Commons Sitting of 23 May 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS:
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO 1.) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3.) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  Reported, without amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended to be considered to-morrow.

  WESTMINSTER (PARLIAMENT STREET, &c.,) IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
  On the Order for the Adjourned Debate on this Bill,
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE,said, he had hoped the further progress of this Bill would not be inconsistent with the proposals of the Government, but certain points of difficulty had arisen which he feared might be insuperable. He was not in a position yet to make a full statement of the proposals of the Government on the subject; and, therefore, he moved that the Debate be adjourned till next Thursday.
  Debate adjourned.

  CANAL RATES AND CHARGES.
  Resolved,—That all Bills of the present Session to confirm Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, containing the classification of merchandise Traffic, and the schedule of maximum rates, tolls, and charges applicable thereto, should be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, and that a message should be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution and desire their concurrence.—(Mr. Burt.)

  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of the Pilotage Provisional Order Bill,
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis) moved, "That the Bill be read a second time this day six months." The sting of the Bill, he said, lay in the tail, and the tail was ten times as long as the Bill itself. The Bill affected the constitution of the pilotage authority which regulated the charges and conduct of the Thames and Channel pilots. That authority at present was the Committee of Trinity House, than which a better authority for the purpose could not be found. The Bill proposed to give power to the pilots, on one hand, to send an elected representative to the Committee and the shipowners; on the other, also to send a representative. But no proof had been adduced of any laches or misconduct on the part of the present authority, and even if there were a necessity for any alteration it certainly should not be the kind of alteration proposed by this Provisional Order. The Board of Trade apparently contained within its bosom some amateur constitution-monger, some Abbé Siéyes, who occupied his time in inventing an entirely new system of registration and election for the pilotage committee including a system of voting by proxy. If hon. Members would read the schedule to the Bill—the schedule was 10 times as long as the Bill itself—they could not fail to be struck by the extraordinary provisions made therein with respect to the voting. He now came to the merits of the question. Why should a shipowner be added to the Pilotage Committee? It certainly would not be done at the demand of the pilots. They were

  67
  quite contented with the Pilotage Authority as it existed now, and most of the shipowners were also contented with the authority. Pilots were an excellent body of men; more competent men for the performance of the work entrusted to them would not be found in any part of the world. Of the manner in which they performed their duties there were no complaints as far as he could ascertain. But, supposing that any shipowners had complained of the charges made by the pilots, yet, when they considered the expert knowledge that a pilot must have, the constant practice which he needed, the calls that were made upon his energy and endurance, hardly any charges that might be made could be too high. If shipowners complained of these charges he would remind the House that under the system of compulsory pilotage they obtained a most valuable insurance for their ships against damages, because, as long as a ship was compulsorily in charge of a pilot the shipowner was not liable for accidents. Therefore, the pilot's charge covered, not only pilotage, but insurance also. If the charge should be held to be too high, it might become the duty of that House to inquire whether, under the present system, shipowners were not relieved of liability to too great an extent by the presence of a pilot on board ship, and also by the statutory limitation of their liability to £8 a ton for property and £15 a ton for life. Of the possibility of an inquiry of that kind, let shipowners who made complaints beware. He was of opinion that the Trinity House was extremely well fitted to be the pilotage authority. This proposal to introduce into the Trinity Committee a shipowner and a pilot was extremely inept, because it was the duty of the Trinity Committee to hold the balance evenly between the shipowner on the one side, and the pilot on the other, and it followed that no interested person, whether pilot or shipowner, ought to be on the Committee. But let it be assumed for the moment that that objection was overruled, and that it was reasonable to put upon this Pilotage Committee a shipowner and a pilot. The plan would work very unequally. In the first place, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find a pilot who would
  68
  represent all the different pilotage interests. There were seven different classes of pilots included in the London and English Channel Districts, namely, Channel Pilots, Nore Pilots, Watermen, Exempt Pilots, Cinque Ports Pilots, North Channel Pilots, and Rochester Pilots. The interests of the pilots who had their headquarters on the river were not the same as the interests of those whose headquarters were elsewhere. Therefore, if only one pilot were added to the Pilotage Committee, a fair representation of the pilots' interests would not be secured. Another objection to the plan was, that pilots were generally at sea or on the river, doing their work. They had no time to spare for elections, and the pilot who was elected would have no time for attending and sitting on the Pilotage Committee. The shipowner, however, was in a very different position. He lived in London, as a rule, and could always find time to attend the Committee. Therefore, the shipowner who was elected would be able to attend, and the pilot would not, and so the apparent equality produced by electing one shipowner and one pilot would really be non-existent. It might be said that this was a small question affecting only the London and Channel pilots and the London and Channel shipowners. But that was not so. The question affected every vessel that came to these shores in this particular portion of Her Majesty's Dominions, because if they did anything to injure the pilot service or to diminish the fair reward which pilots now got for their arduous and most exacting labour, they would inevitably reduce the number of pilots now available. He still hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would re-consider this matter. No grievance had been alleged, still less made out. The pilots were quite satisfied with the existing pilotage authority, which exercised a most watchful control over them. The majority of shipowners were also satisfied, and no ground whatever had been made out for introducing any change. Therefore he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. DAMPIER PALMERseconded the Amendment. He said that as the Representative of a constituency that contained the chief

  69
  pilotage centre in Great Britain, he should not be justified in giving a silent vote on this subject. There was no doubt that the consideration of this question had been pressed upon the Board of Trade by a body called the General Shipowners' Society of London, which represented, he believed, something under 10 per cent, of the net tonnage coming into the Port of London. It would be interesting to the House to know how matters had arrived at their present stage when the Board of Trade presented their Provisional Order for confirmation. In 1888 there were certain domestic differences between the pilots on the one side and the Pilotage Committee of the Trinity House on the other, and a Committee of that House was appointed for the purpose of making certain inquiries. The result of those inquiries was that the Committee recommended that upon the Pilotage Committee of the Trinity House the pilots themselves should be represented. In order to carry out the recommendations of that Committee, a Bill was introduced in that House in 1889 by the right hon. Member for Bristol and the right hon. Member for Cambridge University. In Committee an Amendment was inserted enabling the Board of Trade to provide for the representation, not only of pilots but also of shipowners if it should seem expedient. Their contention that day was that it was not expedient that representatives of the shipowners should be added to the Pilotage Committee. That Committee exercised not only administrative, but also judicial functions, and it would be highly inadvisable in the public interest that the judicial functions which they exercised should be tainted by the introduction of personal interests, which could not fail to be introduced if representatives of the shipowners and the pilots were added to the Committee. In the public interest it was absolutely essential that that body should remain in its present impartial and unprejudiced position. He knew that it had been suggested that the Trinity House Committee viewed leniently the laches of pilots, but his own experience did not bear out that view. It had been his business occasionally to ask for a reconsideration of the cases of certain pilots, and he had invariably
  70
  been met by this reply from headquarters—
  "We occupy a great public position; it is our duty to insist that the pilots shall do their work thoroughly and well, and we are unable to review the decision which we have arrived at."
  He looked upon the proposal contained in this Bill as a sordid attack made indirectly against men who were pursuing an arduous and responsible calling, who in foul weather and fair carried the lives of those who crossed the Channel in their hands, and who in time of war were liable to be called out to serve in Her Majesty's ships in the defence of our shores.
  *MR. MELLORsaid, that in his opinion this was not the right stage at which to take objection to the Bill—whether the criticisms of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, were right or wrong. He thought it would be an unfortunate step for the House to take to refuse to allow the Bill to be considered by a Committee. It certainly would be unfortunate if it came to be the practice to reject Bills so full of details as this one on the Second Reading. He thought all Members of the House would agree that the Private Bill Committees did their work in an extremely satisfactory way, and he was not at all convinced by the speeches that had been made that any other course could be taken with regard to this Bill than to allow it to follow the usual course.
  MR. R. U. PENROSE-FITZGERALDsaid, that up to a late hour last night he had been inclined to agree with the President of the Board of Trade on this matter; but that day they had not heard a single word, either from any Member of the Government or from any one of the promoters of the Bill, as to its necessity or advisability. What was the case with regard to this Bill? In 1888 a large committee sat upstairs, and that committee, after hearing witnesses from Gravesend, from Ireland, and from Scotland—witnesses in favour of and against; the choice pilotage system, witnesses for and against allowing masters and mates to hold pilot certificates—came to a deliberate decision as follows:—
  "Looking to the dissatisfaction which exists under this head, as well as under that relating to the management and disposal of the various

  71
  funds maintained for the benefit of the pilots and their families, your Committee are of opinion that the best way to meet these difficulties would be by the direct representation of pilots on all pilotage boards. They recommend that such representation should consist of not more than four in each case, the men eligible for election to be acting pilots of not less than eight years' service, or retired pilots of good character."
  There was not one word of recommendation for placing on the Pilotage Committee of Trinity House any representative of the shipowners. He was very much struck on the Committee with the straightforwardness and fairness with which they were always met by large shipowners when they advocated the interests of the pilots, and he did not complain of their conduct; but it was another matter to alter the constitution of the body which managed pilotage matters in this country. It was proposed to give the pilots voting power, but they could not vote when they were hove to in the Channel; whereas the shipowners would have no difficulty in electing their representative. There were nine or ten various conflicting interests connected with the pilotage system in the English Channel. Probably the point of all others which would be most acutely contested between shipowners and pilots would be the question of choice pilots, and that was not mentioned in the Schedule. In Trinity House there was a body able to carry on their business from year to year no matter what Party was in office; and though he spoke of the Board of Trade and all connected with it with great respect, he would much rather see this matter of pilotage kept in the hands of a non-political body like Trinity House than in those of a body like the Board of Trade, which must be swayed from this side to that. His belief was that the wheel system would be better maintained if it was kept as clear as possible from anything like the shadow of Party politics. Unless he heard from the Secretary to the Board of Trade some good reason to the contrary, he should vote for the Motion to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill.
  SIR T. SUTHERLANDsaid, his hon. Friend who had just addressed the House, and the speakers who had preceded him, appeared to be somewhat anxious to make out that the object
  72
  of this Bill was in some way or other to damage the position of pilots. The object of the Bill was nothing of the kind. No man in the House had greater reason for trying to do justice to the pilot than he had, and he would be the last person to support a Bill which would damage the service. He believed the result of the Bill would be to increase the efficiency of the service, and it would do so by admitting a certain amount of daylight in connection with its working. He was very much surprised that the Bill should be opposed by the Elder Brethren of Trinity House. There could be no doubt whatever that there was great room for reform in the pilotage service in the channel and in the river, and that the Bill now before the House was a step in the right direction. Those who were the taxpayers, if he might use the expression in this matter, ought to have a voice in the arrangement of the service. The company with which he was connected paid something like £8,000 or £10,000 a year in connection with pilotage in the Channel and the river Thames, and he claimed a right to have a voice in the management of the service. At the present moment there were pilots engaged in the service of Trinity House who were earning more than the captains of ships which had travelled 70,000 or 80,000 miles in the course of the year. He contended that some daylight ought to be let in on the pilotage system as it at present existed, and the best way to do that would be by admitting shipowners to representation on pilotage boards. He did not think himself for a moment that the pilots would refuse to send a representative. He believed that the opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill did not proceed from the pilots, but from the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, whose action he could not account for.
  MR. W. CROSFIELDsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member into the many points suggested by the valuable information in the Blue Book, but he desired to say, from his experience of a body whose duties were somewhat similar to those of the Trinity Board, that a representation of pilots and shipowners analogous to that proposed by this Provisional Order, had been in operation for many years in connection

