been carried to perfection in this Bill by the skilled workmen who assist each Government in turn. The necessary evolution of draftsmanship imposed upon us by the increased difficulty of passing anything through this House is one to be deplored from the purely drafting and legal point of view. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for having adopted it in this Bill. If I had been in his place I should probably have adopted the same course, but, after all, the people who chiefly suffer are those who have to interpret it. Those who gain are those who chiefly plead before the Courts; the Judges are well paid, and as the barristers are a very deserving class, I do not know that we should much deplore

  49
  the new style of drafting in favour of the old which prevailed when the Death Duties were originally proposed. The Government will have gathered from the few remarks I have made that I do not regard with hostility the proposal that they should obtain further facilities to get through the financial work of the year. Had the Government been content to limit their demands to that necessary request, I should not have had a word to say against their policy; but I think they have drawn their Resolution too wide and have made an unnecessary draft on the available time at the disposal of the House as a whole. I, therefore, suggest whether it would not be desirable, in the interests of public business, that the Government should for the present limit their demands to the only business on which they have made an announcement—namely, the business connected with the taxation and the expenditure of the year; and I seriously press on the Government the desirableness of coming to an understanding on the basis of that suggestion.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid, he desired to speak on the Resolution from the private Members' point of view. He had an Amendment on the Paper designed to earmark this Motion of the Government and to show that it was of an exceptional character. What he objected to as a private Member was the almost brutal frankness of the wording of this Resolution, because it was obviously intended to establish the principle as a matter of course, while there was nothing on the face of it to show that it was a serious inroad on the privileges of private Members. Instead of the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper, he proposed—acting on the advice of Mr. Speaker—to move an Amendment which would have the effect of allowing this Resolution of the Government to come into operation only "after this day four weeks for the remainder of the Session." He had no desire to hamper the operations of Her Majesty's Government, because he assumed that their checkered career was rapidly drawing to a close, and that they would not be a much longer time in Office. He desired to move his Motion on the ground of time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not told them what part of this confused mass of Government
  50
  business they intended to throw overboard. He thought private Members were entitled to say, "We shall not part with the time of the House until we know what measures you are going to go on with, and what you are going to abandon." Private Members were used now over a long series of years to having their heads cut off, and he supposed they were now getting used to it, as eels, it was said, got used to being skinned; but he thought he had a right to record a protest against this state of things. He would trouble the House with some authorities on the principles involved in this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had, on more than one occasion, spoken with contempt on the subject of the value of private Members' time. But it must be remembered that that gentleman was not a private Member in the strictest sense of the word. He was an ex-official Member, who stood on a different platform, like the Members on the Front Benches. He was one of those fortunate individuals who could always get the ear of the House whenever he wished to speak. Private Members were entitled to regard with the greatest suspicion upon what came not only from official Members, but Members like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. On the 13th of April, 1888, on the Motion to give precedence to the Local Government Bill, no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian laid down the principle to be followed. He said—
  "However, he did not wish to discuss that matter further than to say that he thought that the arrangement of the business of the House with regard to its division between the Government and private Members was a matter which had reached a point—after the experience of last year and the initial experience of this—which made it very necessary that it should, in a very short time, be made the subject of general consideration."
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian from that day to this, however, had done nothing to bring the matter forward as "the subject of general consideration." He would appeal to another authority — the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) who, on the same occasion—namely, on the 13th of April, 1888—said—
  "The ordinary usage was, that private Members' days were only taken for the Second

  51
  Reading of opposed Bills which involved the fate of the Government, and that was not the case at present."
  The time of private Members was asked now not for Bills involving the fate of the Government, but on general grounds. In 1889 an important principle was laid down as to the grounds on which this Motion should be made. On the 8th of March, 1889, a Motion was made to take Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays for Committee of Supply until Easter. On that occasion the late Mr. W. H. Smith said—
  "The absorption of the whole time of the House by the Government has been necessary in the public interest, but it is an exceedingly unsatisfactory condition of things, and it is one which, I hope, may be avoided by the assistance of Members on both sides of the House."
  That was a direct challenge to private Members, who, if they chose to set the matter right, could do so. On that occasion the present Leader of the House, who was then one of the leading Members of the Opposition, said—
  "I will be no party to limiting the liberties of private Members, but I will not oppose the facilities asked for by the Government in the special circumstances and under the necessary conditions."
  The Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. S. Buxton) on that occasion opposed the Motion as
  "An unwarranted infringement of the rights of private Members,"
  and the present Solicitor General (Mr. R. T. Reid) seconded the opposition. He said he was—
  "Somewhat disappointed in his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Harcourt).… He had not confidence in him on this subject. … These encroachments on private Members' rights were continually going on. From 1880 to 1885 there were few encroachments, and in 1886 and 1887 they increased, and in 1888 the time of private Members was entirely taken away, and now at an earlier stage than ever the process was continued against all the traditions of the House. … It has always been the custom to allow Members facilities for bringing on matters of public interest, and public attention being thus directed, they frequently afterwards became the subjects of important measures."
  They, therefore, had it on the authority of the present Government that private Members not only had rights, but that they were important and useful rights. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not justified the Motion at all, and he had not in any way shown the necessity of the Government having such an un-
  52
  warrantably large programme that they had been obliged to make this demand upon the time of the House. The Government did not attempt to cut their coat according to their cloth. They had introduced measures which they could not hope to pass, and supported them by speeches, and the result was that they found a Motion like the present necessary at a comparatively early period. To his mind, it was time that private Members united against this sort of thing. His Amendment would alter the form of the Motion so as to delay the taking away of private Members' rights for four weeks, on the grounds he had stated—namely, that those rights were useful and that the Government were solely to blame for the present pressure of business. In 1886 there was only one Motion made to take up private Members' time by the Government. That was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. The time was asked for then for the remainder of the Session for a specific purpose—namely, Committee of Supply and Ways and Means, and the Wednesday Sittings of the House were not touched. In 1887 the Government made a slight demand, and on February 17 a special exception was made in regard to the discussion on the Rules of Procedure. But that year the whole private time of the House was not taken until July 4. This would form a precedent for his Amendment which would operate somewhere about, the same period of the year as the Motion of 1887. In 1888 the Government did not ask for the whole time of the House. In 1889 no such proposal was made by them until July 11. In 1890 they did not ask for the whole time of the House except in the Autumn Session—namely, on November 28. In 1891 the Government took the whole time of the House, with the exception of the Wednesday Sittings, from June 15, but then the circumstances that prompted them to do so were somewhat peculiar. However, he did not justify the proceedings of the late Government. He held that they had committed the same fault, only in a lesser degree, as the present Government—that was to say, the fault of bringing in too large a programme. In 1892 the time of private Members was not taken, but last Session it had been appropriated in a manner which was unprecedented. Last

  53
  year on the 30th of March all the time of the House was taken for the Home Rule Bill, and the Opposition were not responsible for the introduction of that Bill. Now the Government asked for all the time of the House from the 1st of June without saying what measures were to be proceeded with. This system of Governments filching away the rights of private Members had been growing until now it had culminated in a robbery the extent of which had never before been equalled. He submitted that on these grounds he was justified as a private Member in bringing forward his Amendment. He was not particular as to the form of the Amendment. He did not wish to take away from the Government any responsibility they had of getting themselves out of the mess they were in. On the advice of the Speaker he had altered his Amendment to the insertion in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Resolution of the words "after this day four weeks," and he asked private Members to vote for it by way of giving a warning to this Government and to future Governments that private Members had rights which they would protect, and that a Government must arrange its programme so as to leave to private Members the time to which they were entitled.
  Amendment proposed, after the first word "That," to insert the words "after the 28th July."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not wish to enter into an examination of the value of the rights of private Members. He was afraid they could not hope that the Amendment was likely to be accepted. The hon. Member had changed his Amendment from what was a harmless admonition to the present and succeeding Governments into an Amendment which would practically adjourn the consideration of the question of the Resolution for four weeks, and in the meantime nothing would be done under it.
  MR. SETON-KARRsaid, the effect would not be to adjourn the consideration of the question. That would be decided now. The Amendment would only postpone the operation of the Resolution.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he should have said the adjournment of the operation of the Resolution. The difficulty the Government was in was that they wanted at the present time to go on with the Finance Bill from day to day, and that was business of an important and pressing character, which it was the interest of the House and of the whole community should be done as speedily as possible. Therefore the Amendment could not be entertained by the Government; but he had risen for the purpose of making a practical suggestion that they might entertain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a conciliatory speech, and the right hon. Gentleman would admit that the right hon. Member for Manchester had spoken as one who had been responsible for the conduct of the business of the House, and might be so again, who knew the character of the work to be done, and who appreciated the reasons which enforced the appeal of the Government for more time, and was therefore disposed under certain conditions to assent to the demand made. If that was the frame of mind of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it occurred to him that an arrangement might be made which would shorten the discussion, and enable them to enter on the immediate work of the House—namely, the further discussion of the Finance Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a position in which he could not say what other measures he would deal with in the way of saving or abandoning. He (Mr. Courtney) appreciated the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman's position. Time was wanted to get the Finance Bill through, and until that was disposed of the right hon. Gentleman could not say how other Bills would be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman would see that if he did not give any intimation of the future action of the Government with reference to those Bills he did not facilitate by that reticence the passage of the Finance Bill, and those who were opposed to this or that measure would not give him facilities for the general conduct of business irrespective of the Finance Bill if he did not say what Bills he would go on with and what Bills he would drop. But the right hon. Gentleman might accomplish his object if, instead of proposing the Motion for the remainder of

  55
  the Session, he restricted it to the time until the Finance Bill had passed all its stages in the House of Commons, or had been otherwise disposed of. If he agreed to alter his Resolution in that way, he would secure all the power he sought, and he might obtain the assent of the House to his proposal in a short space of time. He would, also, probably avoid the inconvenience of entering into details with respect to other measures. He made this suggestion in a friendly spirit and with a disposition to forward the business of the Government.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, ho was gratified at the extremely reasonable and, if he might say so, favourable manner in which the general proposal of the Government had been received. He could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr). It was of the utmost importance, because it was important, as affecting the Revenue for the financial year, that the Budget Bill should be carried without delay. The suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition and of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) was that they should confine their proposal to the time necessary for passing the Finance Bill. He need not say that was a matter which the Government had carefully considered, and they had come to the conclusion that they ought to insist upon the larger proposal. There were controversial matters to be disposed of. He understood that an Amendment was to be proposed—
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that according to his suggestion the Resolution would not be confined to the Finance Bill, but would extend to all the business of the Government until the Finance Bill was disposed of. The right hon. Gentleman might reconsider the matter.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, it came to the same thing as limiting the Resolution to the Finance Bill. With the exception of the discussion on Uganda, the Government meant to proceed with the Finance Bill to the practical exclusion of all other measures until it was disposed of. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin seemed to think that if they took the course proposed they might retard the progress of the Finance Bill. He seemed to assume that a practice they had heard of would
  56
  be indulged in—the practice by which some Bills were obstructed in order to prevent others from coming on. That would be a very unparliamentary proceeding, and one which he (Sir W. Harcourt) was unwilling to assume would be pursued with reference to a Bill of the character of the Finance Bill. Therefore, he could not base the action of the Government upon an assumption of that kind. He was willing to believe that the House would deal fairly with the Finance Bill. They must feel that questions of finance stood upon a footing of their own, that they must be treated accordingly, and not be unfarly obstructed on account of what might subsequently happen. As to the larger question, he did not think it was well to make two bites at a cherry, and the suggestion made would only mean postponing discussion until a future period. He did not wish to make this a matter of vehement controversy; but he thought it was a subject on which the opinion of the House might well be taken without delay—as to whether the Resolution should be limited in the manner proposed by the Amendment or whether the House would at once give the Government all the time of the House to the end of the Session.
  MR. J. REDMONDsaid, that the objection he had to the proposal of the Leader of the House was not that it extended to the whole of the Session. That part of the time seemed reasonable. He went a step further, and said that the right hon. Gentleman, as representing the Government, was justified at this period of the Session in making a further claim on the time of the House. He was not one of those who sympathised very much with the claims of private Members, but the objection he had to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was that while he was properly asking for the time of private Members for the whole of the remainder of the Session, he was not specifying, to any extent whatever, what the Government measures were to which that time would be allotted. The right hon. Gentleman had made his proposal in what had been described as a conciliatory speech, but those hon. Members who were satisfied with the character of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would find, when all was said and done, that they got little solid satisfaction out of it. The right hon. Gentle-

  57
  man was conciliatory in his tone, but he asked the House for an absolutely blank cheque upon its time. For his part, he was not disposed to give a blank cheque to the right hon. Gentleman or his Government. What he would be inclined to ask from him—and he would endeavour to be as conciliatory in tone as the right hon. Gentleman himself—was whether it would not be reasonable and fair for the right hon. Gentleman to give certain assurances with reference to certain particular, exceptional measures, which stood upon his programme? First, he would take a Bill about which the right hon. Gentleman apparently was not so much concerned—namely, the Bill for the repeal of the Crimes Act. A statement appeared in many newspapers that the right hon. Gentleman had postponed his Motion for the whole time of private Members in order that he might afford au opportunity for the further discussion of that Bill yesterday. It seemed to him, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that that was au entire misapprehension. The right hon. Gentleman had no such goodwill towards the Bill for the Repeal of the Crimes Act as to spare yesterday for the purpose of discussing it, and so far from that being so, the right hon. Gentleman was actually unaware—and he ventured to say he was the only man in the House in that position—that the Crimes Act Repeal Bill was among the Orders of the Day yesterday.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I was informed that there were two Bills before it on Yesterday's Order Paper, and that those two Bills would probably occupy the whole of yesterday's Sitting.
  MR. J. REDMONDsaid, his point was that the Motion of to-day was not fixed for to-day out of goodwill for the repeal of the Crimes Act at all. The repeal of the Crimes Act was a measure to which the Government stood pledged more deeply, perhaps, than to any measure in their programme. Although it was not a measure in their programme at all, and although, since they had been in Office, they had not thought it worth while to bring in a Bill for the repeal of that Act, still they were pledged to the lips to do so. The Chief Secretary for Ireland made use of the phrase on one occasion, that the first work to which the Liberal Party and the
  58
  Government would put their hands when they came into power was the repeal of this iniquitous law. They had not, however, put their hands to the work, which had been taken up by other hands; and surely it was not au unreasonable thing to ask from the Leader of the House that some portion of the time of the House they were asking the House of Commons to give up for the remainder of the Session should be allocated to the further discussion and passing of this Bill through the House. That was not a large claim. The Bill was practically a Bill of one clause, and one Sitting of the House, commencing at 10 o'clock, with the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule, would easily dispose of the four or five lines of the Bill in Committee. There need be no Report stage, and the Bill could be read a third time at another Sitting. It might be said that that was practically asking for two days from the Government; but, considering the pledges of the Government and the statements made by different Members of the Government upon hundreds of platforms, it was not unreasonable to ask the Government to give two Sittings for the passage of the Bill. The other subject upon which he thought the Government were bound to say something was equally exceptional. He referred to the Bill for the restoration of the evicted tenants. This was, no doubt, a disappointing and defective Bill. In one essential particular it was a Bill disappointing to all the hopes raised for years past in Ireland. At the same time it was a Bill which, as far as it went, might contribute something—perhaps a good deal—towards the future peace and tranquillity of the country and the welfare of a brave and suffering class. It was therefore a Bill that naturally every Irish Member wished to see disposed of. The Government were pledged more deeply, perhaps, upon this subject than they were upon any single English, Scotch, or Welsh reform. There was no portion of their programme upon which they were so deeply pledged, and none so urgent. Welsh disestablishment and other measures of that character were of the gravest and most far-reaching importance, and naturally attracted enthusiastic support from large sections of Members of this House. But there was no comparison in the