  73
  with the pilotage authority of the River Mersey. Shipowners had been for many years represented on the Committee which had special charge of pilotage in the area of the Mersey; and since the issue of the Report of the Committee the pilots too had had full representation—some people thought rather too much. There was no difficulty in the selection of suitable men to represent their brethren who were concerned in pilotage operations in the Mersey. He believed that the clause contained in this Order was one which would be easy in operation, and would be of great value.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, that no one had told them why the Bill was introduced, and on whose behalf; and an hon. Member had said he was not aware that the pilots had spoken. In his hand he held a closely argued protest against the Bill signed by 244 pilots, who would not have objected so strenuously to the Bill if they had not felt that it would do them some damage. Therefore, there was a question of principle involved which it was for the House to determine on the Second Reading. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would tell them who wanted the Bill and who had asked for it, seeing that the pilots were against it and are content with the existing authority who managed the pilotage of the Thames. The Committee of this House who examined into the whole question reported in favour of pilots being represented in two respects; but that conclusion did not apply to the present case. The area of the Thames, with which the Bill dealt, was not an area which came under the representation of the Committee. The recommendation applied to certain other ports, and no doubt rightly to the case of the Mersey. No one had shown that the representation of pilots was desirable or necessary in the Thames area. Then the Committee recommended that there should be a representation of shipowners because they contributed to the funds; but that did not apply in the Thames area to shipowners and pilots who did not contribute. It was therefore for the Government to show why there should be any interference with a pilotage authority for a large area with whose management no fault had been found. In no part of the world was pilotage conducted on better
  74
  or more economical principles than it was in the Thames district, and it would be interesting to hear what were the motives of those who were promoting the Bill.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)said, the House would have gathered that the matter was very much one of detail, and evidently fitted for the consideration of a Committee, and he hoped the House would not depart from its uniform practice by allowing the question to be decided on ex-parte statements made in a Second Reading Debate. The Bill in no sense derogated from the importance of Trinity House, and he desired to pay emphatic tribute to the ability, zeal, and wisdom, with which the authorities of Trinity House discharged their functions. In that case they had to deal with a statute which appeared to contemplate the representation upon pilotage authorities of pilots as well as shipowners. Under the statute, orders had been made in a number of cases for putting on the authorities, in some cases shipowners, on some pilots, and in some cases both; and no difficulties whatever had arisen in conducting the election of representatives. The demand for the measure came from the shipowners of the port of London, who were a large and influential body. After careful consideration he came to the conclusion that the shipowners made out a primâ facie case for examination, and in these circumstances he considered it was the duty of the Board of Trade, in accordance with the statute, to facilitate the passing of a Provisional Order. [Mr. T. GIBSON BOWLES: "What was the case generally?"] It had been stated by the hon. Member for Greenock, who, speaking on behalf of the shipowners, said that they paid pilotage dues, and desired that their interest in pilotage should be represented. The shipowners asked for two representatives, and if they got them, it would be necessary to give the pilots two; but it was proposed to give one to the shipowners, one to the pilots, and four to Trinity House. Therefore it was clear that neither the shipowners would have an opportunity of altering the policy pursued, and all that they would be able to do would be to state directly to the Pilotage Authority what their interests were. It was not

  75
  an unreasonable demand that they should be able to do that; and it seemed to him to be a matter in which the House ought to trust the judgment of a Committee. There was no political element whatever in the matter.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid, he had only remarked that he much preferred that pilotage laws and regulations should be in the hands of the Trinity House, rather than in those of the Board whose President changed with the Government.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, the Committee had nothing to do with the business; it did not act in it at all, and it was not represented on the Pilotage Authority. The Bill ought to go to a Committee, so that the claim might be patiently investigated; and if anyone desired to nominate Members of special qualification, he saw no objection to their doing so. If any questions of principle were not dealt with satisfactorily by the Committee they could be raised on the Third Reading of the Bill.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTERsubmitted that the question involved was not a question of detail at all. So far as the pilots were concerned, no one who knew anything about them pretended that they wanted any representation; that they were practically unanimous was shown by the fact that out of 270 pilots over 240 had signed that protest against the Bill, and the remaining 30 were not in the port at the time the document was signed. This was not a Bill introduced by the shipowners on their own account; but it was a procedure by which the Board of Trade took up the case of the shipowners by embodying a Provisional Order in a public Bill. He distrusted this claim very much.
  MR. BRYCE: It is under the statute that shipowners claim representation; we put in the pilots also.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The right hon. Gentleman said the shipowners demanded it.
  MR. BRYCE: Some of the pilots, too. [Cries of "Name!"]
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that those of them who had been consulted by the pilots had not the slightest reason to suppose that there was a single pilot who desired it. This was a matter of principle, and it was their duty to challenge
  76
  an alteration which they believed to be uncalled for. There was not the least analogy between Liverpool and London. In the case of Liverpool, the pilotage boats were taken over by the Dock Board, and it was obvious that the transference involved some representation of the pilots. With all deference to the President of the Board of Trade, the opinion of the House must be taken upon this Provisional Order, which was put forward for the shipowners and not for the pilots.
  MR. J. H. MOORSOMremarked that he was reluctant to say a word against a Bill promoted by the Board of Trade, but he had been asked on behalf of the pilots to oppose this Bill. Where a primâ facie case for reform had been made out he agreed that reform should be considered, but not a single particular had been mentioned in which reform was necessary.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he had explained fully that, the shipowners being largely interested in these Rules, should have an opportunity of stating their views to the Pilotage Authority.
  MR. MOORSOM, resuming, said, that under the existing system, the shipowners could suggest their grievances, but they had not done so. He hoped the House would reject this proposal, and not give a Committee.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes, 153.—(Division List No. 99.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether he would consent to the Bill, after it had been read a Second time, being referred to a hybrid Committee.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that he was perfectly willing that that course should be adopted.
  Bill read 2°.

  PILOTAGE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM.
  Copy presented,—of Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 160, of Session 1894), as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 275.]
  GAS AND WATER WORKS FACILITIES ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented,—of Report by the Board of Trade as to dispensing with the Consents of Local and Road Authorities in the case of certain Gas and Water Provisional Orders [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LAND IN WALES AND MONMOUTH SHIRE (ROYAL COMMISSION.)
  Copy presented,—of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Royal Commission, with Appendix of Documents, Vol. IV. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1895–6 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT.)
  Estimate presented,—showing the several Services for which a further Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March 1896 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 276.]
  CIVIL SERVICES ADDITIONAL ESTI MATE, 1895–6) (BRITISH EAST AFRICA).
  Estimate presented,—of the Amount required in the year ending 31st March 1896 as a Grant to the Imperial British East Africa Company on their Retirement from East Africa [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 277.]
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1891.)
  Copy presented,—of Return of Advances, under the Act, during the year ended 31st March 1895 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 278.]

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  Copy ordered,—
  "of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Order included in the Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill."—(Mr. Burt.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 279.]

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARAN TEE (BANAVIE TO MALLAIG LINE).
  Copy ordered—
  "of Correspondence relating to the West Highland Railway Guarantee (Banavie to Mallaig Line)."—(Sir John Hibbert.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 280.]

QUESTIONS.

  STOLEN PROPERTY.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Procurator Fiscal of Inverary refuses to return to Mr. James Findlay a watch of which he was robbed on the 5th of August 1891 at Tarbert, and for the theft of which the thief (who had in the meantime pawned the watch and sold the ticket) was in September of the same year sentenced to two months' imprisonment, notwithstanding the fact that security has been offered by the owner in view of any claim that may arise against him; whether anything has been done in the matter since the 7th of August 1893, when he said he was taking steps which he hoped would result in Mr. Findlay obtaining possession of the watch without delay; and whether he will take further steps to ensure the return to its owner of the watch, which has now been detained by the Procurator Fiscal for over three and three-quarter years?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,: I have again caused inquiry to be made into this matter, and am informed that, in addition to Mr. Findlay, there are two other claimants to the watch in question. Mr. Findlay has not offered to secure the Procurator Fiscal against liability in a manner which the Fiscal regards as placing him in a safe position. If he gives such security, or obtains an Order for its delivery from a Court, the Procurator Fiscal will hand over the watch to him. He has been advised that he cannot safely part with the watch until the owner has established

  79
  his right to it in a Court of law. This might be done by a very simple and inexpensive process, and until Mr. Findlay adopts this course, I cannot say that the Procurator Fiscal is bound to deliver the watch to him.

  DREDGINGS DISCHARGED IN THE MERSEY.
  COLONEL COTTON-JODRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the discharge of mud hoppers into the Mersey and into adjacent channels thereof, and to the great increase, of late, of stench and of insanitary deposits on the shores at low water adjacent to Seacombe, Egremont, and New Brighton; and whether, if such be the case, he can take steps to cause the dredgings to be discharged in deeper water?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,: No complaint of the nature suggested in the question of the hon. Member has reached the Board of Trade, but I understand that the subject to which he refers is engaging the serious and constant attention of the Harbour Authority, and of the Acting Conservator of the Mersey. Apart from the amount of silt dredged from the Docks, which is discharged in the centre of the river, I am informed that the sewage of the large and increasing population named by the hon. Member is discharged on the foreshore of the Mersey considerably above low water mark, which is more likely to produce the inconvenience complained of than the deposit of dredged silt in the centre of the river.

  FRENCH SHIPBUILDING BOUNTIES.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the recent Report of Her Majesty's Consul at St. Nazaire, that owing to the bounty allowed by the French Government on shipbuilding in France, contracts which would otherwise have been given to British shipbuilding yards have been withdrawn; and if he can suggest any remedy for a state of affairs so detrimental to British labour, or bring any influence to bear on the French Government to terminate this system of bounties?
  MR. BRYCE: I have seen the Report referred to. Other Reports seem to show that such increased activity as there may be in shipbuilding in France is chiefly due to requirements of the French Government for its naval purposes. It is entirely a matter for the French Government whether they should give bounties to their own shipbuilders, and I do not think that any representation from a foreign Power upon the subject would have any effect.

  REPAIR OF METROPOLITAN ROADS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he is aware that several of the local authorities in London are employing foreign workmen in paving the thoroughfares under their control with a substance peculiarly dangerous to horse traffic in a damp climate; and, if he will issue a circular to the vestries and other bodies pointing out that the best means of relieving the serious distress arising from want of employment lies in the engagement of British labour?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central): The Local Government Board have no information whatever on the subject referred to in the question. It is within the discretion of the local authorities in London to decide as to the material which they will use in paving the roads, and as to the workmen which they deem it necessary to employ in laying down the material decided upon. The Board have no authority to interfere in the matter.

  CYCLING IN HYDE PARK.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will make arrangements for permitting bicycles and tricycles to be ridden, subject to proper regulations, in Hyde Park before the hour of 10 a.m.?
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state if any decision has been arrived at to permit cycling in Hyde Park?
  *MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: In answer to these questions, I have to say that His Royal Highness the

  81
  Ranger has consented to an alteration of the Park Rules so as to give cyclists the use of the carriage roads in Hyde Park from the how of opening until 10 a.m. The regulations necessary for safeguarding the general public interests will he made. The new privilege cannot be exercised until the expiration of 40 days after notice of the new rules shall have been given in the London Gazette, as provided by the Rules Publication Act of 1893. Steps will be taken to publish the notice as soon as possible.

  BRADFORD BARRACKS.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he has yet decided whether Bradford Barracks is to constitute the headquarters of a regiment; and, if not, to what purposes are they to be devoted?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): For the present, Bradford Barracks will be occupied by three companies of the battalion which has its headquarters at Sheffield.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had decided that the troops should be quartered in manufacturing towns on the ground of military efficiency.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On the ground of general efficiency.

  COMPLAINT AGAINST AN INDIAN DISTRICT MAGISTRATE.
  MR. W. S. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to an official inquiry into the complaint of Taran Chunder Bose v. Aijuddy and others, held at Faridpore, and reported in the Indian journals of 24th April; is he aware that it is stated in the official report that the said Taran Chunder Bose charged Aijuddy and two others with robbery before the Deputy Magistrate, who submitted to the District Magistrate that the evidence justified a prosecution; that the District Magistrate not only refused to prosecute Aijuddy and his accomplices, but ordered that Taran Chunder Bose should be prosecuted under section 211, I.P.C., for instituting a false case; that, on application to the
  82
  High Court by Taran Chunder Bose, this order was not only set aside, but the District Magistrate was ordered to send up Aijuddy and his fellow-robbers for trial at the sessions; that eventually the persons accused of robbery were all convicted, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court on appeal; and whether, in view of the fact that the District Magistrate who refused to prosecute was the same gentleman who, as District Magistrate at Balladhun, was severely censured by the Calcutta High Court, and afterwards by the Viceroy in Council, for his conduct in the Balladhun murder case, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. HENRY FOWLER, Wolverhampton): My attention has not been called to this case, but my hon. Friend has favoured me with an extract from the newspaper on which he relies. I am not in a position to say whether the statements contained in that newspaper are correct, but I will refer the allegations to the Government of India, who are the proper authority to deal with matters of this description.

  CONSUMPTION OF OPIUM AND BHANG IN CEYLON.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Secretary of State has yet received from the Governor of Ceylon the Report on the consumption in the Colony of opium and bhang, promised in a letter from the Secretary of State written to the secretary to the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade; if so, has any action been taken with regard to it; and will he lay the Report and all Correspondence relating to it upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): Reports have been received from the Governor of Ceylon regarding the consumption of opium and bhang in that Colony, but before deciding what action, if any, should be taken on those reports, the Secretary of State has been awaiting the issue of the reports of the Royal Commission on Opium and of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission. Those two reports having now been received,

  83
  the Secretary of State hopes to address the Governor of Ceylon very shortly on the subject, and the correspondence, as soon as it is complete, will be presented to Parliament.

  WATER SUPPLY OF PARISHES.
  MR. F. PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases where ponds have been set aside for the water supply of parishes in enclosure awards and Parish Councils decide to utilise these ponds for drinking water, the Councils have any and what power to prevent traction engines entering, fouling, and taking water from such ponds; and, if they have no power, whether County Councils have power to make bye-laws to regulate the conduct of traction engines with regard to such ponds?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am not aware that either a Parish Council or a County Council have any power in the matter referred to.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAAR AND PEMBA.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Government has been called to that part of Mr. Hardinge's Report to the Foreign Office, dated Zanzibar, 13th March, 1895, whether he estimates that in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba from 50,000 to 78,000 slaves are illegally held; and, what steps the Government propose taking that slaves held illegally in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba may regain their freedom?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): I have to point out that, in giving the figures quoted, Mr. Hardinge observes that it cannot be too carefully borne in mind that all such calculations are mere guesswork, but the whole subject is still under consideration.

  PORTRANE LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Control of Lunatic Asylums
  84
  in Ireland invited 12 architects to submit anonymously designs for the proposed Portrane Lunatic Asylum; that the letter of conditions inviting competition stated, amongst other things, that a committee of selection would select not more than three out of the 12 competitors, and place them in order of merit; that the committee of selection did select three, and stated that they were of equal merit; that the Board of Control thereupon obtained estimates upon the three designs, and when they were obtained adopted the design which would cost, according to the official surveyor's report, £30,000 more than one, and £48,000 more than the other, of the designs which had been adjudged by the committee of selection to be of equal merit with that adopted, thus imposing a grave additional burden upon the ratepayers; that the methods pursued in the conduct of the competition for designs and in their selection have been condemned by the Council of the Institute of Architects of Ireland, as violating certain fundamental conditions regulating the competition, on the faith of which generally the competitors submitted their designs for adjudication; that they hold that, in view of the facts, no adjudication has taken place within the meaning of the conditions; and whether representations will be addressed to the Board on the subject, with a view to their adopting steps for holding a fresh competition?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): The Board of Control did invite 12 architects to submit, anonymously, designs for the proposed Asylum at Portrane. In the "Instructions" for the competition it was stated that the Board of Control would appoint a committee of selection to select not more than three of the designs sent in, which they considered of merit, and to place them in the order af merit. The committee having examined the plans, &c., made a report, which has been communicated to the competitors, and the Board of Control then considered it necessary to get an approximate estimate prepared by an independent surveyor of each of the designs selected by the committee of selection. It was found that the two less costly of the designs would

  85
  have required very extensive remodelling, which would in one ease have increased the cost considerably. In the third and more costly design an amount of accommodation had been provided in excess of that in the other two, or more than was considered necessary, the reduction of which to what was necessary would reduce the cost by about £30,000 without varying the general design, which the Board considered in many respects of great merit and well suited to the site. With this reduction there will not be, as alleged, any additional burden thrown on the ratepayers by carrying out the particular design which the Board have selected. The Council of the Institute of Irish Architects did express an opinion as stated in the question. The selection having been made, and the architect instructed to prepare the working designs, there can be no further competition.

  SEED SUPPLY ACT, ARRAN ISLANDS.
  MR. D. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has received an extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of the Board of Guardians of Galway Union, at its meeting of the 15th instant, from which it appears that the Guardians took all necessary steps to put the Seed Supply Act into operation in Arran Islands; (2) whether he is aware that upwards of 80 persons applied for seed, and were informed that, not being rated, they could not be supplied unless they gave security; (3) whether Dr. Clements, Local Government Inspector, reported to the Board that a number of persons who were in a very poor condition on the Islands were in the position of squatters; (4) whether he is aware that it is only by a free grant of seed or by employment on relief works that these people could be relieved; (5) and whether the Government will take steps, either by an immediate free grant of seed or by the opening of relief works, to save these people from impending starvation?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have received the communication referred to in the first paragraph and understand that the facts are as stated in the second paragraph. Dr. Clements reported that a number of the fishermen on the islands
  86
  were cottiers. The Local Government Board inform me that the potato crop on the islands last year was undoubtedly a good one and that the relieving officer reported to the Guardians in October last that the people never had a better crop. Nearly all the tenants on the islands, with perhaps one or two exceptions, are reputed to have planted their potatoes some weeks ago. There is a reduction of 30 per cent. in the numbers receiving outdoor relief as compared with the corresponding period of last year, and only one landholder, who is sick, is now in receipt of relief. The Board advise me that the circumstances of the people would not justify the opening of relief works.

  WOODFORD MAGISTRACY, IRELAND.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has he made any further inquiries whether an estate bailiff, named Moran, employed by Lord Clanricarde, occupied a seat on the Bench at the Petty Sessions Court held at Woodford on the 13th instant; from whom, besides Colonel Longbourne, R.M., who presided, has he sought for information; does Colonel Longbourne still adhere to his statement that no one but the Magistrates sat on the Bench; and will an opportunity be afforded the hon. Member for East Galway, who was present in Court on the above day, on sworn evidence, to prove that the bailiff Moran sat on the Bench during the holding of the Court?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Colonel Long-bourne now informs me that Moran, though not employed as a bailiff, is employed in some other capacity in the office of Lord Clanricarde's agent. It further appears that Moran stood for a short time on the Bench at Woodford Petty Sessions Court on the date mentioned, and that he was there at the invitation, not of Colonel Longbourne, but of Lord Clanricarde's agent, who was one of the Magistrates presentation the occasion. I am not aware that there is any means of preventing a Magistrate from inviting to the Bench any person whom he pleases, but, at the same time, I am of opinion that it is objectionable, having regard to the relations existing between landlord and tenant, that any

  87
  person employed as Moran is, in his agent's office, should occupy a place on the Bench of a courthouse.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken any notice of the difference between the information supplied by Colonel Longbourne, when the hon. Gentleman asked the question a few days ago, and the statement now made?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No doubt there is a discrepancy between the two statements, but I understand that it is not very considerable, because the person in question only stood upon the Bench for a few minutes.
  MR. T. M. HEALYwas understood to ask if the right hon. Gentleman would lay before the House the sources of the information supplied to him on the last occasion and then.
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he did not think he could do so.
  MR. SHEEHY: Was not this man Moran armed with a rifle?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. CYRIL DODD: Will an opportunity be accorded to Colonel Longbourne for an explanation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will put the case before him.
  MR. T. SEXTON: Did Colonel Longbourne, in his first reply, stating that Moran was not a bailiff, concede the fact that he was in the employment of Lord Clanricarde?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure. Of course, it is not my business to know what the man's employment is, but I do not think he was, in any sense, employed by Lord Clanricarde.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of giving him a change of air at once?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. T. M. HEALY, in rising to put a further question, was met with cries of "Order!"
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had already called upon Mr. Kearley.

  MARINES' WHITE CLOTHING.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that marines on embarkation are still charged for
  88
  white clothing, notwithstanding the promise recently made that such practice should be discontinued?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH, Lancashire, N.E., Clitheroe,): Yes, Sir. Until a new Order in Council could be obtained the old system has necessarily gone on.

  NAVAL WARRANT OFFICERS.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can explain why the claims of the warrant officers of the Navy, which he assured the House more than a year since were then under consideration by the Admiralty, and as to which he hoped to be able in a short time to make an announcement which would be regarded as satisfactory, have not been dealt with; whether he is aware that the Civil Lord has recently stated that the question has taken a new turn, and is engaging the consideration of the Admiralty with a view of the whole question being reconsidered; and whether he can now announce the present position of affairs?
  *SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: I am able to confirm the statements on the subject of warrant officers which we have made from time to time. It is a large and important subject, a decision on which cannot be hurried. Meanwhile, the consideration which I said last year was being given to the question of an increase of numbers of warrant officers has resulted in an addition of about 100 by the present year's Estimates.

  DISCHARGE OF A LUNATIC SOLDIER.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Robert Lyons, alleged to be a native of Castlerea, County Roscommon, who enlisted in Manchester in 1888, and was discharged on the 6th instant owing to insanity, and sent under escort by the Commandant of Netley Hospital to Castlerea Workhouse; and whether he will recommend that soldiers discharged under such circumstances be committed to a military asylum, and not returned to an Irish union to which they either did, not belong or had left many years before?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The proceedings in this case appear to have been quite in accordance with the section of the Army Act which relates to the discharge of lunatic soldiers. Castlerea was given in the man's attestation as his place of birth.

  MATACONG.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, when the Island of Matacong was taken possession of by France in consequence of its cession under the Convention of 1882, confirmed by the Agreement of 1889, the French Government must be taken to have had notice of the existence of private proprietary rights in the island belonging to British subjects; (2) whether the French Government, in the desire impartially to investigate these private rights, decided that particular claims must be proved before the local tribunals, and the proofs demanded in this case were duly delivered to the French Authorities in June 1893; and (3) whether the French Government have yet reported to Her Majesty's Government what is the decision that has been arrived at; if not, whether any steps can be taken to expedite a settlement, seeing that it is two years since the legal inquiry was commenced?
  *SIR E. GREY: No special reservation of private proprietary rights was ever made, but the French Government have never denied that such rights would be valid if they could be properly proved. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. No decision has yet been, given by the French Government on the papers submitted to them.
  In reply to a further question by Sir G. BADEN-POWELL,
  *SIR E. GREYsaid, the question had formed the subject of communications to the French Government, who were quite aware of the desire that a decision should he come to.

  TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT, DUBLIN.
  DR. J. E. KENNY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is his intention, when making promotions (some of which are
  90
  six months in abeyance)necessary to fill the seven vacancies existing in the Telegraph Department, Dublin, he will make the salaries of the newly appointed officers retrospective, and promote to the assistant superintendent's class the officer who stands first on the list of the next lower class; also if it is his intention to select the most senior men in the class of first class telegraphists for the vacancies in the clerks' class, if they possess the requisite qualifications as to character and ability; whether, having regard to the fact that many of those now standing at the head of the lists of first and second class telegraphists, who have been lately passed over for promotion owing to their lack of technical knowledge and operating skill respectively, have had no opportunity of acquiring this knowledge, he will take into account their long service; and whether, if he finds himself unable to promote them to a higher class, he will consider their case with a view to giving them some equivalent for promotion?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The promotions to which the hon. Member refers were made a few days ago, and will be announced immediately. They will take effect from the date of my decision, and not retrospectively. It was a matter of great regret to me not to be able to promote the officers who stood at the head of their respective classes, and I am sure the hon. Member will understand it is out of my power to compensate those who have been passed over.