  59
  urgency between the particular matter to which he had referred and other questions. The postponement of Welsh disestablishment, for instance, for one Session could not possibly inflict upon the people of Wales anything like the hardship which would be inflicted upon the evicted tenants in Ireland by the postponement of the Evicted Tenants Bill from Session to Session, and perhaps from Parliament to Parliament. The Finance Bill must occupy a large part of the remainder of the present Session. Hon. Members seemed to think that at least four weeks more would be taken up in the consideration of that Bill. This would bring the House to July 1. It was also generally understood that the House would not be asked to sit this year during an Autumn Session. [Cheers.] He heard those cheers coming from the supporters of the Government on the other side of the House. [Cries of "No" from the Ministerial Benches.] He was glad that he mistook those voices. He was glad that the supporters of Her Majesty's Government were willing to come to Westminster for an Autumn Session. So far as the present Session was concerned, if the Government intended to persist in taking the Registration Bill before the Evicted Tenants Bill, he declared that it would be an absolute impossibility for the House to pass an Evicted Tenants Bill before the adjournment of the House. If, on the other hand, it was the intention of the Government to pass the Finance Bill and the Registration Bill, and then to adjourn for a month and come back and pass an Evicted Tenants Bill in an Autumn Session, he could not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not state that intention. As, however, he had already stated the general view to be that there was not to be an Autumn Session this year, what would become of the Evicted Tenants Bill? The Chancellor of the Exchequer might have good reasons of his own for refusing to answer, and might think it wise and prudent not to do so; but the right hon. Gentleman could not deny that the question was reasonable, neither could he deny that the attitude of himself (Mr. Redmond) and his friends, whose votes depended on the answer which the Government might give, was an absolutely consistent, logical, and reasonable
  60
  position. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was willing to give an assurance in regard to the two subjects which he had mentioned, and to which he and his Government were most solemnly pledged, that a portion of the time of the present Session should be devoted to passing into law these two measures, which, from the point of view of himself and his friends, were regarded as far more urgent than any other Bills in the Government programme?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not rise, like the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, in order to plead for the attention of the Government to any particular measure; and I must admit that if I did desire to direct the attention of the Government to any Bill in particular, it would not be the two Bills to which he referred that I should have placed first in my appeal. I should rather, I think, have pleaded, as an humble individual, in favour of the Local Veto Bill, which seems, somehow or other, to have been unaccountably squeezed out of the Government Programme. The hon. Member gave as reasons for pressing forward the two Bills to which he directed attention that the Government are pledged to them. But if we are to sit here till the Government have dealt with all the Bills to which they are pledged we shall have to sit into the next century. I rise, however, to plead rather for the ancient practice and precedents of this House. I do not complain of the decision at which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government have arrived, to ask, once for all, for the whole time of the House during the remainder of the Session. I quite think, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, though he might have gained time for the moment, he would lose time hereafter, if we were to have a second discussion four weeks hence upon the conduct and order of business. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to take the whole time of the House it is a corollary that he should now state to the House the use to which he is going to put that time. I think there is no precedent—certainly not within my experience in this House—when a Government have come down and asked for exceptional facilities, for their refusing to give even the slightest indication as to their intentions with

  61
  regard to the measures which stand on their programme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not said one word as to the length of the Session or as to the Bills which he proposes to bring forward. Under the wording of the Resolution, if it be passed as proposed, should the Government desire to sit again as they did last year, this rule would apply to the whole which of the Debates up to Christmas, and even during an adjourned Session which might be carried on far into next year. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider that it is right to ask the House for these facilities without making some such kind of preliminary statement as is usually made on similar occasions. I do not ask him to conclude now the massacre of the innocents, and to give us the names of all those Bills with which he will not proceed; but, at least, he might relieve our minds of anxieties as to some portion of the numerous list, and, if not, I think the House is bound to vote against his proposition. This is a most inconvenient precedent. This Government is making precedents very fast, and they must expect that their opponents in turn will take advantage of the precedents they are setting. There was no one who was more decided than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Leaders of the present Ministerial Party in denouncing the late Government for insufficient statements of their intentions whenever they asked the House for additional facilities. Here we have not only an insufficient statement, but we absolutely do not know whether we are going to have an Autumn Session, and whether, after the Finance Bill is passed, we are not to be called upon to consider in turn every single item of the Newcastle Programme. The position taken up by the Government is very unreasonable and very arbitrary, and we are bound to make a protest against it.
  MR. PICKARD (, W. R., Normanton),alluding to the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill, said, he considered that as that Bill during the last few Sessions had been carried in that House by a large majority on the Second Reading, facilities should be given for its passage during the present Session. The Government had given pledges in regard to that Bill, and he believed that the Government intended to carry out those pledges. He therefore urged the Representatives of
  62
  working men to give the Government the additional facilities for which they asked.
  MR. J. WILSONsaid, he also was interested in the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill, but on the opposite side to the hon. Member for Normanton, and he wished to have an explicit statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject. So far as he understood the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, they were that the Government would honourably carry out the pledges they had given. The hon. Member for Normanton had said that the Government had given a specific pledge upon this question, and he desired the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state candidly and clearly before the Division was taken what were the nature of the pledges given to those who favoured the Eight Hours Bill. He did not think he was making any discourteous demand, for if there were those who were interested in promoting this Bill, they from the North of England had just as much interest in opposing it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could decide this matter by stating distinctly whether the Government had given pledges to further and promote this Bill or whether they had not.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, the Member for Normanton had mentioned the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill, and he should like to say one word with reference to the Bill for shortening the hours of labour in shops. He thought the case for the consideration of that Bill by the House was in three respects stronger than that for the Bill for the miners. The hon. Member had said that the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill had been passed by considerable majorities in this House. But the Bill for shortening the hours of labour in shops was drawn up in accordance with a Resolution unanimously adopted in this House. Then the Bill which dealt with miners was a Bill which dealt primarily with men, whilst the Bill which dealt with the labour of those employed in shops was a Bill which dealt to a very great extent with the labour of women, and that, he thought, was a second reason which gave the Bill a special claim on the attention of this House. The third ground upon which he asked for consideration for that Bill was that the Miners' Bill related to

  63
  a question of eight hours' work, but the Bill which related to those employed in shops referred to 10, 12, and 14 hours' work. He submitted that these were three very strong reasons why a grant of time should be given by the House to the passage of that Bill. He had moved the Bill several times after 12 o'clock or after half-past 5. He did so only the previous night, and it was blocked by a supporter of Her Majesty's Government coming from the Sister Isle (Dr. Tanner). What he wished to ask was whether the Government would use their influence with their supporters so that the Bill when it came on might not be blocked by a single Member of this House, but might be referred to a Select Committee, where it could be considered and whore it would really take up no time whatever of this House? It was a Bill which related to the lives, comfort, and health of hundreds of thousands of their fellow-countrymen and country-women, and if the Government would use their influence with their supporters not to block this Bill they might place it on the Statute Book this Session without occupying any part of the time of the House.
  MR. J. STEWART WALLACEreminded the House that there was a Bill in which the London Members were deeply interested—namely, the Equalisation of Bates Bill (London). They should be glad if facilities could be given for passing this Bill. At the same time, they did not wish to press the Government unduly, and should be prepared to agree to their having the additional time for which they asked.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, if they were to consider the claims of various Bills he would like to refer to two to which he respectfully asked the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One was a Bill which had repeatedly passed this House by large majorities, in which great interest was felt in various parts of the country, and with reference to which they had last year a promise from the late President of the Local Government Board that he would do what he could to promote its passage. He referred to the Rating of Machinery Bill. The other was a Government Bill, not a Bill exciting interest from a Party point of view, tout a Bill in which great interest was
  64
  felt in this country—namely, the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill. That was a Bill which they had reason to expect that the late President of the Board of Trade would have used his influence to obtain precedence for, and he trusted that such a Bill would not be lost sight of.
  *SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANobserved, that there was a certain hollowness and want of reality in the discussion. They all knew that the business of the country must be carried on, and that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helen's were passed, the business of the country could not be carried on. He rose for the purpose of saying he could not help feeling in some agreement with what had been said by nearly every speaker—namely, that if the Government took the whole time of the House, Members ought to have some notion of what they were going to do with it. It was perfectly natural that hon. Members should seek for precedence being given to the measures in which they felt particular interest. There was one measure, however, for which he claimed special consideration, not only because that measure was placed second on the Newcastle Programme, but because he believed that it was the only measure ever introduced into Parliament which had been supported practically by the unanimous vote of every single Representative of the country affected by it. For that reason, he ventured to press on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the claims of Welsh Disestablishment. The only just and proper way of measuring the urgency of a question was to take the opinion of the persons representing the country or nationality affected. That, at any rate, was the view of the Leader of the Liberal Unionist Party. There was another reason why the Bill should receive the consideration of the Government. Since the First Reading there had been a cry to arms in every diocese in the country, and the drum ecclesiastic had been beaten in every parish, and a number of falsehoods had been uttered and written with reference to the Welsh Members and their supporters. The only opportunity Welsh Members had of refuting these abominable calumnies on themselves, their supporters, and their country was on the floor of the House of Commons. Upon that ground, and not at all because they commanded 30 or 40

  65
  votes, and could, if they pleased, place the Government in a minority—he should be ashamed to rest his claim on such a ground as that—he asked the Government to give some promise that they would press forward the Bill this Session.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I would point out to the House that what is now before the House is the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Helen's. That, I take it, is not an Amendment which is likely to receive general support; but I understand there is an Amendment going to be moved to limit the operation of our request to the financial proposals of the Government. I have stated already why the Government cannot accept that proposal, and why I think, without any undue controversy, we might settle the question by the vote of the House. The hon. Member for Waterford and others have appealed to me to answer questions. The hon. Member for Waterford said he thought it was a very reasonable question on his part to ask, though he did not know whether I would think it discreet on my part to answer it. But I would remind the hon. Member that there is a very old French saying that there is no such thing as indiscreet questions; it is only the answers that are indiscreet. That is a distinction which has an application in the present case. I think the various questions that have been addressed to me justify the statement I made at the opening—that it would be highly indiscreet on my part to answer one or the other, or to answer at all. The real truth is, that I am extremely well affected to all these Bills. It is the sincerest desire of my heart to carry them all into law and during the present Session. No doubt I am regarded by private Members, as I have been more or less described by the Member for St. Helen's, as the highway-man who is robbing private Members of their time, and therefore I might be allowed to adopt the language of the most celebrated of that class, who, when hesitating between Polly and Lucy, said—
  "How happy could I be with either,
  Were t'other dear charmer away."
  Among these conflicting claims it is not in my power to say now what are the measures the Government will be able to deal with, or what is the order in which they intend to take them. Whether the
  66
  House is satisfied with that declaration or not I do not know, but I am obliged to put the request of the Government in the way I have done. I have said before that I put it to the House knowing that it is a large demand, knowing, if my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham thinks fit to say so, that it is a demand not justified by former precedents. But still, under the circumstances of this case, and in the position which the Government find themselves, we ask the House to give us the time upon the terms that we ask for it. I hope I have not put it to the House in a manner which would affect any section of it. I am desirous that a matter in which the whole House is interested should be judged of and decided by the House, and I hope, therefore, the hon. Member for St. Helen's will withdraw his Amendment and allow the other Amendment which has been suggested to be put forward, and then the opinion of the House may be taken upon it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I may appeal to my hon. Friend as to whether he thinks it worth while to divide upon the Amendment which he has moved. In his speech my hon. Friend seemed to think that the two Front Benches were leagued together in a conspiracy against the rights of private Members, but I can assure him that that is not so. It is not in my power to deny that the Government, if they will only give us a clear statement of what their intentions are, have a right to make some demand upon us. In these circumstances I think it would be worth while for my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment and to allow us to get to the subject which, after all, is the one in controversy between us at the present moment. I think it will be most convenient for us to move an Amendment, broadly speaking, declaring that until the Government do give us their intentions with regard to the course of public business they shall have no privileges other than those they now possess, except possibly with regard to financial business. That raises the issue which, I think, in all quarters of the House we desire to raise, and I therefore appeal to my hon. Friend, if he sees fit, to withdraw the Amendment which he has a right to move, a right which I recognise fully. We should then be able to raise the one question which ought to

  67
  be raised, and upon which we ought to divide and take the sense of the House.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,): I now beg to move—
  "That, until this House is placed in possession of the views of the Government as to the measures with which they intend to proceed, no additional facilities should be granted for the discussion of Government measures except only for the furtherance of financial business."
  The Government must be aware that not only on this side of the House, but in all quarters of the House there exists a desire that it should be known with what Bills they intend to proceed after the financial business has been disposed of. We have a right, I think, to claim the support of all the hon. Members who have spoken in this direction. The hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire said he believed the Government ought to state their intentions, and from various quarters their own supporters have pressed the same claim. The right hon. Gentleman has not been able to give any reply to any of the questions that have been put to him. He said how happy he would be with either were t'other dear charmer away, but he did not quote the next two lines, which are—
  "But as you both tease me together,
  To neither a word will I say."
  We wish that he should say a word to his supporters, and also that the House should be informed, before it gives these large powers, what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is to be. What possible objection can the Government have to show their hand? It must be shown at some time or other. The moment must come when the Government will have to choose to which of these charmers it will ultimately yield, and why should not that be done now? Has the Government got so little confidence in its own supporters that it thinks that if it makes a statement of any kind it will cool the enthusiasm of some of its supporters? I will say in the most couciliatory manner that the House generally, I think, is entitled to know something more of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. We are now parting with the time of the House for financial business. That we are entirely agreed upon. That has been accepted, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows,
  68
  with the greatest promptitude by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; but are we now to take this leap in the dark and to give the whole time of the House without knowing whether it is to be given to the Evicted Tenants Bill, to the Repeal of the Crimes Act, to the Welsh Disestablishment Bill, or to the Equalisation of Rates Bill, or to any other Bill? The House, I am sure, has never been placed in such a position of doubt as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government when making a demand like this; and I think we are entitled, if the Government should not see fit to make any reply as to any other business beyond financial business, to ask the opinion of the House on the question.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the first word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words,
  "Until this House is placed in possession of the views of the Government as to the measures with which they intend to proceed, no additional facilities should be granted for the discussion of Government measures except only for the furtherance of financial business."—(Mr. Goschen.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am a little surprised at the form of this Amendment after the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that he considered it would not be reasonable to ask me at this time to state what Bills the Government meant to proceed with or what measures they meant to drop. And then the Member for St. George's, who, I must say, on many occasions lately has not been absolutely in conformity with the views of the Leader of the Opposition, gets up and says, "Tell us the measures you are going to drop. Why should you not tell us at once?" Those are statements I find it rather difficult to reconcile. I have said before that, until I know what time we shall have at our disposal after the financial business is done, it is impossible for me to make such a statement. If you ask me now—and you know I cannot make that statement of the Bills the Government intend to drop—I can only give you one answer, and that is—they intend to drop none of them. [Cheers and Opposition laughter, and cries of "Oh!"] That is the result

  69
  of asking a question, which can only be answered in one way, and of asking it at the wrong time. I cannot tell you what Bills I intend to drop or that I do not intend to drop. That has been admitted by the Leader of the Opposition to be an unreasonable demand, and I hope it will cot be persisted in. I do not wish to waste the time of the House by repeating what I have already said. I have told the House why I am not able to make that statement, and, if I were able to make it, I should only be too glad to lay it before the consideration of the House.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he very seldom found himself in a position to sympathise with the Government, but he confessed that he did sympathise with the position in which they now found themselves. To ask them to state now what Bills they were going to drop was a very largo order. Suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer were now to state that, after giving due consideration to the claims of the different Bills, the Government found they would be unable to proceed with the Welsh Disestablishment Bill. Just fancy what would happen in Wales! The revolt of the four Members would be nothing to what would take place immediately on such an announcement being made. And if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to drop the Evicted Tenants Bill what a difficult position the Government would be placed in in Ireland! Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's no bowels of compassion for Her Majesty's Government under such circumstances? Then there was the Local Veto Hill. That had been a most useful Bill for Her Majesty's Government. It secured for them a great many valuable votes at the last General Election; it served the most admirable purpose of getting the temperance votes without doing anything for the Temperance Party. Why should the Member for St. George's ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prick that bubble at this early date when it could be made to do duty for a month or two longer? He entirely approved of the refusal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give an answer to such an awkward and inconvenient question as that addressed to him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. They had heard that this proposal was entirely unprecedented.
  70
  Was it any the worse for that? He remembered the Chancellor of the Exchequer getting up a few weeks ago and saying that this Government was as justly entitled to make precedents as any other Government. But the question he wanted to ask was this. As they were now close upon the month of June, perhaps the Leader of the House would tell them what facilities were to be given for Supply. It was only in Supply that they could discuss the administration of the Government, and things were getting into such a state that it was quite impossible to get any discussion of administration at all. He had very little sympathy with those who demanded facilities for Bills of all kinds. But who were to blame for such demands being made? The Government were to blame, because of the reckless promises they had made. He thought the Government wore bound to give information as to their intentions in respect to Supply.
  *MR. KEIR-HARDIEsaid, that year by year this same Motion came up when the Government of the day had got the business of the House into a state of absolute confusion. However, his object in rising was to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not for a pledge as to what Bills he was going to drop or to carry, but what pledge ho had given as to the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill. His hon. Friend the Member for the Normanton Division (Mr. Pickard) had said he had received an assurance from the Government which satisfied him. Having had one experience of a Government pledge, they had a right to ask that what had been promised in private should be disclosed in public. Last Session, when the fate of the Local Veto Bill seemed to be in the balance, an hon. Member interested in that most important measure said he had just had an interview with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his statement was that, if ever two men were pledged to the lips in regard to a measure, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were so pledged in respect to the Local Veto Bill—not that it would be passed last Session, but that it would have the place of honour this Session. The Notice Paper to-day showed hon. Members interested in the temperance question how that pledge had been kept.