  ORDNANCE STORE DEPARTMENT.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the duties to be performed by the Artillery officers whom it is proposed to place over the heads of officers now serving in the Ordnance Store Department are duties which cannot be adequately performed by the officers whom it is proposed to supersede; whether the War Office intend to recoup the increased expenditure involved in the appointment of these new officers at enhanced rates of pay, by substituting quartermasters for regimental officers in the junior ranks of the Department;

  91
  whether it has been the invariable custom of the Department to allow all such regimental officers, if efficient, to re-engage in the Ordnance Store Department on completion of their term of service; whether such regimental officers have been debarred from competing for Staff College appointments during the period of their service with the Ordnance Store Department; and whether it is contemplated to extend the age limit during which they may be allowed to compete, so as to place them on an equality with other officers in their respective regiments?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The details of the proposed reorganisation of the Ordnance Store Department are still under consideration, but I may say that one great object in view is to bring the Department into a condition in which the most intimate knowledge of artillery details will be available in working it. With this view one or two experienced artillery officers may be brought in in the higher ranks, but as those ranks will be correspondingly augmented the promotion of officers below them will not be seriously interfered with. Although the reorganisation may cause some immediate increase of expenditure, the normal cost of the Department will be much reduced; and this reduction is effected—as suggested by the hon. Member's question—by substituting officers of the quartermaster class for regimental officers. As regards regimental officers now serving in the Department, those in the second period of seven years may, if thoroughly efficient, be selected for continuance; those in their first period, also, if found efficient, may be continued for a period not exceeding two years. In the past, an efficient officer might be continued, but he could not claim continuance as a right. While serving he was not allowed to compete for admission to the Staff College. It is not contemplated to extend the age for admission to the Staff College.
  In reply to a further question by MR. ELLIOTT LEES,
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, it was a matter of policy interpreted by the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General, who were the
  92
  most competent judges. They considered it would be beneficial.
  MR. ELLIOTT LEES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have explained the reason why those officers should be placed over the heads of officers now serving.

  PAUPER REMOVAL.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen the report of a case in which an application was made for a warrant for the removal of an old woman named Gordon to a Galway Union to which it was alleged she belonged, although it was stated that she had been in this country for 40 years; and whether any similar power exists for the transference of English paupers to their native place from Irish Unions; if not, whether steps will be taken to assimilate the law in this respect between the two countries?
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I have not seen any report of the case referred to. There is at present no power to remove paupers from Ireland to England, corresponding to the power to remove them from England to Ireland. I understand that the question of amendment of the law on the subject is under the consideration of the Irish Secretary.

  NEWRY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. PATRICK CARVILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that the Newry Board of Guardians, having advertised for a trained hospital nurse with a certificate in midwifery, appointed to the office a spinster of 25 years of age, who admittedly had no training as a hospital nurse and was without the specified certificate in midwifery, and that the Local Government Board, with these facts clearly before it, confirmed the appointment; (2) whether it is the practice of the Local Government Board, before approving of an appointment made by a Board of Guardians, to see that the selected candidate has the required qualifications; (3) if, in view of the vital importance of the duties to be discharged, he will state

  93
  whether there was any neglect in this matter, and if not, what considerations weighed with the Local Government Board in ratifying the appointment; (4) if the Local Government Board informed itself of the fact that another candidate, Mrs. French, had the required training and certificate, and that the accepted and unqualified candidate is a Protestant, while the rejected and fully qualified one is a Catholic; (5) whether the competence of the person appointed has since become a subject of correspondence between the Local Government Board and the Board of Guardians; and (6) whether, instead of allowing this nurse to hold the appointment and to go to some institution where she may become properly qualified, as appears to be contemplated, either the Board of Guardians will be asked to insist on her resignation, or failing that, the Local Government Board will consider the propriety of ordering her removal from office and the immediate appointment of the properly qualified candidate?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The Local Government Board confirmed the election of Miss Fenn to the office in question, on consideration of the replies to the usual queries and of her testimonials, which showed she had had considerable experience both in nursing and midwifery. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. There was no neglect in this instance, the Board having satisfied themselves that the person elected was competent to discharge the duties of the office. The Board have no information as to the qualifications or religious views of the other candidates. It would appear Miss Fenn is a Protestant. The Medical Officer of the workhouse suggested to the Guardians the desirability of her receiving some further training in midwifery, but the Guardians decided not to consider the matter further. The Local Government Board see no reason for requiring this nurse to resign her position, as they have no grounds for believing she is not qualified to discharge her duties. There is no obligation on a Board of Guardians to insist that nurses shall possess certificates in midwifery, and as a matter of fact very few workhouse nurses possess this qualification.

  PARCELS TO CHINA AND JAPAN.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Parcels Post Convention between Germany and Japan came into operation on the 1st January 1895; whether a British parcel addressed to Japan must at present be conveyed by this service (first going to Hamburg, and then being shipped back again through the English Channel) with a minimum charge of 5s.; whether the charge for a parcel to various parts of China, sent by British steamships and carried viâ Hong Kong, is 10d. only; and whether, now that peace has been concluded between China and Japan, and a British line of steamships connects Canada with Japan, he will endeavour to establish a cheap and rapid parcel and pattern postal service to Yokohama, viâ the Canadian Pacific Railway and steamship service?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: The minimum charge at present for a parcel is 5s. to Japan and 10d. to China, as stated in the question, though I should add that in the one case the charge covers a weight of three pounds, while in the other of one pound only. The negociations with the Japanese Government are proceeding satisfactorily, but it is not yet possible to say what route will prove to be the best for the proposed Parcel Post. I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave on the same subject on the 7th June 1894, and on the 15th of February last.

  QUEENSLAND.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a despatch has been received from the Governor of Queensland respecting an interview which His Excellency had with a number of influential residents of the central division of that Colony at Rockhampton on 1st April; whether he is aware that in the address presented to His Excellency on that occasion it was affirmed that the desire of the inhabitants of Central Queensland for the concession of local self-government was becoming stronger and more profound as the absolute necessity for it became more apparent, and that considerable disappointment was felt at the delay of the Imperial Government in giving effect to that

  95
  desire; and, whether any of the obstacles that were cited as preventing the immediate creation of a new Colony in Central Queensland when the Secretary of State for the Colonies last received a deputation on the subject, have since been removed?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No despatch from the Governor of Queensland has been received in regard to the matter mentioned in the question, of later date than the 30th March. If further despatches are received they will, of course, receive due consideration.

  TEMPLEMORE BARRACKS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether any decision has yet been arrived at with respect to the future occupation of the Templemore Barracks?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As at present advised it is not intended to make a permanent occupation of Templemore Barracks by regular troops. The head-quarters of the Tipperary Militia Artillery will remain there.

  GUN LICENCE.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds was Mr. Thomas Mulvahill refused a gun licence by the Resident Magistrate of the district?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Inquiry has been made in the County Galway on the assumption that the person referred to resides there, but no such application has been refused by the Resident Magistrates of that county. If the hon. Gentleman will supply me with particulars to enable the case to be identified further inquiry will at once be made.

  EXPENSES OF IRISH WITNESSES.
  MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, why the witnesses from Woodford, who had to attend on subpœna the Cork Winter Assize on two occasions, have not been paid their expenses; and, whether, having regard to the fact that they are all poor men, he will see that the Crown Solicitor be directed to pay them their expenses?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have asked the Crown Solicitor to report why the witnesses referred to have not been paid their expenses in this case.

  MOUNT CHARLES QUARRIES, COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the cutting of the hill near Mount Charles, County Donegal, for which he stated a presentment had been passed, is a cutting for the purpose of facilitating carriage from the pier and not from the freestone quarries near Mount Charles; whether he has received a memorial adopted at a meeting held in Mount Charles on the 21st January last, and signed by the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, and Methodist clergymen, poor law guardians, and magistrates of the district, informing him of the severe distress prevalent in the district, and asking means to relieve it; and, whether, having regard to the prevailing distress, and the benefit likely to accrue to the quarrying industry, he will consider whether public works can be instituted for cutting the hill between the quarries and the pier and railway station
  MR. JOHN MORLLY: In replying to my hon. Friend's previous question of the 16th instant on this subject, I stated that I had directed the Local Government Board Inspector to make further inquiry as to the alleged existence of exceptional distress in the locality mentioned. Pending the receipt of the Inspector's Report I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question. If he will repeat it on Tuesday next I hope to be then in a position to given him an answer.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked if the right hon. Gentleman had not been misinformed?
  [No answer was given.]

  MOHILL UNION, IRELAND.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state if any public money will be expended in starting drainage works in the Breandrum Division of the Mohill

  97
  Union; whether, as the rivers in that district are now nearly dry, the sinking of the beds of these rivers could be done at a comparatively small cost; and, whether, in view of the distress in the locality, he will be prepared to recommend that these drainage works be started, and steps be taken to assist the efforts of the chairman of the Local Drainage Board in the matter?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that there is no exceptional distress in this locality such as to justify the opening of relief works and under these circumstances the drainage works referred to could not be undertaken as relief works.

  DRAWING IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
  *MR. C. B. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the total number of passes under the Science and Art Drawing Examination in Elementary Schools in England and Wales, in the year ending 31st August 1891 was 5,128, and in the year ending 31st August 1894 was 18,510, an increase of about 260 per cent., whereas the passes under the Science and Art Drawing Examination in Scotland rose from 725 in the year ending 31st August 1891 to 965 in the year ending 31st August 1894, an increase of only 33 per cent.; whether, notwithstanding the extraordinarily rapid increase in he number of passes in England and Wales since 1891, the percentage of "Excellent" passes in the year ending 31st August 1893 was 25 per cent., and 24 per cent. in the year ending 31st August 1894; and whether, in the case of Scotland, the percentage of "Excellent" passes actually fell from 27 per cent. in the year ending 31st August 1893 to 16 per cent. for the year ending 31st August 1894; and, if so, whether he can explain the relatively unsatisfactory results of these examinations in Scotland as compared with England?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W.R. Rotherham): My attention had not been called to the figures, which certainly needed the very careful examination
  98
  which has been given to them. The standard has been very slowly rising; and the result is, that a certain number of schools in Scotland which had previously just succeeded in obtaining "Excellent" fell to "Good." The award is made partly on the report of the inspector and partly on the revision, by the examiners at South Kensington, of the drawings made by the scholars. The Scotch schools are treated in precisely the same way as the English, Welsh, and Irish schools, and the greatest care is taken in making the awards. It would appear that while the instruction in drawing has been slightly improving in England and Wales, under the stimulus possibly of its being a compulsory subject for boys—which it is not in Scotland—this has not been so in parts of Scotland. I shall be very glad to arrange that the hon. Member shall see the drawings and make any examination or comparisons that he may think desirable.
  *MR. RENSHAW: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say in what part of Scotland improvement has not taken place?
  MR. ACLAND: I am afraid I do not know.

  CROFTER EVICTION.
  *MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Duncan McIver, a crofter on the Newhall Estate, at Ferrytown, Balblair, Ross-shire, recently holding under lease, but now from year to year, is under notice of eviction though only £2 in arrears, or one-half year's rent due at Martinmas last; that Duncan McIver reclaimed from barren moorland all the land comprising his croft with the exception of half an acre, and that he and his family built the dwelling-house, barn, and byre on the holding; and, whether any steps can be taken to prevent the proprietor anticipating the Crofters' Bill, which, on becoming law, will give to McIver fixity of tenure and compensation for improvements?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): If the hon. Member means Donald McIver I have nothing to add to the detailed replies which I gave in the

  99
  House on the 23rd of April and the 13th of May, in the course of which I stated the manner in which this tenant had treated his obligation to pay rent.
  *MR. WEIRsaid, his question referred to Duncan McIver, not Donald. Would the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to inquire into this case?
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, this crofter since the year 1890 had only paid 16s. rent under compulsion out of a rental which, according to the hon. Member's question, would be about £16, and he thought, that being the case, the House would quite understand the circumstances.
  *MR. WEIRasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make further inquiry, seeing that the man only owed £2?
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member forgot what he said in the last sentence of his answer, namely, that this man had only paid 16s. except under compulsion.
  *MR. WEIR: But he has paid it. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Government to send the forces of the Crown to aid Mr. Shaw Mackenzie, the landlord of this property, in evicting this man.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Most certainly on this occasion the Crown will not take any unusual course whatever. This man has not put himself in a position to have an unusual consideration shown to him. His behaviour to his own family has been extremely bad, and in no respect does he deserve special consideration.

  ASHTON'S GREEN COLLIERY, ST. HELENS.
  MR. S. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the circumstances in connection with the appointment of a check weighman at the Ashton's Green Colliery, Parr, St. Helen's, on 23rd April 1895; whether he is aware that, after the miners had had a meeting and passed a unanimous resolution to elect a checkweighman by ballot, in accordance with the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, and also had appointed two of their number to conduct
  100
  the ballot, the top manager refused to allow these men to go on the pit bank; that the manager of the colliery, Mr. Thomas Pennington, interfered and urged the men, in contravention of the Act of Parliament, to decide the matter by a show of hands; and that this is the first attempt in the county of Lancashire of a colliery manager to interfere with the appointment of a checkweighman; and whether, in view of the fact that the miners are dissatisfied with this interference, and with a view of giving satisfaction, he will cause a thorough investigation into the circumstances under which Henry Pennington was alleged to be appointed as checkweighman at this colliery?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): The Mines Inspector has investigated this matter. He finds that it is the case that the top manager refused to allow the men who were appointed to hold the ballot to go on the pit bank, on the ground that they were strangers and not employed in the colliery. I have not been informed, as a fact, whether this is so, but I am informed that the top manager assigned it as his reason for acting as he did. The manager says that he did not interfere with the men or urge them to decide the matter by a show of hands, but, on being asked, he expressed an opinion that this might be done. The Inspector has now called attention to the provisions of Section 14 of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, and it has been arranged that a fresh election shall be held by ballot. The employer has undertaken not to place any difficulty in the way of such an election.

  BANFFSHIRE LICENSING CASE.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the Findochty Licensing Appeal Case a petition was presented to the Banff Quarter Sessions against the licence signed by 204 out of a total of 245 householders of Findochty, and another petition signed by 526 persons over 18 years of age out of a total population of 1,200; whether Quarter Sessions refused to receive or consider these petitions, and whether such refusal was lawful;

  101
  and whether he can state to what extent the majority of justices who granted the licence on appeal were connected with Findochty, or had taken steps to ascertain the requirements and wishes of the local community?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the local Licensing Authority unanimously refused the transfer of the licence of the only public-house in the village of Findochty, in Banffshire, in compliance with the almost unanimously expressed request of the householders and inhabitants; and that the transfer was then granted in appeal by the Banff Quarter Sessions by a majority of 26 votes to 18; and whether, if the case is as above stated, he can suggest any method by which the inhabitants of Findochty can obtain redress in the matter?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: In reply to my hon. Friends I may say that I am informed that on the 16th April last, Alexander MacDonald applied to the Licensing Court of the lower district of Banffshire, in which district Findochty is situated, for renewal of a transferred certificate. Notice of objection had been lodged in terms of the Statute; and on the morning of the Court a petition signed by 186 householders of Findochty out of 246 against the application was lodged. No objection was taken to the reception of the petition. The local justices, 12 in number, after hearing the parties' agents, unanimously refused the renewal of the licence. The applicants appealed to the General Quarter Sessions for the whole county, and 46 justices from all parts of the county attended the meeting. The applicant's agent objected to the petition which was received in the court below being read, as also a copy of that petition with additional signatures said to contain over 200 names. He stated that he had a petition in favour of the licence; but he asked the Court to refuse to receive all petitions from any quarter. On a division it was decided to refuse the petitions by 27 as against 15. I cannot say that the Court exceeded their powers in doing so. The Court then sustained the appeal and granted the licence, by 26 votes to 18. I am informed that the petition admitted
  102
  by the District Court was a bonâ fide one, and was signed by genuine householders who opposed the application; and that a large majority of the householders in Findochty are opposed to the renewal. I am informed, likewise, that there had been an organised canvas of justices on the part of the licensing trade; some justices coming from the upper parts of the county to support the appeal, who had little or no knowledge of the local conditions of Findochty; while the proceedings of the Court were such as hardly to enable them to acquire much knowledge during the hearing of the case. The proceedings at the Quarter Sessions were not (I quote the words of the Sheriff Substitute of Banffshire) "such as to induce respect for the administration of justice," and there were certain additional circumstances which fully bear out this emphatic opinion.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that this man got his licence because he offered to entertain to dinner the magistrates of the county?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I think the circumstances which I have been able to detail to the House on the highest authority are sufficiently strong, and that we need not enter on any other matter.

  RE-DIRECTED TELEGRAMS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a re-directed telegram (which costs a shilling originally for transmission) is treated as an unpaid letter, and a fine of 2d. imposed; and whether he will give instructions that for the future re-directed telegrams sent through the post shall be treated as redirected letters, and no further charges imposed?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: A telegram re-directed by post is subject to a charge of one penny, and, if a fine of twopence has in any case been imposed, it has been imposed through an inadvertence which I regret. But I fear that I cannot give instructions for remitting the charge of one penny. To allow documents, which had not been dealt with and passed through the post in the ordinary sense to be treated as re-directed

  103
  letters would be to open a very wide door, and might lead to frauds on the Revenue which it is my duty to protect.

  HONG KONG.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have now decided to place two unofficial members on the Executive Council of Hong Kong; and whether they have come to any decision, and if so what, as to the further proposal of appointing two additional unofficial members to the Legislative Council?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The subject in question is still under consideration, and no answer can be given at present.

  MAIL STEAMERS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE CONTINENT.
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will agree to the Motion for a Return relating to the mail steamers running between England and the Continent, which stands on the Paper this day?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am afraid I shall not be able to consent to the Return in the form on the Paper, but perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me on the matter.

  ANGLESEY PARISHES.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House what is the population of the 27 parishes in Anglesey alleged to be without a resident clergyman; whether each of these parishes is united for ecclesiastical purposes with another parish, and that in every case a resident clergyman officiates in the joint parishes; and whether one-third of the parishes in Anglesey have so small a population that they have no parish council?
  MR. ASQUITH: The population of these parishes appears to be roughly about 4,700. I have no doubt that in every case such provision as seems to be
  104
  necessary is made for the spiritual wants of the Church of England in these parishes, either by grouping them with other parishes, or by utilising the services of clergymen residing in neighbouring parishes. I made no charge against the Church of neglecting its duties in Anglesey; on the contrary, it would probably be a very wasteful arrangement to maintain a separate resident clergyman for the benefit of a small handful of people in a thinly-populated parish. My reference to Anglesey was to refute a statement, made with every pretence of authority, that the Church of England, unlike the Nonconformist bodies, maintains a resident clergyman in every parish in Wales. The case of Anglesey shows that the Church, when the circumstances require it, adopts the plan of grouping parishes, and serving one parish by a minister resident in another. There appear to be 78 parishes in Anglesey, of which 20 have no parish council.

  FACTORY INSPECTION.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the statement made by the then Home Secretary in 1891 that he had by the first and second clauses of the Factory Bill of that year, now the Factory Act of 1891, taken dictatorial power (being power to send to workshops a factory inspector or any number of inspectors), whether the power referred to, contained in Section 1 and Section 2, sub-section (2), has been a dead letter
  MR. ASQUITH: No order has been made under Section 1 of the Factory and Workshops Act 1891. As regards Section 2, sub-section (2), the inspectors have rarely, if ever, taken proceedings under those provisions, but the powers of the section have been useful in enabling the inspectors to secure the attention of local authorities to complaints under Section 4 of the Act of 1878.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories will be in the Library?
  MR. ASQUITH: It will be circulated to-morrow.

  KING OF SWAZILAND.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of the South African Republic have offered a pension of £1,000 per month to the King of Swaziland, and whether he has refused to receive any pension or allowance from the Government of the South African Republic?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I presume that by the word "pension" the right hon. Gentleman refers to the payment by the Government of the South African Republic of moneys derived from the collection of the private revenue of the King under power of attorney. We have no official information as to whether any instalment of the money has as yet been tendered to, or refused by, the chief.

  TREASON-FELONY.
  MR. C. J. DARLING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would state what prisoners convicted of treason-felony, or other crimes connected with the use or unlawful possession of dynamite, have been released during this year before the expiration of the terms of their sentences, and the amount of penal servitude or imprisonment remitted in each case?
  MR. ASQUITH: Two prisoners—namely, Peter Callaghan and Henry M'Cann—both convicted of treason-felony and sentenced to penal servitude for life, have been released on licence in the present year. Each of the prisoners had served 11 years and three months. The intention to release, and the grounds for so doing, were in each case stated by me in this House in answer to questions.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether, in view of the great public meetings recently held in Ireland in favour of the release of the treason-felony prisoners now in Portland, the right hon. Gentleman would consider their cases with a view to their release.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no further statement to make at present.
  MR. W. REDMONDwas proceeding to repeat his question, when he was called to order.

  ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN AGRICUL TURAL DISTRICTS.
  MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in dealing with the age limit of exemption in elementary schools in agricultural districts, he will consider the advisability of making provision for retaining the scholars who have, not passed at 11 years of age as half-timers up to 14 years, and so give them some chance of agricultural employment early in life, and also retain them in their own districts
  MR. ACLAND: I understand the hon. Member to suggest that the Department should make it possible for all children to attend school half time only after 11 years of age, whether they have passed the standard of exemption fixed by the live-laws in force in the district or not. This would be contrary to the Education Acts, and I am not prepared to initiate legislation in order to make it possible. Children between 13 and 14 years of age are now exempt from the legal obligation to attend school if they have obtained a certificate of previous due attendance, though they may not have passed in any standard.

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL.
  MR WILLIAM HART DYKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if constant and numerous discharges of workmen are taking place from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich; whether these point to a serious reduction, in expenditure; and whether arrangements can be made for a shorter working week or some other method adopted to lessen the great hardship caused by the said discharges of Government employés?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. W. WOODALL, Hanley): Owing to the decreased demand for the productions of the ordnance factories some diminution of the establishment is necessary; but care is taken to effect the reduction with as little hardship to the men as possible. As has been already stated, in view of the severe winter, men have been kept on who were in excess of the actual requirements of the factories. The present time is considered a favourable one for men obtaining other employment, and some discharges are consequently taking place.

  107
  Working short time can only be adopted as a temporary expedient, and not for the purpose of maintaining permanently an establishment beyond the requirements of the Service.

  LORD BRASSEY.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Lord Brassey was appointed some months ago Governor of Victoria, Australia; and whether his predecessor has left the Colony; and, if so, when it is proposed that Lord Brassey shall proceed to Australia?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Lord Brassey was selected early in the year to succeed Lord Hopetoun in the Government of Victoria. He will assume the Government on the expiration of Lord Hopetoun's leave of absence in September next.
  MR. BARTLEYasked, whether there was any precedent for the Governor of a colony, who as such represented Her Majesty, remaining so long in England and going about making political speeches in favour of candidates? [Cries of "Oh," and cheers.]
  MR. BUXTON: There are plenty of precedents for Governors not assuming office at once, especially in a case like this, in which the late Governor's time has not yet expired. A Governor is entitled, under the terms of his appointment, to so much leave, and that he usually takes, as in this case, at the end of his term. While on leave he is on half-pay, and the new Governor does not take office until the expiration of his predecessor's leave. Lord Brassey, therefore, at the present moment is not Governor of Victoria.
  MR. BARTLEY: Then is there any precedent for a gentleman in this position going about taking part in political campaigns? ["Hear, hear !" and Cries of "Notice."]
  [No further answer was given.]

  STILES IN RURAL FOOTPATHS.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is within the legal right of a Parish
  108
  Council or parish meeting to remove any existing stone, wooden, iron, or other stiles used in connection with rural footpaths which they may consider inconvenient, and to substitute therefor turnstiles or stiles of any character which may, in their opinion, be more suitable; and whether, if it be legal to remove such stiles as above-mentioned, the authority so removing them will be under a continuing obligation to keep the substituted stiles in repair?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am advised that a Parish Council have no right to remove or substantially alter an existing stile except with the consent of the owner of the land where it lies.