  71
  Under such circumstances, if the Government were not prepared to make the statement in regard to the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill which they were said to have made in private, those Members who desired to see the Bill passed would be justified in supporting the Amendment.
  LORD R. CHURCHILLagreed with the hon. Member for South Tyrone when he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been very profuse in his promises; the right hon. Gentleman was really a perfect cornucopia of promises. But in regard to the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a promise upon which he could hardly go back. The right hon. Gentleman would remember, too, that the Second Reading of the Bill was carried by a very large majority; that the Home Secretary strongly supported it, and that the First Lord of the Treasury was most strongly in favour of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself to carry or to give great facilities for carrying the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, and he called upon him to say what they were and whether they were to be given this Session.
  *MR. COHENsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be aware of the words of the Amendment now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought it was unreasonable that the Government should not be held obliged to pass their measures. Was there anything conflicting with that statement in the Amendment? The justification for the Amendment was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not put the House in possession of the information which would enable the House to judge which of the Government measures he intended to proceed with. The only justification attempted for the course proposed was, forsooth, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted money. If the House adopted the Amendment as they should do the Government would get all they asked; and the Opposition were really, and not for the first time, rendering a service to the Government by offering them an Amendment which would postpone the evil day when they would be obliged to announce to the House which of their numerous pledges they would be
  72
  unable to redeem. By consenting to the Amendment the Government would get perhaps another six, certainly four, weeks more of the advantage which, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, they had derived from having placed on record a large number of promises. Their programme had been described by one of their own supporters as a "promising" one. Let them get from it as much advantage as they might derive from the postponement of the repudiation of a large portion of it.
  *MR. ROBYsaid, if the Amendment were adopted the Government would get no time whatever. He would vote most heartily for the Government Resolution both on account of his sympathy generally with their programme and his interest in one particular measure, the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill. If the Government found it necessary to take the whole time of the House he was quite ready to give it them. In his opinion, they wished to redeem their promises; and as regarded the Miners' Bill, his impression was that the Government, if they carried this Resolution, would so arrange matters as to afford time for the full discussion of a measure the success of which was desired not alone on one side of the House.
  *MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had no wish to follow the example of hon. Gentlemen who had been industriously grinding their own axes, but desired to draw attention to an important paragraph of the Resolution, which had not yet been referred to by any speaker—that portion of it touching the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule. Last Session when appeals were made by the Member for Midlothian as Prime Minister for additional time for discussing his favourite measure, the Home Rule Bill, he always said the very last step he would take with the view of affording facilities for that purpose would be the suspension of that Rule, and the right hon. Gentleman at the same time went on to say that if such a course had to be adopted it would be necessary to engage an additional staff of undertakers.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, as the Sessional Order had been drawn per incuriam, the Government had been, obliged to make special reference to the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule.

  73
  On many occasions revisions had had to be made in that way in order to carry out the business of the Session.
  MR. J.LOWTHERsaid, he was going on to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the main business of this Session was evidently finance. That was the main Government business this Session, and for which the right hon. Gentleman asked for the whole time of the House. But that was unfortunately, so far as the Finance Bill was concerned, unnecessary, for that Bill would escape the operation of the Twelve o'Clock Rule through a technicality, though it would be contrary to the general understanding if it were to be proceeded with at a later hour. He could understand the augmenter of the Death Duties not having the same fear of the contingency referred to by the late Prime Minister as would an ordinary mortal. He was asking the House to give him all the time at its disposal, involving a series of late Sittings, without any assurances whatever. Neither in his own experience nor in that of any other Member of the House had such a proposal been made to enable Government business to be proceeded with unless it had been preceded and accompanied by a full statement by the Government of the use they proposed to make of it. That had been the invariable rule. Some reference had been made to a process known as the "Massacre of the Innocents," and the right hon. Gentleman had said that it would be premature to take such a step; but he would remember that it had been almost the invariable practice to announce a preliminary massacre. He could not remember a Session when there had not been two massacres at least. It had always been the practice, when any application was made to the House for additional facilities, for the Government to state precisely what measures they intended to carry, what measures they hoped to be able to carry, and those of which they could speak with no great confidence. The right hon. Gentleman had issued his advertisements of measures to be brought in—had, as it were, placed them on all the hoardings, and he was hoping to get hon. Members into the Lobby to support him now, each hoping that perhaps his own particular hobby might hereafter be included. He had seen that process
  74
  adopted before, and he did not think it would succeed now. The House had a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take it into his confidence, otherwise it should decline to grant his request.
  MR. BARTLETwould like to hear some explanation of the remark made by the hon. Member for Eccles that the reason he was going to support the Resolution was that the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill would be carried through.
  MR. ROBYstated that he had said he gave it his support from general sympathy with the programme of the Government.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that was so, but also because it would be the means of passing the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill. Was the House to understand that in addition to their long programme the Government were going to pick out certain private Members' Bills and make them Government measures in order to pass them? Did the hon. Member's statement mean anything of that kind? Were they to understand that there was some secret arrangement between the Government and one or two sections of the House that their particular measures would be adopted by the Government, and so brought within the purview of the House? If that was the case a discovery had been made which deserved serious consideration. It was bad enough to give up the whole time to Government measures, but the House would be altogether stultifying itself to do so in order to enable the Government to adopt a selection of private measures. That was never contemplated by the Standing Orders. Difficult though it was to get an answer from the Government about anything, he must request an answer to that question, and also to be informed when their various measures were to be brought forward. He acknowledged the conciliatory manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the Resolution, but he would like to refer to two or three points which had struck him. ["Time!"] He was not going to have the whole time taken from private Members without protesting in some way about it. If the Government could get through their Finance Bill and Supply, that was all they would be able to do this Session. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had stated so himself, for he could not tell the House what measures they would

  75
  bring forward until they were got rid of. It was a very common thing for private Members to be abused for having done so little, but, as compared with what the Government had done, private Members had, on the five or six Wednesdays at their disposal this Session, brought in some nine measures of public importance, including Bills dealing with the Patent Law, the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Criminal Law Procedure, Miners' Eight Hours, Church Patronage, Outdoor Relief, and Friendly Societies—measures which had passed their Second Heading. While private Members had set to work in that business-like way the Government had only been able to pass two measures, the Registration and Budget Bill, to a Second Reading. Private Members, therefore, could not be accused of wasting time, whatever might be said of the Government. Only last Friday a Conservative Member had to move the Closure against a Radical opposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped to be able to pass all his Bills. No doubt he was keenly anxious to bring on the Local Veto Bill, and nothing would delight him more than to obtain a Second Reading for it. For the last two years he had been putting that Bill down, but through unfortunate circumstances over which he had no control he had not been able to secure a Second Reading for it. Well, the House would let him take all the time at its disposal if he would state what Bills he would take and the order he would take them in.
  MR. HENEAGEreminded the House of au occasion when he was asked to withdraw an Amendment he had placed on the Paper, and hoped they were not to have a repetition of what had occurred last year. He trusted they would not have to sit through August and September in order to discuss Supply. The right hon. Gentleman should inform the House what he intended to do, and that they would have a fair chance of discussing the question of finance without having au Autumn Session and a Winter Session to follow it.
  MR. BENNsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rightly said the House had not much to thank hon. Members opposite for their services during their Parliamentary career. No doubt the behaviour
  76
  of certain Members had been unsatisfactory. Why was it that the Government were compelled at this stage to ask for the whole time of the House? The hon. Member for North Islington had invited attention to what private Members had done. As a private Member he had a grievance that private Members on the other side of the House made it impossible for others to do anything. He had gone into the matter and had found that three Members in particular on the opposite side had during the last 12 months addressed the House no less than l,5CO times! It was as well the country should know how the time of Parliament was occupied. The hon. Member for North Islington had risen no less than 429 times. Indefatigable as he had been, however, he was beaten by the hon. Member for Preston, who had appeared 532 times. But the prize in this time-wasting competition was due to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who had to be credited with 533 speeches and questions. ["Question!"] This was a very important question, and it was desirable the House should know why they were in this position. The Member for South Tyrone asked who was to blame? He was endeavouring to show. Had other private Members exercised their rights to the same extent there would have been something like 300,000 speeches and questions in connection with the business of the House. Those gentlemen should give other private Members a chance. Then as to the doings of the party of obstruction last year. Parliament sat on 216 days, giving an average of eight and a-half hours for Members' attendance each day. Allowing half the time to the Front Benches, it left about 900 hours for private Members, or one and a-half hours each for the year. Yet the hon. Member for King's Lynn had taken up 44 hours of the time of the House.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The record may be interesting in the proper place; but I do not think it is relevant, either to the original Resolution or to the Amendment, to go into the past history of private Members.
  MR. BENNthanked the Speaker for his indulgence up to that point, and desired only to say that, in consequence of the conduct of particular Members of the House, it had been impossible for other private Members to do anything. He

  77
  expressed the hope that in future those gentlemen who were so solicitous about the rights of private Members would so shape their Parliamentary conduct that some of those Members who were not so accomplished or so forward would have a share of the time of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down informed us that, according to an elaborate calculation which he has framed, every private Member of this House might have been allocated an hour and a-half during the Parliamentary year without trenching on the time enjoyed by his neighbours. I do not know whether the portion of the 1½ hours which he considers his right has, in his opinion, been well occupied on the present occasion. It appears to me that he was not altogether felicitous in the occasion which he chose to go into the past Parliamentary history of other Members and to tax gentlemen with irrelevance or undue prolongation of debate. However, I will not follow the hon. Gentleman. I rise rather to bring back the Debate to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the very important issue on which we shall divide. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with this Amendment, observed that there was, in his judgment, a difference of opinion between the right hon. Member for St. George's and myself, and that the Amendment on which we are about to divide was in direct contradiction to the sentiments I had expressed at an earlier period this evening. I may say, in order to remove from the right hon. Gentleman's mind any suspicion that there is any divergence of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself, that I was myself the drafter of the Amendment, a responsibility I am the more anxious to admit because, while the Amendment expresses with sufficient clearness the opinions which we entertain, it would not, I am afraid, bear very close scrutiny as a matter of Parliamentary drafting. It was drawn up in great haste, and I do not say it is beyond criticism as a question of Parliamentary language; but passing by the question of the language of the Amendment and coming to the subject of it, I wish to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary position in which we are placed by the Government. Three at least of
  78
  the hon. Members sitting on the other side of the House have told us that they or their friends have received official assurance with regard to the business of Parliament, and as to the course which the Government mean to adopt. We have been told that with regard to the Mines Bill certainly, and with regard to the Crimes Act Repeal Bill possibly, there have been declarations made in private, on the part of the Government, as to the course which they will adopt. So that the Government are prepared for their own purposes to take certain sections of the House into their confidence; but when the Government come to ask for the whole time of the House, and that hon. Members shall resign the small fragments of liberty which remain to them, they cannot take the House into their confidence. Is that a fair thing? Is that fair treatment of the House? The right hon. Gentleman has heard these statements made, and he has not ventured to contradict them, so that we are bound to assume them to be true, and, for anything we know, each one of the numerous sections into which his followers are divided—the gentlemen from Wales who are so patient, the gentlemen interested in Local Veto, gentlemen interested in the Evicted Tenants Bill, and all the other sections who are looking forward, I will not say with expectation or with hope, but with vague longings towards something in future to be given, each in turn has been quieted in private in order that they may give no trouble to the right hon. Gentleman in public. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, at liberty to take what steps he likes in dealing with his recalcitrant followers and in crushing out the beginning of the conflagration which may threaten the fortunes of his Party. But I think that the Government, if they are in a position to give private pledges, ought not to feel themselves precluded from giving public pledges also. All we ask is that upon an occasion when so much is asked from us we shall not be treated worse than small knots of private Members who come forward and threaten the Government with destruction unless they get their fair share of the Government time. Let the House notice what we are asked to give up in this Resolution. We are not even told that we are not to have an Autumn Session, although, as

  79
  far as I know, a pledge may have been given that we are to have an Autumn Session. Indeed, rumours are going about the Lobby—possibly ill-founded rumours—that we are to be troubled with an Autumn Session in order to meet the claims of one or the other of the contending factions which support the Government. Surely the Rules of business under which an Autumn Session is to be conducted should be settled when the time comes, and not now at a time when we know nothing of the policy of the Government? Never before has the House been asked to settle procedure the circumstances of which have not arisen, which may not arise, and with regard to which no indication whatever has been given. The Government will see by the very terms of our Amendment that we are, as we have already stated on previous occasions, prepared to give every assistance in the transaction of the necessary financial business. We shall be prepared when the time comes to help them in the case of any reasonable schemes of Government business. But to give them these enormous facilities for a scheme that may be unreasonable, that may require us to sit into September, and even throughout au Autumn Session, without telling us what they are doing, is surely to make a demand on our confidence that nothing the Government have hitherto done entitles them to make. There is one further point to which I wish to call the attention of the House; that one of the Bills, in fact the main Bill, upon which we have been assured on the faith of hon. Gentlemen in this House that private pledges have been given by the Government, is not a Government Bill at all, but a Private Bill. That is a Bill which I quite admit is not a Party measure. It is a Bill in which my noble Friend near me takes a deep interest, and which others who agree with me in politics are also anxious to support Therefore, it is not from a Party point of view, but from a public point of view, that I wish to criticise the policy of the Government. That Bill was passed through a Second Reading on a Wednesday afternoon as a private measure. Had it been a Government Bill at that stage of our proceedings, it would never have got through in four hours' discussion. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen who cheer that statement, and who apparently approve of
  80
  passing controversial Bills through the Second Reading after only four hours' discussion, have not one of them when in opposition favoured such a policy. I challenge any hon. Member on the Front Ministerial Bench or on those behind it to go back upon his own Parliamentary experience when in opposition and say that he would have tolerated the passing through the House in such a manner a Government measure so important and naturally leading to so much legitimate Debate as the Eight Hours Bill. Not one will dare answer that challenge. Let the House observe the position we are in. The Government give private pledges about Private Bills, and tell their followers, in order to conciliate them on occasions like this, that they mean to give facilities for the consideration of those Private Bills at some date unknown; but they will not tell us what their policy is, or what measures they are going to carry forward, and we are asked to grant the whole time of the House, not for a brief and limited time, but for anything we know until the end of the year, or oven possibly until next March, for the last Session lasted until March, and no pledges are now given that such shall not be the case as regards this Session, and yet not the slightest idea is afforded of what is to be the character of the legislation which the Government propose for our acceptance. No such proposal has over before been made by any Government. We desire to meet them in a conciliatory spirit, to give the Government all the facilities they want for the transaction of the business they have declared themselves prepared to pass, and I certainly have no wish to hold out that it is my intention to oppose any reasonable facilities for carrying out the general programme of the Government that might be reasonable. But to ask me or those who agree with me to vote blindly and in absolute darkness for this enormous extension of the Government power, when the Government themselves deliberately tell us that they will not give us any information as to how that power is to be used, is to make a demand upon our forbearance and confidence in them which they have no right to make. No other Government has ever made such a demand, and to no other Government has such a power been granted. I think that

  81
  the House ought to retain that portion of our liberty which remains to us, and should insist that full information shall be given before giving up the whole of our time to be used as the Government may choose.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was only going to take one or two minutes of the hour and a-half that was allocated by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Benn), but he would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman how he knew that private assurances had been given by the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It has been so stated by the hon. Gentlemen themselves to whom the pledges were given.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had listened to the Debate, and, so far as he could gather, hon. Gentlemen had only stated what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said in the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Unless I am mistaken, the hon. Member for Nomanton (Mr. Pickard) did so.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had been listening, and he gathered they only repeated what had been said in the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  "MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Let them give their views.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he gathered they had stated that Ministers had expressed a sympathetic hope in private as well as in public. Well, that was the mission of Ministers, to express a sympathetic hope; but if they were private pledges let them distinctly understand whether they were made. As the matter at present stood, the right hon. Gentleman had got sufficient data on which to found a charge against Ministers of giving specific private pledges that were not given in the House. As regarded the question itself, what was the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite? Hon. Gentlemen said they would be perfectly ready to agree to the proposal of the Government to take the time of the House during the remainder of the Session if the Government would state to them what Bills they were going to bring in during the Session and in what order. [Cries of "No!"] Yes, it had been said, but he did not say it had been said by the right hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "By whom?"] A legion. How, possibly, could Ministers say what Bills they intended to bring in until they
  82
  knew precisely themselves what amount of time they would have at their disposal? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was not going to make two bites at a cherry. He (Mr. Labouchere) seldom supported the two Front Benches; but now that there was contention between them, and he had to make a selection, he selected his own side, as he thought his own side had the best of the argument. By hon. Gentlemen opposite it was said that the Finance Bill would take a month, which would bring them to the 30th of June, and did hon. Gentlemen doubt that if on that date Ministers came forward and asked for the whole time of the House that it would not be given to them? Therefore, not to take the whole time now would be making two bites of a cherry. If the Finance Bill was finished before the 30th of June no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell them of a great many Bills he proposed to go on with; if it finished on the 30th of Juno the right hon. Gentleman would tell them of some Bills; if it went beyond that he would not be aide to tell them of many Bills, simply because there would be no time. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, "Tell us now whether there will be an Autumn Session?" Why should the Government tell them? He would like to know himself. He had often asked Ministers, in private talk, if there was likely to be an Autumn Session, and they had said they really did not know whether there would or not, but that was no pledge either way, because they really knew nothing about the matter, and on the last day of May it was hard upon hon. Gentlemen to say they would vote for this and not for that unless they got a pledge as to whether there was to be an Autumn Session or not. He had sometimes opposed this inroad into the time of private Members, but he did think, judging the matter fairly and impartially, that Ministers at the present time had got a fair and legitimate claim considering the mess they had got into—if the Opposition liked to put it that way—to ask for the whole time of the House, and he should vote with them.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he also agreed that Ministers had a good claim to ask the House to give them time—[Cries of "Divide!"] He should only detain the House just for a few minutes. He admitted that

  83
  Ministers had the right to ask for the time of the House at this period, and they were by no means indisposed to give the time, but to give the time that was required for the purpose specified. That was reasonable, and he submitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unreasonable to ask for more. The right hon. Gentleman had told them he wanted the time for the Finance Bill and for Supply. They were ready to give that time, and why should the right hon. Gentleman ask for more? The right hon. Gentleman had been extremely amenable; lie had shown such sweet reasonableness that he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) imagined there ought to be no difficulty about it. [Cries of "Divide!"] Yes, they would divide in time. He submitted that no ground was shown for asking for this time except for the Finance Bill and Supply. [Here the interruptions and cries of "Divide!" became so frequent that the rest of the hon. Member's observations failed to reach the Reporters' Gallery.]
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 258; Noes 233.—(Division List, No. 68.) Main Question put.
  The House divided: — Ayes 234; Noes 217.—(Division List, No. 69.)
  Ordered, That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business have priority on Wednesday; that, unless the House otherwise order, the House do meet on Friday at Three of the clock; that Standing Order No. 11 be suspended, and the provisions of Standing Order No. 56 be extended to the other days of the week; that the Reports of the Committee of Supply and Ways and Means may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed, and the proceedings thereon be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, except of Standing Order No. 5.—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

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

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 29th May.]
    [FOURTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause I.
    MR. JEFFREYSmoved, in page 1, line 18, after
    84
    "all," to insert "personal" He said, he proposed if this Amendment were carried to move another Amendment subsequently so as to make the words run "upon the value of personal property settled or not settled." His object was to draw attention to that portion of the Bill which proposed to levy equal Death Duties on real and personal estates, although those properties were most unequally taxed during the lifetime of the owners. He thought it right that some of the burden upon land should be reduced, and that personal property should be made to contribute its fair share to the rates, which were levied for the benefit of all. Land had in very many instances to pay the Land Tax, which did not go to the benefit of the country, but was paid into the Imperial Exchequer. The tithes were also borne exclusively by the land. They constituted a very severe burden which was not borne by personal property, so that in this instance, again, land was unequally taxed as compared with personal property. Then there was no doubt that agricultural land was most unfairly rated. The rates were assessed in regard to land over a very much larger area than in regard to houses. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had lately presented a Return in which he showed that in his opinion the rates on agricultural land had diminished of late years. The right hon. Gentleman told the House the other day that the average rate of agricultural laud throughout the country was something over 3s. in the £1, whereas rates in towns were very much higher. The right hon. Gentleman, however, forgot that, whereas a man who occupied a house or business premises in a town paid only on the buildings, the occupier of land in the country had to pay rates not only upon the buildings, but upon every acre of land he held. It was here that the unfairness came in. A farmer who occupied land on which he was assessed for the amount of £300 a year might possibly live in a house which was only rated at £20 a year. In all fairness that man ought to pay rates upon £20 a year for School Boards and various other purposes, and not pay upon the agricultural land he occupied, inasmuch as the rates were levied for the benefit of the occupiers of houses. Let the House compare this man with a pro-

    85
    fessional man, say a doctor, who lived in a village and also had au income of £300 a year. Whilst the farmer had to pay rates on the whole of the £300, the doctor would pay merely on the house he occupied, which would probably be rated at about £50 a year. The result was, that the wretched farmer had to pay six times as much in rates as the doctor. He was sorry to say that this was a question which was very much misunderstood in towns, and people very often said they wondered that those who lived in the country complained of the rates when they were so low. It was not the rate that agriculturists complained of, but the area over which it was assessed. If there was to be equalisation of the Death Duties Parliament ought to take into account how very much more easily Death Duties could be collected on personalty than on real estate. In the first place, upon Death Duties becoming payable upon an estate, that estate must be valued. If there was any difference between the Government valuation and the valuation to which the owner thought himself entitled, the latter must call in a surveyor to make an independent valuation. He (Mr. Jeffreys) was told that when an estate was valued at slightly over £100,000 a year, and on which the Death Duties would be £6,000, the cost of the valuation was something like £500. Probably the person who succeeded to the estate would have to make a mortgage to pay the Death Duties, and the cost of that mortgage in lawyers' fees would probably be between £300 and £400. Therefore, in addition to the Death Dirty, the successor would have to pay £800 or £900. The state of things was very different where a man succeeded to £100,000 worth of personalty. If part of the personal property were in Consols all the executors would have to do would be to write to a broker to sell out £6,000 worth of Consols, and he believed that could be done for £7 10s. These facts showed how great an inequality there was between the Death Duties on personal property and those on real property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day that in the Colony of Victoria they set the Mother Country a good example, and collected the Death Duties very easily. He (Mr. Jeffreys) had some friends who about six months ago were left a property in
    86
    this very Colony of Victoria. The laud was near Melbourne, and consequently of rather higher value. His friends sent to know what they would have to pay for Death Duties, and the agent wrote back stating that the Government had assessed the value of the land at £210,000. But at the same time the agent told them the duty was 10 per cent., and they would have to pay £21,000 on account of having this property left. Since that time—about six years ago—property had very rapidly diminished in value. The owners of the estate first of all said the value was excessive, the agent appealed against the valuation, but gained nothing and had to pay the costs. They then said they would sell the land, but the big boom had passed over and they could not sell it except at au immense sacrifice, and at a price which would hardly realise the £21,000. In fact, they could not get the £21,000 they were called upon to pay, and they had to raise this money, the consequence being they were now a great deal worse off than they were before they were left the property. Of course, that was au extreme case, and he did not mean to say that land in England fluctuated in the same degree as in the colonies, but it showed that a fictitious value might be placed upon an estate, and he gave this illustration in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might take precautions to see that estates were not valued too highly. He hoped land would not be valued at a fictitious price, but simply at the net income it gave to the owner. If, at the last, the estates had to pay equally on real and personal property, at least during the lifetime of the owner, some abatement should be given on the rates and taxes which real property now paid in order that it might be put more on an equality with personal estate. If that were done, he did not think people would have such an objection to the equalisation of the Death Duties as they had at present. Let the duties be equalised in the lifetime of the owner before any more taxes were thrown on the already overburdened landed estates of this country. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 18, after the word "all," to insert the word "personal."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'personal' be there inserted."
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, lie hoped the hon. Member would not think he was treating him with any disrespect if he did not go over the ground which had already been decided on the Second Reading. This, of course, was a proposal to reject the Bill. The object of the measure was the equalisation of the Death Duties, which were to be placed on real and personal estate. If that equalisation was not to be effected, then the very object of the Bill was defeated. He did not know exactly the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the principle upon which this Bill was founded. The first principle was the equalisation of Death Duties upon real and personal property, settled or unsettled. He did not know whether hon. Members on the other side of the House were going to oppose the principle of equal Death Duties upon real and personal property. If they were, he should be glad to understand it, and this Amendment would clearly raise that issue. The question of rating was one which could be dealt with quite apart from that of the equalisation of the Death Duties. The Amendment, if carried, would discharge all ground landlords from any taxation under the Death Duties, and he would invite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, if he was going to support the Amendment, to state if that was what he and his Party intended, and then they would know where they were. The Amendment gave immunity to the ground landlords of Loudon and the great towns of England by striking real property out of the Bill. The Government considered that would be the gravest injustice in connection with the taxation of this country, and they could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that he quite sympathised with the necessity of a certain amount of refreshment for the Members of Her Majesty's Government, and especially for the Leader of the House, but it was somewhat unfortunate to be called upon to reply, in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's absence, to the statement which was made half an hour ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman complained of the hon. Member for Basingstoke for attacking the principle of the Bill in his Amendment, because he said what the Government
    88
    desired was the imposition of taxation equally upon all the different kinds of property in the country. But what the Opposition complained of was that there was no kind of equality whatever in the Bill. That had been the burden of their complaint over and over again; and he was bound to say that if there was one thing that justified the Amendment of his hon. Friend more than another it was the fact that, in spite of the objections they had raised to the Bill, and to which they had called the attention of the Government time after time on this particular point of equality, they had never received not even the semblance of an answer from any single Member of Her Majesty's Government. That was the complaint which he repeated now; and, conversant as he was with the habits and practices of the House of Commons, he thought that under the circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been in his place. Knowing that one of his opponents, sitting immediately opposite, was about to rise, the right hon. Gentleman might at least have shown that respect for the House of Commons which, under the circumstances, they were entitled to ask of him. He did not see how they could debate a question of this sort if they were to be treated in that manner, and although he did not desire to take the step which he would be perfectly justified in taking —namely, to report Progress until the Chancellor of the Exchequer returned, ho hoped it would be conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman that he had made a remonstrance against the right hon. Gentleman's absence, which he did not think, under the circumstances, was without justification. What the Opposition complained of was that the Government in the Bill dealt with all kinds of property exactly on the same footing; that they treated real property and personal property exactly alike, though the two properties were absolutely dissimilar, and incapable, consistent with justice, of being treated as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to treat them under the Bill. Now, the effect of the Amendment of his hon. Friend would not be, in his judgment, by any means that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ascribed to it. The right hon. Gentleman said his hon. Friend wanted to dissociate real property altogether from personal

    89
    property; and that he desired that real property should not under any circumstances be taxed on its capital value. What the Amendment did was to propose to leave personalty exactly as it was in the Bill, and to leave open for later consideration the mode in which real property was to be treated. In that way the Amendment provided an opportunity for the consideration, at all events, of proposals which, it seemed to him, were urgently called for with regard to realty. The difficulty in dealing with realty was that realty in itself differed so greatly in character. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted the Opposition with a desire to allow real property of all sorts and kinds the opportunity of escaping from taxation under the Bill. He did not propose anything of the kind; but he submitted to the consideration of the Government that if they considered on the one hand real property, which consisted of vacant land immediately adjoining London, and it might be not far from Belgrave Square, which might not let for very much now, lint which had an enormous prospective value, and, on the other hand, if they considered the vast quantity of derelict property in the County of Essex at the present moment, was it not contrary to common-sense and common reason that those two classes of property should be treated exactly on the same footing in the Bill? He would not go so far as to say that it was absolutely defensible to protest against the way in which town property such as he had described was proposed to be treated in the Bill—though lie was aware a good many arguments could be advanced against the imposition of any duty on such property until it had actually acquired its future value. There was, no doubt, a great deal of land of that description, land which, while it possessed no annual value at present, while it was bringing in nothing now, possessed an enormous prospective value in the future; and with regard to that class of land, he was not prepared to attack the proposals of the Government, though, as he had said, there might be something urged against its being treated in the Bill in its present condition. But there was land exactly the converse of that; there was land having a present letting value, but its prospective value for the purposes of sale was absolutely
    90
    worthless, or so small that it could hardly be said to have any value at all. It was that kind of real property that was undoubtedly going to be hit, and hit more severely than any other kind of property in the country, by the proposals of the Government. He had already called attention, to the similar treatment which the Bill proposed to deal, to those two classes of property, although unquestionably they were totally different in their nature, and not one single Member of the Government had ever attempted to answer his arguments. Why did they not answer them? Was it because they were not able to answer them? Was it that they were not deserving of an answer, or was it because the Government were afraid to answer them for the reason that they knew they would he obliged to admit that what they proposed to do was unjust and absolutely impossible to defend? What the Government wore going to do in the case of the derelict property which he had described was to drive the unfortunate owners into a forced sale. He was sorry to be obliged to repeat these arguments over and over again, but unless—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself once said—they kept "pegging away," they would not get any reply at all from the Government, and he said that on an important question of this sort they had a right to an answer, and a defence of their views from the Government, if they had got any defence whatever. To force a sale in this manner by taxation, to compel a man to get rid of property because of the burden which the Government had suddenly thrown on him, was the most cruel and high-handed proceeding ever attempted by Parliament, for no one had denied that under the Bill circumstances might arise, and were almost certain to arise, with regard to this kind of property which would drive the unfortunate owner into a forced sale. He would remind the House again how this kind of proceeding was described by the late great Leader of the Party opposite—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be "invidious, offensive, unwise, and unjust." Had the Government anything to say in reply to-a serious charge like that which was made by the very man whom they had followed and worshipped for many years?