  MILITIA AND THE LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the Militia are drilled with the Magazine rifle and shoot with the Martini, and whether representations have been made to him of the confusion which such an arrangement might cause on service; and when helmets will be issued to the force?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A temporary arrangement is necessary, owing to the ranges available being, in many cases, unsuitable for the Lee-Metford rifle. It is, however, very necessary that the Militia should learn to handle, and become familiar with, the mechanism of the new weapon, which they would use if mobilised. Therefore, they are drilled with the Lee-Metford; but, for want of long ranges, they have to shoot with Martini-Henry rifles. Next year it is intended to give them cartridges of reduced power, which can be fired on any range from Lee-Metford rifles. This will be another step in advance, though still short of the best possible training. As to helmets, 25,000 will be issued this year to the Militia. The 34 units which are to be trained with regulars or in camp are to be first supplied. Of these, 25 have already received their supply, and the remaining helmets will be issued with the least possible delay.
  MR. WEIRasked if the cartridges for the shorter range would be manufactured from cordite.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, cordite.
  MAJOR RASCH: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not aware that land can be purchased for long-range firing in the South-Eastern district at a low price, and with nothing alive near it except, possibly, the pea-bug?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied that the War Office were alive to the need of accommodation, and were taking steps to provide it.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSONasked if it was intended to take measures to arm the Volunteers with the Lee-Metford rifle?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think that hardly arises out of this question.

  SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC AND MAGATO.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a large Boer commando is about to attack the Basuto Chief, Magato; whether he can inform the House of the reasons for this attack; and whether Magato's territory is within the boundaries of the Transvaal?
  MR. BUXTON: I have no official information as to the relations between the Government of the South African Republic and the Chief Magato. The Chief resides in the Zoutpansberg district of the Republic.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: As this is an important question, I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will make official inquiry and obtain information? There are many thousands of natives involved in this matter.
  MR. BUXTON: I certainly am not going to give any such pledge. This is a question affecting the internal administration of the Transvaal, and under the London Convention we are expressly excluded from interfering. If there were any question affecting British subjects arising in connection with it, then it would be another matter.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that under the Convention of 1884, the clauses of which are still binding, Her Majesty's Government agreed that the interests of the natives of the Transvaal should be protected?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether the House of Commons is not entitled to receive information as to an event of such importance occurring in the Transvaal?
  MR. BUXTON: Every hon. Member has the ordinary means of information in regard to it, but what the hon. Member opposite asked was whether I would make special official inquiries with regard to this matter, and that I declined to do.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I would ask whether we are not under an obligation to protect the interests of the native races in South Africa?
  MR. BUXTON: If any question arose as to any breach of the London Convention, of course we have a resident Consul General in the Transvaal who would report instantly to the High Commissioner, and the High Commissioner would at once communicate with us. What I understood the hon. Gentleman to ask was that we should at once, without referring to the High Commissioner, make inquiries on this side of the water, and that I declined to do.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What I desired the hon. Gentleman to do was what I again ask him to do, and that is to ask Her Majesty's representative in the South African Republic for information on this point, so that we may know the truth about it.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is the greatest difficulty in obtaining information from the Transvaal; that the sources of information are exceedingly unreliable; and that, except we obtain official information, we are not aware of what takes place?
  MR. BUXTON: Of course, we have an official representative in the Transvaal, whose duty it is to send us any information which he thinks will be important or necessary to us in order to decide this or any other question. In the ordinary course of his duty he will send us, through the High Commissioner, such information as we require. That is a different matter from what I understood the hon. Member to desire us to do.

  MINISTERIAL VISITS TO PRISONERS.
  MR. R. W. PERKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Rev. J. S. Harris, Wesleyan minister, of Manchester, was recently refused permission by the Governor of Strangeways Prison to see a prisoner in the room set aside for ministerial visits to prisoners, on the ground that clergymen belonging to the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are alone entitled to such a privilege; and whether there is any reason why prisoners belonging to other Nonconformist Churches should not be entitled to receive ministerial visits from their clergy upon precisely the same footing and subject to the same regulations as prisoners do who belong to the Roman Catholic Church?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Rev. J. S. Harris did apply to see a remanded prisoner in Manchester Prison, but as the prisoner had declared himself on reception as of the Church of England, and the Governor understood that the visit was to be as that of the prisoner's minister, he did not permit it to take place. The Governor denies having stated that clergymen of the Church of England and of the Roman Catholic Church are alone entitled to such a privilege, as he well knew that, under Schedule I., Regulation 47, Prison Act, 1865, a prisoner has the right to be visited by the minister of the church to which he belongs. On his conviction, on the 11th instant, the above prisoner declared himself a Wesleyan, and applied yesterday to see Mr. Harris as his minister, and the Governor at once wrote to that gentleman asking him to call and see the prisoner.

  ALLEGED DEATH FROM HUNGER.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the statement of the local police, denying that Thomas Colreavy, of Drumhass, in Mohill Union, died from the effects of hunger is seriously contested by the clergymen and the bulk of the people in the district; whether he is aware that this mar was refused seed potatoes at the Mohill Union Workhouse, and had afterwards to seek from his neighbours some seed
  112
  potatoes; whether the attention of the Local Government Board Inspector, Dr. O'Grady, was directed to his condition by the local clergyman some short time before his death; and whether, to allay public feeling in the matter and arrive at the truth, he will order a sworn inquiry to be held into all the circumstances of the case?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have directed the Local Government Board to hold a sworn inquiry into the circumstances attending the death of this man, and pending the result of the investigation it would not, I think, be advisable at the present moment to make any further statement in reference to the inquiries of the hon. Gentleman.

  BILLETING YEOMANRY.
  MR. GEORGE CURZON (Lanes., S.W.,: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War—(1) whether the provisions of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1881, relating to the billeting of Yeomanry upon inn-keepers, etc., compel inn-keepers to take on billet several troops of yeomanry in immediate succession for periods of ten days each; (2) whether penalties would be incurred on inn-keepers in the event of non-compliance with the Act; and (3), if the inn-keepers are liable to take the several troops of yeomanry in succession, whether he will cause such regulations to be issued as will ensure the inn-keeper being recompensed a reasonable charge for the billet?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As regards the two first paragraphs of the question, the answer is, Yes. The maximum sums payable for billeting are fixed by Act of Parliament, and I have no power to pay more.

  CHITRAL.
  MR. GEORGE CURZON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any decision concerning the future administration of Chitral, and concerning the steps that may be required for the safeguarding of British interests in that quarter, and of the lines of communication with British India; and, if so, whether he can state such decision to the House?
  MR. HENRY FOWLER: The matters to which the hon. Member's question refers are receiving the most careful attention of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that the late ruler of Chitral has been sent to India, and, if so, whether it is proposed to keep him in India, or what the Government are going to do with him?
  MR. HENRY FOWLER: I have no information on that subject except what has appeared in the newspapers.

  POACHING IN COUNTY DERRY.
  MR. W. E. MACARTNEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. R. M. Dane), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Excise Authorities have not yet prosecuted the three men who were poaching in the townland of Ballybreast, County Derry, on 8th August, without licences, in the close season?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that the Board of Inland Revenue decided not to prosecute in this case because the poachers had been wounded on the occasion referred to by the gamekeepers?

  KITCHEN BOILER EXPLOSIONS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has, since the 19th March and 21st April last, considered whether some means might be taken to warn householders how to prevent kitchen boiler explosions during winter; and, if so, will he state his decision?
  MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir; I have carefully considered this matter, and a circular letter is now being prepared which will state fully the precautions which should be taken to guard against the explosion of kitchen boilers in time of frost. This circular I propose to issue to all water companies and to local authorities supplying water for domestic purposes, with a request that the precautions to be taken against explosion may be brought under the notice of householders shortly before the approach of winter.

  FLANNAN ISLANDS LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements have yet been made to survey the site of a lighthouse on the Flannan Islands, with the view of making a reliable estimate of the cost of establishing a station there?
  MR. BRYCE: The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses inform me that, according to present arrangements, their engineer hopes to proceed in the middle of next month to the Flannan Islands in order to survey a site for a new lighthouse.

  DEATH OF A CHILD FROM CRUELTY.
  MR. J. ROSS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a case tried at the Dublin Commission on the 18th April last, in which the prisoner was convicted, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Statutes, on the evidence of his wife, for cruelty resulting in the death of his child, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment; whether he is aware that, although the evidence disclosed a clear case of murder, the Crown Counsel stated that it was impossible to proceed against the prisoner on the capital charge, owing to the fact that the only witness of the crime was the prisoner's wife, who was not a competent witness in the case of the felony, but a competent witness in the case of the misdemeanour; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the Government will consent to apply the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill to Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the facts are as stated. It does not follow that the Bill in question would meet the case, since in trials for murder the wife of the person charged could not, under the Bill, be called as a witness without the consent of the person charged.

  RESIGNATION OF AN IRISH SCHOOLMASTER.
  MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Coates, national schoolmaster at Sixmilecross, sent in his resignation to the National Board shortly

  115
  before his death in March last, and became thereby entitled to a gratuity of £160; and, whether the National Board have refused to give the gratuity to his widow, and on what grounds?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I regret to have to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone this question until to-morrow.

  DROMCOLLOGHER PETTY SESSIONS, COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that considerable public inconvenience arises from the absence of the Clerk of Petty Sessions Dromcollogher, County Limerick, without any explanation; and, what steps will be taken to have the duties of the office properly fulfilled?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I have not yet completed my inquiries in this matter, and will ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question for about a week.

  BILLETING IN COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the usual custom of billeting has been departed from in Newcastle West, County Limerick, regarding the O Battery of Artillery, viz., men and horses distributed proportion ately among the licensed vintners, and that 65 out of 85 horses have been placed with a Mr. Dawson, Petty Sessions clerk whose stables considerably exceed the distance allowed by the Regulations; and whether, as the allowance given by the Military Authorities merely covers the outlay incurred by vintners when men and horses are billeted on a licensed premises (the allowance for billeting of men alone being insufficient) he will order that no departure from previous practice be sanctioned?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Under the provisions of the Army Act the allotment of billets is entirely in the hands of the local Police Authority, subject to the control of the local Justices or Court of Summary Jurisdiction, to whom persons aggrieved at the manner in which billeting may be carried out are instructed by the Act to appeal.
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I wish to ask is it a proper course to take for the Resident Magistrate of the district and for the Petty Sessions Clerk to canvass the officers before the troops pass through the towns as to the billet?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sure I am not aware what is the proper course to be pursued; but, as I have said, the matter is one entirely in the hands of the local Police Authorities subject to the control of the local Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: As the Police gave notice to the publicans to provide fodder for the horses, and thereby caused them to incur expense, will the Military Authorities recompense the publicans in the matter?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think the Military Authorities are responsible.
  MR. AUSTIN: Who is responsible?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I should think the Police.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask whether, when people are put to expense of this kind, and when afterwards by favouritism the billeting is directed to other channels, some compensation should not be given? And I would further ask whether some provision should not be made in the Army Act to meet cases of this kind?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Of course, if the matter and the circumstances are explained to me, I will consider whether in another year any provision in the Army Act could provide against a case of this sort.
  MR. AUSTIN: As there are nine batteries of artillery passing through this town——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  GOLDEN PETTY SESSIONS, COUNTY TIPPERARY.
  MR. F. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lientenant of Ireland, why the usual Petty Sessions are not now held in the Court House at Golden, County Tipperary; is he aware that inhabitants of the Golden Petty Sessions district are caused much expense and loss of time by having to attend Petty Sessions at Cashel, in another district; and, will he

  117
  take steps to have Petty Sessions at Golden for the convenience of the people of that district?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: It appears that for some time past Petty Sessions business has not been transacted at Golden, but at Cashel, and it also appears that the Golden Sessions were abandoned in consequence of an order issued by the magistrates, who considered the Court House was unfit for occupation. As soon as the matter was brought under the notice of Government, steps were taken to secure that the business of Petty Sessions should be transacted at Golden as usual, and the magistrates have been informed that, if the Court House is in an unfit state, it is the duty of the Grand Jury to provide a proper justice room. Ths Sessions were held at Golden on the 21st instant.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that some of the Irish Land Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners are over 65 years of age; and, does he know why they are not retired in the usual way, according to the 65 rule?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: With regard to the status and tenure of office, of the Judicial and other Land Commissioners, I would refer to my answer to a question addressed to me on the 19th February last by the hon. Member for South Roscommon. As regards the Assistant Land Commissioners, I am informed that none of these gentlemen are over 65 years of age?

  ADMIRALTY CLERICAL ESTABLISH MENT.
  MR. MICHAEL AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, when he expects to receive from the Admiralty details of its proposed normal clerical establishment, which was called for by Treasury of 10th August 1889, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The scheme for the Department of the Accountant General
  118
  of the Navy was approved some time ago, and is in operation. A scheme for the other Departments of the Admiralty has been prepared, and is now under the consideration of the Board. It will very shortly be submitted to the Treasury.

  LOUGH CARRIB, KNOCK FERRY.
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Galway (Colonel J. P. Nolan), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he would request the Board of Public Works to draw up plans and an estimate of the cost of bridging Lough Carrib at Knock Ferry; and whether, seeing that such a bridge would enable the residents on the east of Lough Carrib to use the new Galway and Oughterard Railway, he would consider the advisability of giving some help from the Imperial Treasury to a public work of this magnitude?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: The question of constructing this bridge has been several times brought under the notice of Government, and in March 1893 I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there were no public funds available for the work. The construction of the bridge would entail a larger expenditure than is available either from the funds of the Congested Districts Board or from those for the relief of distress. It appears, therefore, to be a work that only be undertaken by the Grand Jury.

  COMPANIES' ACTS.
  MR. W. H. HOLLAND (Salford, N.): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is in a position to say when the Committee which has been considering the Amendment of the Companies' Acts, is likely to make its Report?
  MR. BRYCE: The enquiry has been a very complicated and difficult one, and the proceedings were interrupted by the indisposition of the Chairman, and of one of the Judges who is a member of the Committee. I trust, however, that the Committee, who have given very close and earnest attention to the subject, will be able to present their Report in the course of next month.

  RUSSIA AND CHINA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the fact that the entire Russian Press are demanding the cession of a part of Chinese Manchuria, and a port in Korea; and whether the statement that the Russian Government have demanded these concessions is correct?
  SIR E. GREY: I cannot add anything to the answer which was given to the hon. Member last week in reply to a similar question from him, and which applies to this question also.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has a tenant who carries out repairs a right to deduct income tax from the full amount of rent payable to his landlord, although he may have only paid income tax on the balance of the full amount of rent after the reduction of one-sixth part thereof under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1894?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The answer to this question is in the negative. Section 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, provides that no tenant chargeable under Schedule "A" shall be allowed to deduct from his rent a greater sum than the amount of the duty actually paid by him.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LOCAL CONTROL) BILL.
  MR. ALFRED MONEY-WIGRAM: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the Intoxicating Liquors (Local Control) Bill, whether, in the event of a limiting resolution coming into force in any area, and a licence being then granted as an ordinary licence in respect of premises theretofore continuously licensed as a beerhouse since the 1st of May 1869, such ordinary licence will be thereafter held subject to the protection conferred by the 19th section of the Beerhouse Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Vict. c. 27); and whether, when a limiting resolution is in force and a licence is granted as an ordinary licence, there
  120
  will exist any right of appeal against a refusal to renew such ordinary licence at any subsequent general annual licensing meeting?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As the Bill is at present drawn, the law touching the renewal of licences is not altered, except at the first general annual licensing meeting after the limiting resolution comes into force?

  BRITISH EAST AFRICA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state on which day he will introduce the Vote on Account, which is to include the sum of £50,000 for the completion of the transfer of British East Africa to the direct control of the Government; and will the Vote be first Order in view of the importance of the subject-matter for which provision is thus made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Vote on Account will, as I stated before, include a portion of this sum, and will raise the principle. I will consider as to the order in which the Vote shall be put on the Paper.

  WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. G. W. WOLFF: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state during which days the House will be adjourned for the Whitsuntide Recess?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: This is a very interesting question to all of us. I wish I knew the answer of it, but it must depend a little upon the progress we make this week.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. BRODRICK: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to his pledge given on 15th March, that the general discussion on the Army Estimates should be resumed on an early day if the Vote for the Pay and Allowances of the Army were then taken, he will fix a day before Whitsuntide for this discussion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us his general view as to the business of the House to be taken before the Whitsuntide Recess, and what business he means to take immediately after the House reassembles?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As regards the last question, I must postpone that for a day or two. As regards business before the holidays what I hope is—that to-day and to-morrow we shall be able practically to dispose of the Budget Bill. From the Amendments on the Paper I do not think there will be any difficulty about that. Then I hope to-morrow to be able to get the Speaker out of the Chair, and enter upon Supply. Then I propose to take on the Thursday and Friday of next week the Vote on Account—that is to say, giving one day for the Vote on Account and the second day for the Report of the Vote on Account. On Monday and Tuesday we propose to proceed with the Welsh Bill. I understand it will not take long to finish the Naval Works Bill. There is only one point left to be disposed of. I am sorry to see that an hon. Gentleman opposite shakes his head, which menaces the holidays. I hope that may not be so. But I understand there is only one point in dispute, and, that being so, I hope to get rid of it on Monday or Tuesday next. The House will remember that they are really the masters of their own time and their own holidays, and it depends very much upon their desire how long the holidays will be.
  MR. BALFOUR: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to adjourn the Welsh Bill early on Monday or Tuesday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, Sir; if some understanding can be arrived at that the Naval Works Bill will only take a short time.
  MR. BRODRICK: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has not answered my question.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid, from what I have already said, that the hon. Gentleman will assume that I have not got a place for the business about which he asks. I should be very glad if I could get a place. I think he will observe that
  122
  rather more than the usual time has already been given to the Army Estimates at this time of the year.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman place the Naval Works Bill as the first Order on Monday? I think it could be disposed of before the dinner hour.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot say.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Welsh Church Bill will be taken first or second on Monday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Unless I can come to some understanding on that matter, I am afraid the Naval Works Bill will have to go over. I am extremely anxious to dispose of it if I can have some understanding as to the time it will take. I am anxious to go on with it, but if I cannot have this understanding it must be postponed.
  MR. KENYON: Do I understand that the Welsh Church Bill will not be taken immediately after the re-assembling of the House after the Whitsuntide Recess?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That depends a little on when the House reassembles.

  THE SCOTCH GRAND COMMITTEE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I undertook to make a statement to-day in reference to the progress of Scotch business. What I have to state is this—that on consideration of the matter it appears to us that there is so much sharp controversy involved in the Crofters' Bill that it would be impossible to obtain such general consent to its reference to the Grand Committee as is desirable, and indeed necessary, for such a course of proceeding. We attach, and I think hon. Gentlemen opposite must attach, a great importance to the relief which may be given to the business of the House by sending to a Grand Committee measures of a comparatively non-contentious character which do not raise strong Party issues. But if an attempt were made to force measures of such a character upon a Grand Committee, it would inevitably have the effect of breaking down the whole system altogether, which would,

  123
  in our opinion, be a great misfortune. That being the case, we shall propose to constitute the Grand Committee for Scotch business, and refer to it the other Scotch Bills—namely, the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Bill, the Local Government Bill, and the Fisheries Acts Amendment Bill, when it comes down from the House of Lords.
  MR. BALFOUR: That will be all the Scotch Bills referred this Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Well, all the Bills that are at present before Parliament. If there are any other Bills introduced by the Government, or by anybody else, which would seem to be fit Bills for such a Committee, I do not think they could be excluded from the consideration of the Grand Committee. That being so, the intention of the Government is to proceed with the Crofters Bill in the House, and they will use their best exertions to pass it into law. We propose to adjourn the proceedings on the Budget Bill at half-past ten to-night, so that Gentlemen may have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the Scotch Committee. I hope, after that statement, there will be no difficulty in electing this Scotch Committee, and so far relieving the House of business of a non-contentious character.
  DR. CLARK: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in those circumstances he will take the Second Reading of the Scotch Local Government Board Bill before the Second Reading of the Crofters' Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Bills going to this Committee ought to be taken as soon as possible, so as to give work to the Committee and relieve this House. I should like to take an early opportunity of sending the Local Government Bill upstairs.
  MR. E. HENEAGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scotch Fisheries Bill is not a non-contentious measure, but contains clauses affecting English interests? There is a clause in the Bill strongly opposed by English fishermen, and it ought not, therefore, to be sent to a purely Scotch Committee. I shall strongly object to such a course being taken.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think this discussion would come better later on. I think the
  124
  House has taken great care to prevent this being a purely Scotch Committee. I understand the object was to make the Committee a reflex of the House, and I do not think, under these circumstances, there is anything to prevent the Committee considering a Bill of this kind. I am not very familiar with the Bill, but the time for discussing this point will properly arise when the Motion is made to refer the Fisheries Bill to the Committee.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: In the event of the appointment of the Scotch Committee being agreed to after a brief discussion to-night, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to go on with the next Order on the Paper, which is the Second Reading of the Crofters Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot interpose the Crofters Bill in the middle of my Budget. That would be against my financial interests.
  MR. WEIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman fix a day when he will take the Second Reading of the Crofters Bill, having regard to the statement made by him last Session, or will he write over the door of the House—
  "All hope abandon, ye who enter here"?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.
  [No reply was given.]
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would not be necessary to alter the terms of the Motion of the Secretary for Scotland, in order to make it possible to refer such a measure as the Fisheries Bill to the Scotch Grand Committee? The Motion, as it at present stood, defined the measures to be referred to that Committee as measures relating exclusively to Scotland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQNERsuggested that points of that kind should be discussed later in the evening.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that with reference to the decision—he supposed of the Government—that no seriously contentious business should be referred to Grand Committees, he would like to know whether it was intended to refer to such a Committee the Bill for the repeal of the Crimes Act which the Chief

  125
  Secretary for Ireland had proposed to send to a Grand Committee?
  MR. W. REDMONDinquired whether progress would be made with the Irish Land Bill before the Second Reading of the Local Veto Bill was taken?
  [No reply was given, and Mr. SPEAKER called upon Mr. HERBERT GARDNER, who had a Notice of Motion upon the Paper.]
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order! I have called on a right hon. Member in regard to another matter on the Paper.
  MR. W. REDMOND (who remained seated): And I wish to call on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer my question.

  ALLOTMENTS AND COTTAGE GARDENS BILL.
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNERasked leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Allotments and Cottage Gardens.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, there were already 30 or 40 Government Bills on the Paper, and it was now proposed to bring in another. When putting down Bills it was only reasonable the Government should give them some pledge that time would be allotted for their consideration.
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNERsaid, that this Bill contained but one clause, and was intended to remedy certain anomalies in the existing law.
  Leave being given, Bill brought in, and read 1° to be read 2° upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill No. 273.]