    91
    His hon. Friend who moved the Amendment pointed out the injury the Bill would do to a vast amount of property and a vast number of proprietors in England. His hon. Friend supplemented his observations by giving a very remarkable colonial case; and the only point on which he differed from his hon. Friend was when his hon. Friend admitted that that case was a very exceptional case. He was not sure about its being a very exceptional case. He was sure that during the last 10 or 15 years his hon. Friend would have found, if he had searched, numerous instances of changes in value of property in England equally as great as those which had occurred in the colonies. Unless the Government desired wilfully to inflict this great injustice upon owners of land, they should endeavour at least to meet the arguments of the Opposition; and if the Opposition were wrong, to disabuse their minds of the misapprehensions under which they must be labouring by convincing them that there was some attempt at justice in the proposals of the Bill. The Government ought at least consider whether it was not possible to classify those different kinds of real property. If the Amendment were carried it would not interfere with the future of the Bill. It would throw upon the Government the necessity of classifying and separating real property in a way which would effectually distinguish between that kind of property which possessed little letting value at the present moment, but an enormous prospective value for sale, and that other kind of property which could be let at present and from which an iucome—a precarious income—could be obtained, but which it would be almost impossible to sell if it were put into the market under a forced sale. These were propositions which he ventured to submit to the Government, because he thought they were fully deserving of the consideration of the Government; and in making them he did not think the Opposition laid themselves open for a single moment to the charge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they desired to upset the principle of the Bill, or to enable property to escape the incidence of taxation which it was justly called upon to bear.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEremarked that it was incumbent upon those who represented agricultural con-
    92
    stituencies to take this opportunity of putting before the House the widespread feeling of alarm at the prospect of any increase of taxation. They were quite willing to accept the principle of equality of taxation; but they could not help recognising the fact that if this Bill were carried without any rectification of the one-sided character of local taxation, the result would not be equality in the taxation of different kinds of property. It was not disputed that in country districts there were many instances of men living side by side who had equal incomes and who yet contributed in a most unequal manner to expenditure for objects which benefited both. No one could contend that the manufacturer contributed equally with the agriculturist to the rates for local expenditure. When they talked of rates they were told that that had been disposed of in the able speech of the Secretary for India. He did not hear, but ho had read that speech, and he fully recognised the ability and clearness, and, given certain premises, the conclusiveness of that speech, but it was in no way an answer to their present contention. He was ready to admit that in the generality of country districts the rates were not largely higher than they were a quarter of a century ago, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India forgot two things: first, that a low rate was often felt much more in times of depression than a high rate in times of prosperity, and then he had taken for his statistics a minimum period for the rates, a period after considerable aid had been given towards reducing local taxation, and immediately preceding a large rise in taxation. Owing to the efforts of his right hon. Friend himself there would be large additions to local rates in the near future, and they would fall far more heavily on the owners of land than on the owners of personal property. There was no doubt that rates were increasing, while the value of property in agricultural districts was decreasing. In many districts there was no unearned increment, and the increase of rates fell almost immediately upon the owner rather than the occupier. Where rents were falling there was a general refusal to accept leases for more than a year, and, of course, with yearly re-letting the increase of rates fell on the landlord. And it was on this class that the Bill pro-

    93
    posed to put further heavy burdens. They were imposing new and heavy burdens upon the owners of agricultural land by this Bill without giving them any quid pro quo worthy of real consideration. He would remind the Government that by putting the taxes on landowners simply, they could not in the agricultural districts prevent that burden and injustice being felt by all classes of the community. At this very critical moment for agriculture a little further burden of taxation might prove the determining cause to small owners to give up their residences, and he ventured to say, having witnessed what had been going on for some years in the country districts in this direction, that any further tendency in the direction of absenteeism would be seriously detrimental to their country districts. Depopulation in the agricultural districts was going on fast enough without their imposing any extra burdens on land, which must tend to diminish the wages of the working classes and further impoverish the community. There was a further plea against this new taxation. One of the most important parts of their fiscal system was that while they admitted all imports free, which benefited the community as a whole, it undoubtedly inflicted great injury on a certain class. He, personally, had always been a free trader, and he had always contended that the good of the whole was to be preferred to the good of the few, but he could not disguise from himself that the few in this matter, the owners, and, to some extent, the occupiers of agricultural land, were being sacrificed to the benefit of the population, especially those in large towns; and considering this was the effect; of one portion of their fiscal system the Government might reasonably be urged to treat the class that was injured with tenderness and liberality, and to give it further relief from the pressure of local rates.
    *SIR MARK STEWARTdesired to make one or two observations upon the present state of agriculture which had a direct bearing upon this question and which appeared to be absolutely ignored by the Government, whether from ignorance of the question or indifference he knew not. Land was going out of cultivation in all directions, and proprietors who were willing to improve were to be further handicapped
    94
    by the operation of this Bill. At present he was paying £40 or £50 a week in wages in improving the land and carrying on large agricultural operations. But what was the good of that? because if anything happened to him the Government would be able to practically ruin his son. Was that a prospect to give encouragement to the profitable cultivation of land? Was it an inducement to hold out to gentlemen who were really anxious to develop industry, to keep the people on the laud, and give them occupation all the year round? Was there any prospect of improvement? They knew there was not, and yet the Government chose this critical time to equalise the taxation between personalty and realty. If they really equalised taxation and rating he should be satisfied, but they were doing nothing of the sort. The rates were continuing with a pressure never hitherto felt, and taxes were certainly not diminishing. They were perfectly willing to bear their just proportion of taxes and rates; but if they were going to put matters on an equality they must bring in personalty to bear a just payment of rates. That was utterly ignored by the Government. There was something peculiar when a Government never gave an answer to questions put forward night after night, and that too, not with any desire to obstruct business, for they were anxious that the Government should get on with its business; but when the Government were week after week bringing in measures that had not to do with the common weal, but were merely of interest to a Party, it was time to make a protest, and he had to tell them that if they went any further in a way that was detrimental to the agricultural community their days as a Government would be numbered. It was a very simple matter that personalty should be taxed, but what was to become of the mortgaged property, which was heavily mulcted by these Death Duties. What did the Government intend to do? Did they intend to take up all the property into their own hands? They would ruin many proprietors in different parts of the Kingdom. It was impossible that these proprietors could pay in the course of eight years. Practically this was four years' clear rental of their property on large estates, and were there many proprietors who, apart from what personalty they might have,

    95
    would be able to pay anything like that sum without dismissing every labourer and stopping every improvement? If they took away four years' net rental, he put it to any practical man whether it would not take four more years to put the estate into the state in which it was originally? That was eight years. Then supposing three or four deaths occurred after short intervals, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose year after year to tax such a property up to the hilt for three or four successions consecutively? Why, no property in this world could stand it! No information was vouchsafed as to the method of valuation which was to be adopted. He knew many properties which were extremely nice to live upon, having beautiful ornamental trees, good fishing, and a good bit of grouse moor, but the rentals of the laud were ridiculously low. There was no land that had gone down in such proportion as second-class land. He knew moorlands which formerly returned a very good income from the sheep farms, and now returned nothing. There were few owners who got 60 per cent, of the gross rental; there were many who did not get 50 or even 40, and yet they were to be called upon to pay as if they were getting £100 for every £ 100, and in in addition to contribute heavily to local taxation besides, which was increasing year after year. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider these matters, which were practical matters, and if he would remedy these defects in the way that had been suggested from that side of the House, the right hon. Gentleman would, he was satisfied, experience little difficulty in carrying this measure.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he rose to protest, against the continuation of the discussion on an Amendment of this kind, which was really not a discussion on an Amendment to the Bill, but a Second Reading discussion. If there was any principle in the Bill at all, it was that real property as well as personalty should contribute to the Death Duties. The Amendment was a claim on the part of the landed interest that they should be exempt. ["No!"] Yes. This determination that real property should not bear the same burden which the Opposition were willing, according to the Amendment, to put upon personalty, was
    96
    flagrant—its injustice was palpable. It was the old story ever since the days of the Succession Duty—"Oh! if you tax us we will leave the country." He remembered Mr. Bright telling him a story of his talking to a peasant on the subject of the Succession Duty and the Corn Laws, and he said to the peasant—"The country gentlemen say if you tax tax them like other people they will go away," and the peasant's answer was—"Well, they cannot take the land away." That was a remark which could not be answered. He heard the right hon. Member for Sleaford complain that he (Sir W. Hareourt) was not arguing this question. He thought the days of argument on the question whether real and personal property should be treated alike upon this taxation of Death Duties was a thing upon which argument was exhausted.
    MR. CHAPLIN: That was not in the least what I said, as the right hon. Gentleman if he had been here would know. I addressed a speech to the House of a totally different character, and while I said we admitted the fairness of real property being taxed, I asked" whether it was not possible to classify real property under two heads, it being in many instances of so different a character.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that was only another way of carrying out the old system of the propertied class and demanding a special privilege. The Bill was introduced for exactly the opposite object. Their opinion was, that the exemption that had been given to this class of taxation of real property was unjust, and the whole object of this Bridget was to redress that; it was to equalise taxation upon all classes of property. [Cries of "No!"] If that was rejected the Budget was rejected. The object, as they had stated it, was the equalisation of real, settled property and persona] property. The issue was clear—they were either for it or against it. If they were against it let them go to a Division and have done with it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to omit real property from the Bill, and they would only be wasting time in further discussing it.
    MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,)said, he quite agreed that it was impossible for the Chancellor of

    97
    the Exchequer to be in attendance during the whole of the Debate, but when he came back he ought to have some general idea communicated to him by his colleagues as to the tone of the speeches which had been made in his absence.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he heard the Mover of the Amendment and he heard the right hon. Gentleman himself. He was sorry he did not hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin), but his speech was the only one he had missed.
    MR.GOSCHENsaid, there was another speech which the right hon. Gentleman had missed, but he was not quite sure, if the right hon. Gentleman had heard the other speeches, that he might not have taken the same tone, because they were all familiar with the methods of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said, "You are either for us or against us;" he could only see a vote in the House; argument was not of much use to him, the right hon. Gentleman passing over any suggestions made on that side of the House to relieve the heavy increased burden that was put upon land, and treating it almost, he might say, with contempt, his patience not being equal to listening to the arguments. The right hon. Gentleman must remember—and no one was bound to remember more than the right hon. Gentleman—that this was an extremely complicated Budget: also that the Debate on the Second Reading only took three nights, and now the right hon. Gentleman reproached hon. Members on that side of the House with raising what the right hon. Gentleman called Second Reading questions. This question could not be dealt with at length on the Second Reading; it was, of course, initiated; it was touched, but it was not fully debated. The enormous increase involved by the right hon. Gentleman's duties could not escape the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must see that it deserved the attention of every person in this House. It was a question that should not be hurried over, and he was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was so conciliatory a short time ago, had not been able to maintain his conciliatory attitude for three or four hours together.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: This is gross obstruction.
    MR. GOSCHENasked, did he hear the right hon. Gentleman say this was gross obstruction? Those were scarcely Parliamentary words, and it was not by the use of such words that the right hon. Gentleman would further these proceedings. If the right hon. Gentleman said this was an issue on which they must either say they were for it or against it, and the object was to withdraw realty altogether from increased taxation, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken, and he knew he was mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman knew that in further portions of this Bill it was perfectly possible to introduce such Amendments—even accepting the general principle of equalisation—that might more or less produce the results the Government would desire to secure.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The Amendment is to leave out real property altogether.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that was so, but not to leave it out permanently. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had reminded him of that fact—it was to leave out real property from this particular clause and from this particular Estate Duty.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is the only place where it is mentioned.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Exactly; that is the point. The Bill was so drawn that there was no opportunity to be given to them to modify it; it was most skilfully drawn, and they were well aware of that skill, because it was extremely difficult to present their case. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave instructions to draft the Bill in such a manner that if the lauded interest or any other interest threatened to escape from it the right hon. Gentleman might be able to get up and say "They withdraw entirely from the principle of taxation"—that was to say, the impost. It must be met, as they were meeting it, by taking the opportunities which the right hon. Gentleman tried to refuse them, of raising this class of questions, and looking to the whole Bill, and not only to Clause 1, and see that justice was done. He had hoped better things as regarded the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he thought he would have dealt with this matter carefully and judicially, but he had not done so, and had attempted to ride roughshod

    99
    over them, but lie did not succeed. There was an attempt made the other night to get rid of an Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman ridiculed, hut what was the result? It was brought forward in another form that led to an interesting Debate, as was acknowledged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that ought to have shown him it was impossible to save time by the methods he wished to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman would admit that he challenged him sufficiently with regard to these matters to give him a title to interpose in these Debates. The right hon. Gentleman raised the point that he (Mr. Goschen) had dealt entirely, conclusively, and finally with local taxation. This was the point the right hon. Gentleman put to him this evening—he said the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, "had shown his full hand." But then the right hon. Gentleman was not leaving the status quo as he (Mr. Goschen) left it. The right hon. Gentleman came and put a number of new burdens upon laud and then said, "Oh, but you have no claim to raise the point of local taxation, because your own Chancellor of the Exchequer said he had shown his full hand." That was the point that hon. Members on that side of the House had enforced, that if they had these increased burdens placed upon them now they would wish to have had some promise or some hopes held out by Her Majesty's Government that that portion of public contribution which they believed they paid in excess should be compensated. That was a fair point. The right hon. Gentleman expressed surprise and taxed the landowners with refusing to pay their fair share of taxes. The right hon. Gentleman said, "It is a scandal that they have not paid before." [Sir W. HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] Then was it not a scandal for many years when they did not pay enough to local taxation? The right hon. Gentleman looked at this matter from an Imperial point of view. It had been said that two wrongs did not make one right, but it was quite possible that real and personal property were so separate and so different in character that they might exact more Imperial taxation from personal property and more local taxation from real property. That had been in the past the general principle, and it had
    100
    been more or less defended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) himself, and they could not say one was a scandal without admitting there was a scandal on the other side. He had endeavoured to rectify the matter as much as possible: he raised the contributions from realty; he raised them as regarded Succession Duty and diminished them as regarded personal property. Now the right hon. Gentleman disturbed them, and scoffed at the attempt of landed proprietors to secure what they considered to be fair treatment. Now the right hon. Gentleman laid down the principle of what he called abstract equality; he laid down the absolute principle of equality; but when he came to apply it he found, as had been explained to him over and over again—although he took no notice of argument—that realty and personalty were not so identical in character as to admit of absolute equality of treatment. That was the point, and the right hon. Gentleman felt that it was. Was it surprising that the landed interest was anxious to put forward its case when, different from personal property, it was not only subject at this moment to a great increase of duty, but an increase through the equalisation coming upon it at the same moment? He did not know whether this point had been previously taken, but it was one of the great difficulties of agriculture at the present moment. They had selected this moment not only for a large increase in the duties, not only for averages, not only for graduation, but as a justification for equalisation. This was enough to have frightened any interest. Personalty was no doubt hit very hard, but realty was hit as hard as personalty; but besides the increased burdens in this particular year, they applied this principle of equalisation which fell so very hard upon land. Under these circumstances, could anyone be surprised that hon. Members took up this question, and endeavoured to point out some of the difficulties? It ought to be one of equal treatment. He did not know that land had been equally treated all these years with regard to Income Tax, quite apart from the question of the gross rents that had been conceded by the right hon. Gentleman. He was not at all sure, but he believed it was the case, that realty, under Schedule A, had throughout paid more than its real pro-

    101
    portion of income, and that it would not be right to abolish taxation under Schedule A altogether, and to make land pay on its net income, as traders paid on theirs. That was a perfectly legitimate point to raise, but the right hon. Gentleman thought it a waste of time if they discussed any Amendments in order to give any assistance to the landed interest in view of the undoubted hardship under which they laboured. Land and personalty were to be equally treated; was it not certain that almost on every estate in these later years that the proportion of income to outgoings was totally different to what it was in other cases? Hon. Gentleman opposite might say, "Don't let those outgoings continue," but that was the point they ought to realise and attempt to deal with in some way or other. They must not discourage these outgoings on the part of landlords, as they tended to the prosperity of country districts, to the employment of labour by the owners of land and by farmers, and he might go so far as to say would prevent that closing of country houses to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded as an impossibility and with some amount of gibes, but which had actually been going on. The right hon. Gentleman said, "You have always had these proprietors." The right hon. Gentleman had used that argument before; it was his favourite argument, but it was not a question now whether country houses would be shut, but whether a greater number would not have to be shut up, and let the right hon. Gentleman see how it would stand. The owner of laud was at present in a very difficult position. His rents had fallen and at the same time he must continue his expenditure. All that was admitted. He must continue his expenditure because he must continue to repair his cottages, to keep up his farms, and all that constituted a difference which the right hon. Gentleman ought to take into consideration. Another point to consider was this: Land had been made—rightly or wrongly—through many years past to boar a number of charges as regarded other members of the family than the actual owner, and in order to keep up these payments it had been necessary to incur mortgages.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: What has that to do with the question?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, it had a great deal to do with it, as it left a margin extremely small with which to pay the enormous Death Duties. He regretted he could not make himself more clear, but it seemed to bring home this difficulty to the views of the right hon. Gentleman. He would take a concrete case. Take a man who had got, they would say, an estate of £100,000, giving £3,000 income. Upon that he had got charges for £50,000 which he had been obliged to raise at 4 per cent., so that out of his £3,000 £2,000 would go in charges; therefore the weight of interest was higher than the return the land produced, consequently the margin for taxation became smaller.
    SIR K W. HARCOTJRT: May I ask how many years' purchase the right hon. Gentleman takes the land at?
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would find the land would produce more than the £3,000.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Less.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, in that case there would be more difficulty. If they borrowed, they borrowed at a higher rate than the land could give; and if that was so, as rents fell, the margin became smaller and smaller. The fact was, that during the past 20 years the value of the income from land had been enormously reduced. He was sorry he was compelled to bring this home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the plea which ho understood was raised from that side of the House was that the position of affairs in regard to land should be taken into consideration, and that if the policy of putting an equal duty upon realty and personalty were pursued care should be taken that land should not unduly suffer by other impositions. But the right hon. Gentleman had so framed his Bill that they could not raise the question without laying themselves open to be crushed by a charge of wasting time. It was not a waste of time to try to bring home to the right hon. Gentleman the real position of the question. For the right hon. Gentleman to speak as if by this Bill he was removing what was called a scandal was simply preposterous. He himself admitted that he was making a great change, and yet on that side they were not to be allowed to raise the question and place it before the Government and

    103
    the country. They would, however, do their best to raise discussion upon the more important principles of the Bill, though he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no desire to raise discussion unnecessarily. They had a genuine desire that the case should be fully stated and known; and if the right hon. Gentleman would treat such matters a little more calmly, and not attack them, more progress would be made. He could assure him that he would not gain anything by continuing that line of conduct, for he must acknowledge that the question was a most important one, and that those interested in it had a right to put their case before the House as they had done, and would continue to do on all occasions when the opportunity was fitting.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, that but for the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer he should have felt a good deal of difficulty in voting for this Amendment. He under stood that the earliest opportunity had been taken to bring a matter of extreme importance before the Committee. When endeavouring to equalise the burdens of real and personal property, they must look to the fact that agricultural and town property must be treated on a different footing if they were to produce equalisation. It was obvious to those who had heard the speeches in this Debate, and especially that of the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin), that that was the object of this Amendment. It was equally obvious that the Amendment itself was not aptly adapted to secure that result, but if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acknowledged or even noticed the point brought forward in Debate—if he had admitted that there was something in the argument as to the difference between real and personal property, and that the insertion of the word "personal" would not quite effect what was desired—the Amendment would undoubtedly have been dropped; but instead of doing that, he called across the floor of the House that it was nothing but obstruction—
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Will the hon. Member allow me to say what I meant was that when an Amendment, which an hon. Member admits is an Amendment which cannot be supported, is discussed for two hours, and no other Amendment
    104
    can be moved in consequence—that I call obstruction.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, that all he desired to advance was that the Amendment proposed to the Committee, besides including the cases specifically dealt with, would include others not mentioned. It was convenient that the earliest opportunity should be taken that could be presented in Debate to bring before the Committee various points, and no one could doubt that in moving this Amendment at this period, though perhaps the Amendment was not suitable to the point in view, that did present a distinct opportunity for bringing to the notice of the Government an important point If they were going to tax these estates equally they must provide for such cases as had been brought forward, but for his own part he did not think that all the views which had been put forward in the course of this Debate were in accordance with the Amendment. The Government had gone out of their way to misrepresent the arguments of the Opposition. He must remind the Leader of the House that to abuse the case of the adversary instead of answering his arguments was no argument at all.
    MR. ROUNDsaid, he had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer had seen the Report of the Royal Commission upon Depression. If he had not had his attention called to it already he (Mr. Round) would like to direct it to the condition of affairs in the constituency which he represented. The great bulk of the land in Essex was farmed by yeomen farmers and small landowners, and the depression under which they suffered was most severe—a depression which did not altogether arise from the fall in prices. What his constituents asked for was that there should be some classification of real property whereby agricultural land which was in a depressed condition should not be subjected to further duties. He, submitted that at this moment the Succession Duty did in many cases bear: very heavily upon land, and that it was impossible that the land in his county could bear the increased burden that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to throw upon it.
    *MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid that, as representing an agricultural constituency, he

    105
    must protest in the strongest manner against two assumptions which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, he objected to the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made that the landowners objected to the taxation of realty. All that they did was to demand that it should be fairly taxed. He also protested against the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the complaint of the country gentlemen that they were obliged to give up their houses was a very old one. He might point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this was exactly what had been going on, and that if his proposals were adopted it would go on more than ever. There was more than one notable instance in which country gentlemen had had to forsake their houses. He altogether protested against the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he held to be unjust and oppressive in the extreme and offending against the first principle of sound finance, which was that taxation ought to be placed on that class and those interests best able to bear it. The burden in this case would fall upon an interest which was not only unable to bear additional taxation, but was totally incapable of sustaining that at present existing, and was, in fact, irretrievably ruined. How unjust and unfair this newly-proposed tax was had been conclusively and unanswerably shown in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk. The Government had shown the most sublime indifference to all the details involved in their scheme. It appeared to him that so long as they satisfied themselves and their supporters that the measure which they proposed would inflict injury upon some section of their political antagonists they did not care what might be the ruin brought about by their action. He would ask hon. Members to rend the evidence as to the injurious effects of the present Succession Duty which was given by Mr. Lipscombe, agent to the Savile estates in Yorkshire, before the Royal Commission on Agriculture, which, with the permission of the House, he would read. Mr. Lipscombe said—
    "He had been agent for the Savile estates in Yorkshire for upwards of 40 years. Three deaths had occurred, during his agency, in the proprietorship, and the burden of the Succession Duty had very seriously militated
    106
    against improvements being continued. The first result on each occasion had been the discharge of all labourers who could be dispensed with, and the postponement of drainage and buildings that had been asked for by tenants on the estate. Charitable subscriptions had also to be curtailed. In short, the labourers and the deserving poor had been the principal sufferers, and he regarded any increase of this burden on succession with the greatest apprehension."
    He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) would also remind them of the description applied to it by the late Lord St. Leonards as the "blight which had fallen upon the fair fields of England." That description was right then as it was right now. If these proposals of the Government were carried the Party opposite would never be able to pose again as the friend of the agricultural labourer. Whatever they might say of the matter, it was upon the agricultural labourers that the burden would ultimately fall. He sometimes thought that hon. Members opposite could not know what country life was like. If they did they must ask themselves, if the mansions and country houses of England were to be shut up, what was to become of the charities and of the labourers which were attached to the different estates. To leave things of that kind out of account showed that hon. Members were ignorant of the effect which their proposals would have in the country. Of course, this new burden would be felt by the towns as well as by the country, for the country labourers would be forced to go into the towns, and in that way the town labourers and the ratepayers generally would suffer. If his hon. Friend went to a Division upon his Amendment he should certainly give him his support.
    MR. COHENsaid, he must comment on the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid it down in speech after speech as a cardinal principle of finance that taxation should be imposed on the class best able to bear it, although he had in his charge a Bill which flagrantly violated that very principle. They had been told over and over again that the main principle of the provisions now before the House was that personal and real property should be equally taxed. He was not there as a champion of the agricultural interest. That interest had its champions who were well able to defend it. What he wished to call the attention of the House

    107
    and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to was the fact that this Bill did not equalise personal and real property at all, and that it was impossible to equalise such property until the taxes on the transfer of the two classes of property were identical and uniform. There was a certain amount payable on the transfer of real property, but one could transfer Consols for practically nothing at all. No solution of the question would be found until, as he had said, the taxes on the transfer of the two classes of property were made equal.
    MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBYsaid, that during his experience in the House, whenever an agricultural question came up for discussion, they were always told that the hon. Members interested in it were indulging in obstruction. When that taunt was thrown in their faces he considered that it was their duty to rise and make a protest. He did not know much about town property, but he did claim to know something about agricultural property, and he knew that this tax would affect it very injuriously, and that it would be impossible for the land to meet it. The tax was in the nature of an imposition on a great industry; for although it was said it would be thrown on the shoulders of the landowners, it would affect everybody interested in agriculture. The labourers and other servants about estates would in many cases suffer, because there must be a reduction of establishment in order that this tax might be paid. During the Debates on this Bill mention had been made of the possibility of the breaking up of large properties, and the reply had been that that was what a good many people wanted to see. He thought this was the last thing likely to happen where the landlords were resident. Not only would the agricultural labourer suffer from the proposals of the Government; the small village tradesmen who were usually employed about an agricultural estate—the builder, the carpenter, and others who were engaged upon the repair of estates and farms—these men, who at present found it hard to make both ends meet, were those who would suffer most by this tax. Landlords would cease to carry out improvements; there would be no money spent, and the livelihood of these poor men would be taken away from them. Instead of levying
    108
    this additional tax on agriculture, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider whether in cases of hardship there ought not to be some special exemptions of the agricultural interest.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I am quite willing to consider any Amendment which hon. Gentlemen opposite have to propose with reference to what I understand to be their object—namely, some alleviation of the Estate Duty with regard to agricultural land. But this is not the Amendment before the Committee. The Amendment is one directly proposing that real estate of every description should be struck out of the Estate Duty; and if it is intended to take a Division on such an Amendment as that, there ought to be no further delay upon it. I am ready to meet that issue. Is this Amendment a real one, which hon. Gentlemen opposite feel they ought to support and divide upon? It is a waste of the time of the Committee to propose Amendments which are sham Amendments, Amendments upon which no division is intended to be taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it must be felt by all those who have listened to the discussions on this and on the previous stage of the Bill that no more important subject has really come before the Committee than the incidence on agricultural land of the alteration in the Death Duties proposed by the Government. We had the opportunity of raising that question among others on the Second Reading, but the only occasion on which we shall be able to raise it as a whole in Committee is on Amendments such as that moved by my hon. Friend; and unless it can be suggested that it is not a subject which ought to engage the attention of the Committee, unless it can be suggested that the triple increase of the Death Duties on agricultural land is not a matter which ought to come before the Committee at all, I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman is not in a position to complain of the course adopted by my hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his intention to accept any reasonable Amendment that may be moved. Is not this a reasonable Amendment? [Sir W. HARCOURT: No.] I hope I am not doing the right hon. Gentleman injustice, but I thought that he had

    109
    expressed some kind of sympathy with the particular ease of agricultural land as distinguished from town property. I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I certainly thought that he made that profession. But let it be noted that it is impossible to raise the question of the incidence of taxation on agricultural land except in the shape in which my hon. Friend has raised it. Agricultural land suffers under a system of taxation, according to which it is relieved, on the one hand, of Probate Duty, while, on the other hand, it has to bear the education, highway, poor, police, school, and other rates which have for their object Imperial purposes alone. I do not say that the two are nicely balanced or are the result of scientific finance; but the present system is an attempt to administer justice between different kinds of property so differently affected by the claims of the State. What have the Government done? The Government under their scheme have abolished the exemption from probate, and imposed graduated Estate Duties, and have introduced the principle of aggregation. All these duties press heavily on the occupiers, owners, and labourers connected with agricultural land, while no attempt is made to relieve that land of the share it has to bear of local taxation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in the precise form in which the Amendment has been moved and in which alone it could be moved so as to raise the general question, it may be inexpedient to take a Division, because that Division would suggest a view which is not held on this side of the House, that there is any kind of property which should receive special favour or exemptions, and we do not mean to vote in favour of anything which could be so unfairly interpreted. The Opposition do not desire now, and have never desired, that agricultural laud or any other form of property, to whomsoever it may belong, should be relieved of any fraction of its fair share of public burdens; but surely it is open to us to raise the general question of how public taxation, whether called Imperial or local, should be levied, and my hon. Friend has only done his duty by raising it. I therefore should not advise my hon. Friend to go to a Division. It may be called an "outside Division." Such a
    110
    Division might be misinterpreted, at any rate by many outside the House, and the opinions that prompt many of those who hold responsible positions in the House, and who joined in the Division, might also be misconstrued. If there are any demagogues of that description in the House I do not see why we should be expected to play into their hands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has professed himself to be the friend of the agricultural classes. The main principle involved in the present discussion should not, in my opinion, be decided on this Motion, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me and see his way to raise this point of such first-class importance to the agricultural interest on some other occasion as a special case before the House in order to lay before the country the injustice which will be done by this Bill.
    MR. JEFFREYSdesired to point out that he had moved this Amendment in perfectly good faith, and as being, in his opinion, the only way in which the discussion of the subject could be brought forward. It had been received with sympathy from all quarters of the House, and he was glad to gather, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that he proposed that some abatement should be made, or, at any rate, that something should be done to relieve the burden of taxation that would otherwise be imposed on agricultural land. He regretted that the discussion of his Amendment had taken up so much of the time of the Committee, and he certainly should not trouble them to go to a Division. He asked leave, therefore, to withdraw his Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    *MR. BUTCHERmoved an Amendment limiting the property upon which the Death Duty should be levied to such property, whether real or personal, settled or not settled, as was "capable of being dealt with within the United Kingdom." He desired to point out that under the law as it now stood Probate Duty was not payable by the executor on personal property situate out of England, but that that would be altered if the present proposal became law. The reason that Probate Duty was very properly confined to property situate in England was because that property

    111
    could only be dealt with by the executors after a grant had been obtained from the English Courts. Legacy and Succession Duty, however, were levied upon personal property abroad belonging to a testator who was domiciled in this country at the time of the death. A leading case had been decided on the question which arose on the construction of a Victorian Statute under which Death Duties became payable, and the point argued before the Privy Council here was whether property situate out of the Colony of Victoria could be made subject to the duty. Lord Hobhouse held that it could not, because the Legislature could not intend to levy a tax on the grant of an instrument in respect of property which that instrument did not affect. That, he submitted, was the principle which should apply here. This Bill, however, would impose a duty on property which could not be reached by a grant of administration, and yet, before the executor could get a grant of administration, he would have to pay a heavy duty to the Exchequer here on that very property. This was contrary to all the precedents which had governed the legislation of this country; and it was a proceeding which would press harshly on individuals, returned colonists and others, who had investments in the colonies. The proposal was to make them pay double Probate Duty or duty in the nature of Probate Duty—Probate Duty in the colonies as well as here. Suppose a person died domiciled here possessing £1,000 here and £10,000 in New Zealand, his children would have to pay £550 here and the New Zealand Probate Duty of 7 per cent., making in all £1,250. That was the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. Again, if a person dying domiciled here possessed £1,000 here and £20,000 in New Zealand and left it to a stranger in blood, under this Bill the stranger would have to pay 4 per cent. English Estate Duty, 10 per cent. English Legacy Duty, and 13 per cent. New Zealand Probate Duty, making in all 27 per cent., or about £5,500 out of the total £21,000. Before anything could be done by the executor in cases where property abroad was involved all kinds of inquiries would have to be made under the Bill all
    112
    over the world involving indefinite delay; and the duty on the whole estate would have to be paid before the English assets could be touched. The costs of inquiries and valuations would make a considerable inroad upon the property, and to these would have to be added in many cases the costs of litigation, raising questions of domicile, one of the most difficult branches of English law. The necessity would be thrown upon executors in all cases in ascertaining the domicile and a large amount of litigation might have to be gone through before a grant of probate could be obtained. In the course of the Debate much had been said about following colonial precedents; but although the Australian colonies had recently re-modelled their Death Duties, not one had adopted a provision in the slightest degree resembling the proposal made in this Bill. In no case was Probate Duty charged upon property outside a colony. No doubt South Australia passed an Act last year, and made a duty payable to the colony in respect of property outside; but it was not in the nature of a Probate Duty; it was a charge assessed upon the amount of the interest of the successor, so that it was essentially in the nature of a Legacy or Succession Duty; and there was a provision that the duty paid on property out of the colony might be deducted from any other duty to which the property was liable in the colony; so that that made their assessment fair; and if there were such a provision embodied in this Bill there would be no objection to the proposal made in it. Apparently the right hon. Gentleman had seen a Memorial against the Bill from a body which was entitled to the respect of the House—the Council of the Royal Colonial Institute. Any Member of the House who had seen the document would say that it was a Memorial of great moderation and ability. They enumerated in detail some of the objections to this Estate Duty as to property situated in the colonies, and they concluded by summing up their objections in a manner which he thought was not open to objection from either side of the House. They said—
    "Your Memorialists pray that Her Majesty's Government, on consideration of the many serious difficulties and objections which arise against the proposal to include for Estate Duty

    113
    personal property situate out of the United Kingdom, and the grievous inconvenience and injustice which will thereby be caused to large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects, and the inducements which will arise to them in many cases to endeavour to evade compliance with what they may consider to be an unjust law, will so amend the provisions of the Finance Bill, 1894, as to exempt personal property not situate in the United Kingdom from liability to pay, or be included in the computation of the Estate Duty proposed to be created by such Bill."
    He asked for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman to this Memorial and to the arguments embodied in it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after the word "property," to insert the words "capable of being dealt with within the United Kingdom."—{Mr. Butcher.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. and learned Member, with great clearness and ability, has raised what is unquestionably an important question—namely, how we are to proceed with reference to the taxation of foreign property. He has referred to the colonies, but I will draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that his Amendment deals with all property abroad. I will endeavour very briefly to state to the House what is the law in reference to the taxation of foreign property. The lion, and learned Member is much too good a lawyer to state, as a general proposition, that foreign property is not subject to taxation here. The law in reference to this matter makes a distinction between real property and personal property abroad—between mobilia and immobilia. The principle of the law with reference to real property is that such property is governed by the law of the site. You cannot, therefore, tax real property if it is situated abroad. I must apologise for referring gentlemen on this point to a Tory statesman—Lord Lyndhurst. The opposite is the fact with reference to personalty. The mobilia follow the person and domicile of the owner. All personal property, wherever situated, is supposed to be where the person is, and is consequently taxable. That, I imagine, is the origin of the name "personalty," which means property that follows the person. I can cite a case which will illustrate that point as much as any other. It was a
    114
    case in which a testator was domiciled in England, and died possessed of considerable property in the American, English, French, and Russian funds. The dividends were payable in those respective countries only. That was a question of legacy. ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.] Well, I am dealing with the question of whether and how far foreign property is taxable. It is not free from taxes because it is foreign property. It is subject to the Legacy Duty, and upon that ground it is clear that the rule is that personal property follows the person. Wherever the domicile of the owner is, there the property is to be considered as situated. That is a universal proposition as regards personal property. It is said, and said truly, that hitherto, though subject to Legacy and Succession Duty, personal property has not been subject to Probate Duty. But what is the reason of that? The reason is a purely technical one respecting the character of the jurisdiction of the Probate Court. In the book from which I have taken the case just mentioned it is laid down that—
    "Probate is not granted in respect of assets generally but in respect of such part of them as are at the testator's death within the jurisdiction of the spiritual Judge by whom it is granted."
    The origin of the distinction to which I have referred between Legacy Duty and Probate Duty is, therefore, to be found in the limited jurisdiction of the Probate Court. That is shown clearly enough, because there are cases where the assets abroad are subject to Probate Duty, because they are capable of being dealt with in this country. The exemption from Probate Duty is a technical exemption arising from the jurisdiction of the Probate Court and not at all from any principle in favour of the exemption of personalty from taxation in this country. Well, we are doing away with the Probate Duty as such, and are establishing, no doubt on the analogy of the Probate Duty, an Estate Duty, but not subject to the difficulties which have hitherto prevented probate being levied on foreign personalty, and it is perfectly just and fitting that both the Probate Duty and the Legacy Duty should be levied on such property. Otherwise a premium would be put upon investments abroad. In my opinion, this country has done quite enough in this direction to its disadvan-

    115
    tage. Why in the world gentlemen opposite should be so desirous to cut down the Revenue by preventing foreign property being subject to taxation I cannot conceive. It really does seem to me as if the object were to make the revenue derivable from these taxes as small as possible. Why this proposal should be made for continuing an exemption which has for a long time been in the opinion of the Inland Revenue Department a most unjust and unfair exemption in respect of foreign property I cannot conceive. The hon. Member made an appeal to us on behalf of the Colonial Institute. Of course, the Colonial Institute is right if it can get colonial investments by persons domiciled in England exempted from taxation. It would, of course, largely raise the price of colonial securities if by putting their money into such securities people could escape a tax of this kind. But why should we make this distinction between Colonial and British securities? I have already referred, in answer to a question, to a document I have received from another body—the Imperial Federation Defence Committee. This body has circulated 10,000 of the pamphlets I hold in my hand. It is a highly respectable body, which is represented by many distinguished gentleman on the other side of the House. The pamphlet is headed, The Colonies and Maritime Defence, and in it they ask—
    "What do the Colonies pay towards the defence of the Empire and towards that Navy upon which their security and their interests depend?"
    Well, Sir, what I would ask is what would become of colonial securities if you did not, maintain a great Navy to protect them and their trade? The pamphlet goes on to ask what the self-governing colonies during the year 1891 spent on naval defence, and it proceeds as follows:—
    "The self-governing colonies during the year 1891 spent upon sea-going forces the following sums:—North American Colonies, 5,000,000 people, nothing; Australasian Colonies,4,250,000 people, £85,000: South African Colonies, 2,000,000 people, nothing.
    "The small sum spent by the seven Australasian Colonies is for ships of their own, for coast and harbour defence. These colonies have also undertaken to pay a sum not exceeding £126,000 per annum towards the maintenance of a certain number of ships of the British Navy on the Australian Station. These ships are not available for the general protection of commerce, as is the Navy provided by the United Kingdom.
    116
    "But allowing these sums to stand on the same footing as the United Kingdom expenditure, it appears that 38,000,000 people in the United Kingdom spend on the general protection of the Empire and its commerce £18,000,000 a year, while 11,000,000 people in these colonies spend £200,000 only.
    "Comparing the revenue of these countries we find that the self-governing colonies have a revenue of £43,000,000 sterling, almost half that of the United Kingdom, which is £91,000,000; yet they contribute to the maintenance of the Navy, which protects them and their possessions, but a ninetieth part of its cost.
    "Of every £1 spent on the Naval Defence of the Empire these colonies provide 2¾d.
    "The contribution of the colonies per head is 4½d. against 9s. 6d. per head contributed by the United Kingdom.
    "In short, the Navy employed and relied upon for the protection of the whole Empire is provided and maintained entirely at the cost of the people of the United Kingdom, though there are 11,000,000 people of the same race inhabiting some of the richest countries of the world, under the same Sovereign and enjoying the same privileges, who contribute practically nothing to that expenditure.
    "This inequitable state of affairs is not primarily the fault of the colonies referred to. They have not been asked to contribute. Until they have been asked to do so in such a manner as to let them feel the full weight of their responsibility in replying, no reproach can justly be levelled at them in this respect.
    "It is for the people of the United Kingdom to call upon their own Government to afford to their countrymen in the colonies the opportunity of taking their just share in the cost and in the administration of the finest Defensive Force in the world.
    "This is an offer which no Englishman need object to make."
    I have frequently heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Goschen) say he thought the Colonies ought to contribute more than they do to the great expenses which fall upon people who can very ill afford it in this country for the maintenance of that great Navy which sustains our Empire all over the world. At the end of the pamphlet the following opinion of the late Mr. W. B. Dalley, Chief Secretary of New South Wales, is quoted:—
    "Britain's Fleet is the instrument of power and the symbol of her unity. British ships of war are the safeguard of colonial liberty, and the natural chain which holds the scattered communities together."
    The Hon. James Service, ex-Premier of Victoria, is also quoted as having said—
    "It would be difficult to say what would be the position of Australia if war should break out; but if the Navy of Great Britain was kept at its proper strength, relatively to the Navies

    117
    of other countries, the colonies would have nothing to fear."
    Those are sentiments which must commend themselves to everybody who has considered the subject. Here we are upon the point of adding an expenditure of millions to our Navy expressly for the purpose of maintaining the commerce of our dependencies all over the world, and yet the objection is taken to colonial investments by domiciled Englishmen sharing any portion of this burden. When we come to equalise taxation and propose that investments in the colonies by persons living here should be placed in the same position as investments in Great Britain, the hon. Gentleman says that that is an unfair proposition. I think it is not an unfair proposition at all. I have pointed out that this Amendment does not apply to the colonies alone, but applies to all investments abroad. It is, in my opinion, impolitic to place a premium upon investments out of this country, and we cannot accept the Amendment.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that in listening to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer it had seemed to him as if "Historicus" had come to life again. He remembered that when the interesting contributions of "Historicus" to historical law used to appear they were frequently followed by letters, generally bearing the names of the writers, pointing out that the views of "Historicus," whoever that learned person was, were not founded on the true principles of law. If the right hon. Gentleman ever attempted to bring together in a collected form the writings of "Historicus," he (Sir R. Webster) hoped he would add as an appendix the speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this Budget Bill. The historical student of the future who compared the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the other night with that just delivered would have some difficulty in reconciling the principles of law laid down on the one occasion with those laid down on the other. The Committee heard from the right hon. Gentleman the other night that it was not just to speak of this duty as a Probate Duty. But when on another occasion it was pointed out that there were circumstances inseparably bound up with the scheme which made it impossible for anyone, anxious to use
    118
    accurate language, to speak of the duty as Probate Duty, or an analogue of Probate Duty, that right hon. Gentleman insisted that it was Probate Duty; that it was a tax on alienation, as somebody else on Benches opposite put it, that it was a toll taken by the State for permitting alienation. Did the right hon. Gentleman not remember that hitherto the only Probate Duty on property abroad had been on the property which was capable of being transferred and sold in the United Kingdom? If this property were to be included for the first time, what was to become of the right hon. Gentleman's distinction between A taxes and B taxes—A taxes being taxes levied because the estate of a testator passed to his successor; and B taxes being taxes chargeable in respect to the individual interest received from an estate—and under which of those two classes was property abroad to be included? He was not sure that under the Bill real property situate abroad was excluded from Probate Duty.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is excluded; you cannot have read the Bill.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he was thankful to the right hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remark that he had not read the Bill. The opening words of the second section of the clause were wide enough to include all classes of property, and it could only be inferentially argued from the last words of the section that the exclusion of real property was intended.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is stated that property situate abroad shall be included if liable to Succession or Legacy Duty. Is real property so liable? If not, it is impossible to make its exclusion more clear.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that the opinion he had expressed as to the vagueness of the clause was shared by authorities as competent as the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he was glad to know now what the right hon. Gentleman's intentions were, and the Opposition would assist the right hon. Gentleman in making the clause clear on this point when they came to the second section. The justification which the right hon. Gentleman had put forward, based on the far-fetched argument of the defence of the colonies, had nothing at all to do with the subject. The question was whether it was right

    119
    to include in Probate Duty property situate in foreign countries and the colonies—that was to say, to include property not affected by the instrument upon which the Probate Duty was calculated. The view expressed by Lord Hobhouse, the right hon. Gentleman would admit, was worthy of the gravest consideration; and it was that—
    "The Legislature could not pretend to levy a tax on the ground of an instrument in respect of property which that instrument did not affect."
    Again, he would like to know, how were estates to be wound up if this property was to be included? The other evening he ventured to call attention to the enormous delay and expense that would be occasioned by the way the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to include estates abroad; and not a single Member of the Government had made any attempt in reply to deal with the difficulty. Did the right hon. Gentleman appreciate what his proposals involved with reference to ascertaining the value of personal property situate abroad or in the colonies before the Estate Duty could be calculated and paid, and before a discharge could be given? This question affected not only very large estates, but those of £25,000 and £50,000, and indeed 50 per cent, of the estates subject to this duty. The right hon. Gentleman was introducing elements of uncertainty and delay the consequence of which would be most serious in the winding-up of estates. But what was to be said about the double taxation? What would be the effect upon the general community due to the fact that there were Probate Duties payable in the colonies, Probate Duties payable in some of the foreign countries, and Probate Duties payable at home? The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think it was a matter of entire indifference if the colonies or foreign countries were irritated by his proposals. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to cast ridicule on the Petition of the Colonial Institute against the Government proposals. The right hon. Gentleman could not have forgotten what the Colonial Institute was; he must know that the Colonial Institute represented the leading members of our colonies. The Agents General of all our colonies over here took an active interest in it, and if the right hon. Gentleman had read the Manifesto
    120
    signed on behalf of the members of the Council of the Institute, he must know that the protest therein contained was not based—as he had implied—upon any desire or wish to prevent the introduction of a system which for the first time would bring within the sphere and scope of taxation property which had been hitherto entirely exempt. The right hon. Gentleman's argument about contributions to the support of the Fleet had got nothing to do with the matter. It was not pretended that they could justify putting taxes on personal property in a foreign country, because the foreign country would not contribute to our Fleet. But the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that there had been considerable contributions towards the maintence of the Fleet by the Australian colonies during the last few years.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I read all that.
    SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had indicated in the clearest possible manner that the contributions were trumpery contributions; and had argued that there was some justification in imposing those taxes on the colonies, because the contributions of the colonies towards the Fleet were wholly insufficient.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: What I maintained was that, apart altogether from the question of the Fleet, this was a proper tax to impose on properties in foreign countries and the colonies.
    SIR R. WEBSTERasked what, then, became of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the justification of Probate Duty was because the property charged was situated in the United Kingdom; and the other argument used by one hon. Member behind the Treasury Bench that the tax should be placed on the capital of the State, and not on the individual benefit of each legatee, because the State gave security and protection to the property? This was a case in which the colonies and foreign countries might justly complain, because property abroad was for the first time brought within the sphere of the Probate Duty when there was absolutely no reciprocity in the matter, for it had been shown by the hon. Member for York—in his extremely able speech—that the colonies did not levy Probate Duty on property outside the colonies, and had not made any provision that there should not be

    121
    double taxation. He submitted that, except on the principle that they should put their hands in other people's pockets and take out as much money as they could, there was absolutely no justification for the alteration in the law which the right hon. Gentleman proposed.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. REID,&c.)said, his hon. and learned Friend had suggested that it was proposed to lay this new tax upon real property situated abroad. Such a thing, he supposed, never entered into the head of any of the framers of this measure. It would be contrary to all International comity and to all the principles of the Bill. There was not the slightest risk of any real property situated abroad being subjected to any of the taxes imposed by the Bill. Personal property abroad in some circumstances was to be subjected to those taxes. The object of the Amendment was to prevent that, unless it were such property as could be dealt with in the United Kingdom. That was to say, that no property situated abroad was to be subjected to any tax under the Bill except such property as had been for 40 years or more actually taxed under the Legacy and Succession Duties. What were the tests by which Legacy and Succession Duties were imposed? The first test upon which the Legacy and Succession Duty was assessed was where the property, being personalty situated abroad, belonged to a person domiciled in this country. The second was where the property, though situated abroad, was vested in a person subject to British jurisdiction. Suppose a person domiciled in this country had £100,000 in Consols, that would admittedly pay the duty. Suppose he had £100,000 in Inscribed Colonial Stock, that would also pay duty. But suppose he had £100,000, not in Inscribed Stock, but in personalty in the same colony, it was not to pay duty. Why not? It was the property of an Englishman dying in England, whose estate was divisible in England, which goes to persons living in England, and it was the merest technicality in the world to say that because it was situated in the colonies, because it was not Inscribed Stock, it should escape the taxation imposed by the Bill. He would take the case of property that at death rested in persons subject to British jurisdiction. There had been such a case
    122
    in the Law Courts. It was a case in which French property that belonged to a foreigner was left for the purposes of convenience, or because the Courts of England were reliable, in the hands of English trustees to be administered under an English settlement. That property was held to be liable to Succession Duty because it was administered by virtue of an English settlement and English law. Would anyone say that it should not pay Estate Duty as well as Succession Duty? It had been suggested that the change in the law would unfairly affect the colonies, but he would point out that the bulk of the property divisible in the United Kingdom which at the present time paid Legacy Duty, and which was about to be subjected to the Estate Duty, was foreign — that was to say, about two-thirds were foreign and only about one-third colonial. With regard to the point raised as to the delay in getting probate, and the uncertainty as to the amount, that could be discussed on Clause 7, and he thought it would be foreign to the purposes of the Committee at present to discuss the matter. In that clause provision was made for getting probate without delay.
    *MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he should like to supply a short answer to a question asked by the Solicitor General. His hon. and learned Friend said that if a man had in the colonies Stock that was transferable and saleable in this country he paid duty in respect to it; and then asked, if the same man had the same amount of money invested in chattels in the same colony, why should not duty be equally payable? He would tell his how. and learned Friend In the case of Stock transferable in this country, the production of the certificate for Estate Duty would at once entitle the executor to the possession and control of the Stock; but the production of the certificate for Estate Duty, in the case of colonial chattels, would do nothing of the sort, and the unhappy executor who paid the Estate Duty and produced the certificate to the colonies would not get the chattels until he paid Estate Duty abroad as well. The case of Succession Duty was totally different. There they were dealing with a testator domiciled in this country whose will was an English instrument, and when a legatee went to claim his legacy it was perfectly fair and natural to say that, as the State handed

    123
    over the legacy, it should receive Legacy Duty. But in the other case they charged Estate Duty without rendering any service whatever.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the distinction raised by the right hon. Gentleman was with regard to machinery alone, and if his argument was good it could be used for the exemption of all settled property, for they had only to put property into settlement and it would not go through an executor or through the Probate Court. But this was a mere conveyancing point, and had nothing to do with the principles of taxation. It was as just to tax for probate as for legacy upon the same property, and he could not conceive why hon. Gentlemen opposite were so desirous of depriving the Exchequer of revenue not merely from colonial property, but from all foreign property.
    Mr. GOSCHENsaid, he desired to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from a fiscal point of view apart from the legal point of view. He might frankly say that he approached this question with a perfectly open mind, as he had considerable leanings towards extracting as much revenue as could possibly be abstracted. But he wished to know what would be the fiscal results of the measure? At an earlier stage of the discussion he requested the right hon. Gentleman to obtain information with regard to the taxation of English property abroad by foreign Powers and similar information with regard to the colonies. He wished to know whether the proposal of the Bill was contrary to the practice of the colonies and of foreign Governments with regard to English investments which they would be able to tax, and therefore might be followed by retaliation? His recollection was that the colonies had it in their power to impose duties upon English property, and if the Governments of this country and the colonies were to increase their Death Duties in a competitive manner it might ultimately result in Englishmen being unable to hold property in the colonies and colonists being unable to hold property in England. It appeared to him that they were not going to tax foreigners, but were going to include in their sphere of taxation British property which was situated abroad. Therefore, the whole argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the contribution of the
    124
    colonies towards the Fleet fell to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be illogical to tax £100,000 of colonial bonds subscribed in London and not to tax the bonds subscribed in the colonies. I admit that it would be illogical, but has the right hon. Gentleman estimated the amount of increase in the Revenue that would be lost if the Amendment were accepted? If it were not a large amount, for my part I should be inclined to adopt its principle. I think it would be a rather risky experiment to proceed as the right hon. Gentleman proposes in view of the action which would, in all probability, be taken by the colonies. I venture to put this consideration before the Government more in an interrogatory spirit than as a controversial point.
    SIR W. HARCOURTwas understood to say that he was unable to give the right hon. Gentleman the figures he asked for at the present moment, but they would receive Estate Duty on foreign property which paid Legacy and Succession Duty. They would receive a very considerable sum, which would quite justify its collection. The colonists put taxes upon our commodities, and, therefore, they could not complain that we taxed our own property that happened to be situated in their country.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer observed that the colonies could put Customs Duties on the products of the United Kingdom, but there was no analogy between that matter and the case they were considering, because he had always understood that Customs Duties were paid by the consumers. The argument of the Chancellor, therefore, was practically an abandonment of free trade. The Solicitor General argued that the securities it was now proposed to tax were already liable to Probate Duty. But there was a material difference, because at present Stocks and shares standing in two names could be transferred by the survivor as soon as the death of the deceased was proved. If we attempted to tax property abroad or in the colonies it would be a dangerous policy, because we were open to retaliation, and, as we held much more property abroad than foreigners or colonists held here, we should suffer severely. If Clause 8 were maintained and this Amendment were re-

    125
    jected, insurance offices and banks would be precluded from dealing with any of their investments standing in the names of trustees for a long period, should any trustee who died be a holder of colonial securities. This would be a very serious matter and might lead to deplorable results.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that no one knew better than the right how. Gentleman who had just sat down that the points which he was raising had been the subject of an interview between the Government and the London bankers yesterday—for the right how. Gentleman was present—and that he (Sir W. Harcourt) had undertaken to amend Clause 8 to meet the views of the bankers.
    *Sir J. LUBBOCKsaid, he was not aware that specific assurances had been given. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the intimation that he had made and would not refer to the matter again. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the remarks of the right how. Gentleman the Member for St. George's Division.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, it appeared to him that they were in an atmosphere of "private arrangement." They had before dinner discussed the Rules of the House under the shadow of an obscure arrangement come to between the Government and various sections of the House, and now it appeared for the first time in Debate—not directly in a speech, but in a sort of informal interruption across the Table on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that an arrangement had been entered into between the Government and the banking interests of London by which the machinery of a clause was to be altered. [Sir W. HARCOURT: No, no.] It was evident that Amendments were to be introduced into the Bill which had been the subject of agreement between the Government and the City bankers, and which might seriously affect the judgment of the House on the question. He thought the Committee had reason to complain of the action of the Government. His (Mr. Balfour's) learned Friend near him and other gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House had made the point that under the clause as it stood there would be delay in realising or in dealing with money left
    126
    in the colonies, which would enormously embarrass English business. That argument had never been touched on by the learned Solicitor General or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who had spoken three times on the Amendment. It only came out incidentally in an interruption in a speech of the right hon. Member for the University of London, and the Committee heard for the first time that the Government proposed to deal with the difficulty at a later stage, though the nature of the Amendments were unknown.
    *SIR W. HARCOURT (interrupting)said, the facts were these: He had received communications from business men as to the difficulties that would arise on Clause 8 in the administration of the Bill. He took a course which anybody in his position would have taken—that is to say, he requested the Governor of the Bank of England to call the bankers together in order to consider what difficulties there were. The bankers had been called together, and he was certainly somewhat surprised to hear the objection insisted upon a few minutes ago by the right hon. Member for the University of London, because the right hon. Gentleman was present at the meeting yesterday. The reason Amendments had not been put down was because he had only yesterday ascertained the views of the business men who objected to the proposals. He had also at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin taken means to see the representatives of the Insurance Companies, and now that he had taken the obvious course of removing any practical difficulties in the working of the measure he was reproached. The only reason why he had said nothing publicly about these negotiations was because the interview was too recent to admit of Amendments being put on the Paper. He was justified in expressing surprise at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Loudon.
    *SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that no doubt he, with other bankers, had had the advantage of conferring with the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue and the draftsman of the Bill, and he understood that some Amendments would be considered; but he did not understand that the right hon. Gentleman had committed

    127
    the Government to abandon the clause. He was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had said, and no doubt business men generally would be equally relieved to hear the declaration.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not know if it was in the recollection of the Committee that he was in the middle of a speech when interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What he was venturing to lay before the House when interrupted was that if it were true—as no doubt it was true—that the right hon. Gentleman had consulted the bankers and business men of London it would have been only proper had he informed the Committee when discussing the clause and complaining of this particular difficulty that he had in contemplation some alterations of the Bill which would mitigate their objections. What final judgment the Committee ought to come to on the question he would not say, but it was evident that, before the Committee could come to a final decision upon it, they ought to have more information with regard to the practice and intentions of the colonies than they possessed at present. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would obtain that information for them. It was also clear that they must know what the changes were in Clause 8 which the Government intended to introduce, and not until they had that information could the Committee decide how to deal with this question. So far as he was able to judge, the particular plan adopted by the Government for dealing with the property of persons domiciled in England was not a plan well calculated to meet the needs of the Exchequer, and was certainly a plan which would inflict great hardship on the individual. No doubt that kind of property should not escape taxation. It was not a sound policy to differentiate taxation so as to encourage investments abroad, but the plan of the Government was not one of which—as at present advised—he could approve. He should not at present, however, think of voting against it until they had more information. He would ask what alteration the Government proposed to introduce into the Bill?
    MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that he did not feel that he had got quite to the bottom of this matter. He
    128
    agreed that the arguments of the Solicitor General were substantially correct; but he asked why the Government were not going to include real property in the colonies in the Estate Duty? It was true that the law of real property must be the law of the locality, and if they were going to enforce any process which would lead to a process affecting the land it must be done according to the law of the country in which the property was situated. But that was a technical matter which did not at all affect the right to tax the estate of the deceased person because he had chosen to invest a portion of his estate in real property abroad. It prevented their trying to enforce a remedy against the property abroad, but it did not affect the title to levy the tax and get it if they could in respect of other property. Their argument, if it was a good one—and he thought it was a good one—extended as much to taxation of real property abroad as to personal property. There were persons in the House who had invested in large estates in the Colonies. Were those estates to be exempt? The defence of such exemption was as technical as that set up by the Member for Birmingham for the exemption from Estate Duty of a person domiciled abroad. They were debarred from enforcing against the thing itself except by foreign law, but they were not debarred from levying the tax and getting it out of the estate in any way that might be open to them. That was one consequence of the position taken up by his hon. and gallant Friend. But that was not all. There was another point. The proposal opened up the prospect of double taxation, and that ought to be avoided as between this country and the colonies. Just as the Government claimed to tax personal property of a colonist domiciled here, they ought to concede to the Colonial Government the power to tax the property situate in this country of the colonist domiciled in the Colonies. By recognising domicile as the true ground of taxation the mischief of double taxation would be avoided. These considerations were coherent with the main principles laid down by the Government, which he thought substantial and right. The true principle of taxation should be that they should tax the property of a British subject wherever it was situated.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES(loud and continued cries of "Divide!" and counter cries of "Progress!"): I move to report Progress.
    SIR W. HARCODRTsaid, that he thought it was desirable that the discussion should be brought to a close.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he only wished to ask when the right how. Gentleman would put on the Paper the Amendments which he suggested for Clause 8?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope to do so to-morrow.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It is no use going on in this way. I am extremely sorry that we should have spent the whole evening on two Amendments on which hon. Gentlemen opposite did not think it worth while to divide. We are apparently to look forward to a great deal of discussion, and what I cannot help calling very unnecessary talk, for which there was never really any ground. It is not in this House, however, that we can judge finally of the manner in which this Bill has been dealt with.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman, if he meant to concede our request, should have said it in so unnecessarily ungracious a fashion. His complaint is that we have not divided.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: My complaint is that you have put forward Amendments for the purpose of not dividing.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was not what was said, and if it had been said it would not have been true. What were these two Amendments? One dealt with the great question of the relations between realty and personalty, which lies at the very root of this Bill, and it was disposed of in two and a half hours. The other Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman admitted, was most important,
    130
    and he occupied himself about half the time that was devoted to its discussion, and, in my opinion, it need hardly have been discussed at all if he had only made at the beginning of his speech the offer which he made at the end. Two Amendments of this magnitude having been disposed of to-night, and the right hon. Gentleman having been fortunate enough to convince us that it was not necessary to divide upon them, he might, I think, have assented with a better grace to the Motion to report Progress. A more unjustifiable attack than that made by the right how. Gentleman I never heard in my life. I hope he will not try to conduct the futures Debates on this Bill in the spirit which unfortunately animated the last words which he addressed to us.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee be resumed Tomorrow."
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The discussion on Uganda is to have the first place to-morrow, and I would therefore ask whether the discussion of the Finance Bill will be resumed afterwards.
    SIR W. IIARCOURT: Yes, Sir. The consideration of the Bill will be resumed whenever the opportunity presents itself, looking at the way it is being obstructed. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, I withdraw the expression.
    Motion agreed to.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 235.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he moved to report Progress in order to mark the disapproval of the Opposition of the recent observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill was deferred to this day. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Obstruction."]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,)said, he would appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the Motion. It was important that this Bill should pass in the interest of Local Authorities.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was always so conciliatory, and always set such a good example to the Leader of the House, that he could not refuse to accede to his request.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 4.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he must protest against the clause. It would enact that an annuity payable in respect of any advance made to enable a tenant to purchase a holding under the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, should have priority as a charge over any rent-charge on the same holding created under the Land Act of 1881. He objected to the clause, for the reason that it would introduce a retrospective change. He should not oppose the Clause, but would have the Irish Board of Works understand that the Nationalist Members kept a careful eye on these Public Works Loans Bills. It must not be supposed that because the Bills had innocent titles the Irish Members would not carefully scrutinise them.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he was unwilling to give the Board of Works greater powers than they had. He thought the clause required consideration, and moved to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that before the Report stage he would consider whether any Amendment of the clause was advisable.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

    WEMYSS, &c, WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 158.)
    Read the third time, and passed.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—
    Industrial and Provident Societies Act (1893) Amendment Bill, with Amendments.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 235.)
    Considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
    WILD BIRDS' PROTECTION ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 134.)
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

    KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS) COMMITTEE.
    Leave to make a Special Report. Special Report brought up, and read.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 136.]

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (GENERAL REPORTS.)
    Copy presented—of General Report on the Schools in the Metropolitan Division, comprising the District of the School Board for London, the County of Middlesex, and part of Essex for the year 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
    Copies presented—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1380 to 1382 (Italy, United States, and Zanzibar) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    TREATY SERIES (No. 17, 1894).
    Copy preseuted—of Protocol between Great Britain and Italy respecting the Demarcation of their respective Spheres of Influence in Eastern Africa. Signed at Rome, 5th May, 1894 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.