  DRAFTING OF BILLS.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. THOMAS ELLIS, Merionethshire)THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. THOMAS ELLIS, Merionethshire) moved, "That Mr. Blake be a member of the Select Committee on Drafting of Bills."
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINasked for some explanation of circumstances which were very unusual, if not entirely unprecedented. This was in no sense a Party or a political Committee, and it was hardly correctly described on the Paper; it was a Joint Committee to meet a Committee of the Lords. The Motion for setting up the
  126
  Committee had been on the Paper for three weeks at least, but in a different form to that in which it was now moved. The names which were put upon the Paper by arrangement, and with the full assent of the Government, included that of the hon. Member for East Somerset, and he thought it would be felt by the House that no better appointment on such a Committee could possibly be made, seeing that the hon. Gentleman was a very distinguished expert in such matters as the Committee would have to deal with. To-day the Committee was to be moved without any arrangement with his hon. Friend, without any arrangement with the Whips, who generally managed such matters, and another name had been substituted for that of his hon. Friend. He could not but think the proceeding of the hon. Member was very extraordinary, and somewhat discourteous.
  *MR. THOMAS ELLISsaid, when appealed to, he was quite willing to place upon the Committee the hon. Member for East Somerset, although that would not give the Government a majority of one, which was usual. On two occasions a double objection was taken to the appointment of the Committee as at first proposed. The first objection was that there was no Member on the Committee representing Ireland; [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: "There is no Scotch Member"] and the second was that the ordinary rules were broken by the Opposition having a majority on the Committee instead of the Government. He therefore gave notice to his hon. Friend the Member for St. Andrew's District that it was quite clear the Committee could not be carried in the original form. He also gave notice by letter that, in order to have the Committee appointed and the message of the Lords considered, he would place on the Paper the name of the hon. Member for South Longford instead of that of the hon. Member for East Somerset.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsuggested that the appointment of the Committee should be again postponed in order that an opportunity should be afforded of arriving at an amicable arrangement.
  Motion deferred.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  THE FINANCE BILL.
  On the Order for Committee on this Bill, Mr. HANBURY proposed to move—
  "That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to alter the Land Tax and to amend the law relating thereto;"
  and Mr. T. GIBSON BOWLES proposed—
  "That it be an instruction to the Committee that they have power to alter the Estate Duty and to amend the law relating thereto."
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, the two Instructions were unnecessary, because the matters with which they dealt, if and so far as they relate to a reduction of taxation—they spoke of an alteration of taxation—could be dealt with by the Committee. It was true that the Land Tax and the Estate Duty were not taxes which were levied by virtue of the Finance Bill, but there was a long series of precedents which showed that in Customs and Inland Revenue Bills reductions of taxes which were not levied actually by virtue of the Bill might be proposed in Committee on the Bill. The Bill, it was to be observed, was founded on Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means, one of which contained the words—
  "It is expedient to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue."
  The presence of those words had been held to cover general Amendments to the Finance Bill. The two Instructions were out of Order, because unnecessary.
  The House went into Committee.
  Mr. MELLORin the Chair.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1, 2, and 3 were agreed to.
  Clause 4—

  ADDITION TO EXCISE DUTY ON BEER.
  "In addition to the duty of Excise payable on and after the first day of July, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-five, in respect of beer brewed in the United Kingdom, there shall be charged, levied, and paid, on and after that
  128
  day until the first day of July, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six: For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, the duty of sixpence, and so in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity."
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet) rose to move the addition of the words—
  "Provided that no such additional duty be leviable upon worts made wholly from homegrown barley and hops."
  This Amendment would not, he thought, be open to the objection raised to the one he moved on the Second Reading of the Bill. With the view of affording as ample an opportunity as he could for the expression of the views of the House generally, he modified the terms of his former Amendment. In the process of amalgamation and compromise, one word was accidentally omitted, which permitted of a construction being put upon the Amendment which it was certainly not intended by its authors it should bear. He sought to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to a correction of that verbal error, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer elected—and he was within his right—to stand by the status quo, with the result that he was unable to submit his proposal to the judgment of the House. His present Amendment was limited specifically to the additional duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to renew for the current year, and did not effect the 6s. 3d. which was leviable under the other provisions of the law. There was one omission he felt compelled to make. He need not say it was a most unwilling omission—viz., that of the words—
  "And that import duties should he imposed upon foreign barley and hops used for brewing purposes."
  He would gladly have introduced such a proposal now, but Constitutional practice allowed no Member but a Minister of the Crown to initiate proposals imposing taxation in any form. But he would urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House the desirability of rescuing the revenue from any possible loss by such a method of recoupment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated the other day that those who advocated this policy had rendered themselves responsible for the abolition in toto of all

  129
  indirect taxation. Nothing could be further from his mind than such a result He wished to protect owners of property from being plundered for political objects and in a way from which they were protected by the Constitution in more democratic countries; but he did not wish to dry up any source of taxation unless, at the same time, a more fruitful source were provided. The tax, in its present form, undoubtedly operated in an unfair manner on certain home industries. He could not contradict the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that the use in the manufacture of beer of the various ingredients referred to in discussion had not been the cause of bringing down the price of barley or hops. It was the importation of barley and hops from abroad in large quantities which hat brought down the price. The brewers had a perfect right to use substitutes in the course of their trade, if they admitted that they used substitutes. As to the benefit which he hoped to secure for the country by the principle contained in his Amendment, he would call the attention of the Committee to the admitted fact that under our present system the area of arable land under cultivation had very largely diminished in recent years. In the last quarter of a century, roughly speaking, there had been a diminution of nearly 2,500,000 acres; and that had involved a large displacement of the rural population, constituting a serious national evil. At least 100,000 labourers with their families, or, according to the ordinary statistical methods, 250,000 people in all, had been driven from the rural to the urban districts. Therefore, when he asked the committee to support him in urging upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer a method of raising the beer duty which would lead to the restoration of the rural population to their normal condition, he was entitled to the consideration of his proposal from a broad standpoint. As to barley, there had undoubtedly been a diminution in the last quarter of the century in the area under barley cultivation. It was also true that wheat cultivation had diminished more rapidly. In 1870–71 there were 3,800,000 acres under wheat cultivation, and 2,500,000 acres under barley cultivation; while in 1892–93 there were 2,100,000 acres under wheat cultivation, and 2,200,000 acres under
  130
  barley cultivation. Therefore, barley cultivation had overtaken that of wheat in regard to volume, although it had itself shrunk by 300,000 acres. With respect to hops, the figures were different. There had been a continued and large importation of foreign hops; but the fact did not bear so closely on the levying of this duty, though it had an important bearing on the question which he urged upon the House, that the beer duty should be levied in such a manner as to afford encouragement to the growth of English hops. Under a system of rotation it was impossible to confine figures as to the acreage under arable cultivation to one particular crop. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be well aware of this since he had assumed the rôle of Cincinnatus. He should probably be told that his proposal was Protection, and he would admit that that was the fact. If it were not, he should not have been at the trouble to make the proposal. Anyone who was afraid of Protection might walk out of the House when the Division-bell rang. He wished to provide legitimate protection to the cultivators of barley and hops; and, before long, he hoped to suggest a firmer step in what he believed to be a sound direction. But at that moment he was confining himself to barley and hops, and to the rotation of crops necessarily interwoven with the barley cultivation. It was said:—
  "What is the use of recommending partial Protection of agricultural products, when protected countries are in a worse plight than England under Free Trade?
  He thought that in this respect the Chancellor of the Exchequer had scarcely availed himself of his official opportunities for studying the statistics with regard to the arable cultivation in different countries. During the last few years arable cultivation in England had largely diminished, as a result of our inequitable fiscal system; but abroad a very different story was told. Undoubtedly depression existed to a greater or less extent in every industry and in every country in the world. But there was no shadow of justification for the statement so confidently put forward that the countries where a protective tariff was now in force were in a worse plight with respect to agriculture than

  131
  Great Britain was under a Free Trade policy. Of course, it was no use comparing the exporting countries; but in the Board of Agriculture Return it was shown that, in 1891, 1892, and 1893, there had been a steady increase in the acreage under arable cultivation in Austria-Hungary, France and Germany. He called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact, which he thought had not been disputed, that the actual loss suffered by owners of land and cultivators who were brought face to face with this question was enormous. Hundreds of millions had been lost during the last few years, owing to the diminution of rents, the loss of farmer's capital, and the loss of wages suffered by the agricultural population generally. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer was interested in the welfare of the country, he must recognise the enormous national loss created by this loss of purchasing power alone due to the shrinkage of capital caused by agricultural poverty. Those were facts which the Committee would not be justified in passing lightly over, and a re-adjustment of a particular tax in the way he suggested would be a step in the direction of restoring prosperity to agriculture by stopping that general exodus from the land which all must deplore. He did not propose to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of any of the revenue sought to be attained by his Budget; he merely suggested a re-adjustment with the view of obtaining some amount of revenue in a different manner. He would propose that the tax of the extra sixpence per barrel on beer should only apply to worts made of other than home-grown barley and hops. The right hon. Gentleman should recoup himself of the revenue lost by the exemption of home products, by levying an import duty on all articles used in brewing, coming within a certain category imported from abroad. The articles imported from abroad were landed in England in circumstances which made the competition of tin foreigner most unfair as against the heavily rated and heavily taxed home producer. The condition of agriculture in this country had reached a crisis which no words he could use would adequately describe; but, sooner or later, perhaps, a Government might come to Parliament for some great national
  132
  measure of relief to rescue our largest national industry from absolute ruin and extinction. He concluded by moving his Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was always a frankness about the right hon. Gentleman's proposals which made it most agreeable to discuss matters with him. The right hon. Gentleman never concealed what his object was in any proposal he submitted to the House. On the last occasion, however, when a similar proposal was discussed the right hon. Gentleman entered into an alliance with the right hon. Member for Grimsby, who had now left the House, and under that compact the right hon. Gentleman's favourite remedy of protection disappeared from the earlier Amendment, probably in order to satisfy the right hon. Member for Grimsby. The right hon. Gentleman was now fighting under his true colours, and he was glad to meet him in that capacity. The right hon. Gentleman said that this was a small step. That was true; it was a small step to the great policy of restoring protection for the purposes of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman could not, of course, expect him to consent to the proposal contained in his Amendment. An appeal had been made that he should look at the condition of agriculture in foreign countries. If the right hon. Gentlemen would consult the dominant party in Germany—the Agrarian party—he thought it would be found that there was as much dissatisfaction with the condition of agriculture there as existed among many persons with reference to the condition of agriculture in this country. But looking at the Amendment purely from a fiscal point of view, it proposed that the Duty was not to be leviable on worts made from home-grown barley and hops. If the Amendment were to have any effect, there would be less—or perhaps no—foreign barley and hops employed in brewing. But what would become of his revenue? He was to lose £500,000, as far as the right hon. Gentleman could accomplish that object. More than four-fifths of the barley used was now home-grown. Under those circumstances he would lose £400,000; but, if the right hon. Gentleman were successful, he would lose £500,000. More than four-fifths of

  133
  the barley used was home-grown, and he would therefore lose £400,000. Then his right hon. Friend proposed that he should recoup himself by imposing a duty on foreign barley and hops. His right hon. Friend proposed that this little step should be taken in protection; but he was sorry to tell his right hon. Friend that he must respectfully decline his invitation, and that was so far a reason for not accepting his Amendment. But if that little difficulty were out of the way his right hon. Friend asked that the duty should not be levied on worts made wholly from home-grown barley and hops. But how was the Inland Revenue to ascertain what the worts were made from, and how was the duty to be collected? They would have to appoint excisemen or customs officers to seize hold of every sack of barley landed in this country, and keep watch over it lest any brewer should ever get hold of it and mix it with home-grown barley and then convert it into worts. That would be a very expensive project. He used to be taught that three barleycorns made one inch; but how much throe barleycorns, watched in this manner, would cost he had not calculated. He did not think that, under these circumstances, it would be worth while to levy such a duty on barley and hops. Though he was always sorry to decline proposals made by his hon. Friend, he was afraid he could not accept them in the present instance.
  *MR. A. M. BROOKFIELDthought they had a right to complain that when questions relating to agricultural interests were being discussed, the Minister for that Department, and who was responsible for it, should be conspicuous by his absence.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: He is not responsible for the tax imposed here. I am responsible upon this matter, and my Colleague ought not to be taxed with his absence.
  *MR. BROOKFIELDstill thought it was reasonable that the Minister for Agriculture, might show some little interest in this matter, and he might find that there was much to learn from these discussions. He thought it would be more becoming if the, right hon. Gentleman were in his place instead of enjoying himself elsewhere. He had to thank
  134
  his right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet (Mr. James Lowther) for bringing forward this Amendment, albeit in the light of a forlorn hope, and for having laid down a few plain axioms in favour of the struggling interests which his right hon. Friend and he represented. He thought that the proposals of his right hon. Friend were entitled to more respect than they had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If moderate duties—say of 15 per cent.—were levied, the sum of a million or more might be raised with the greatest ease, and it rested with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain how such a tax as this would injure either those engaged in agriculture or the working classes generally. The rate of 12 per cent, as an import duty had some special recommendations, which, he thought, some hon. Gentlemen would feel it hard to find fault with. Twelve per cent, represented about the extent to which British products were unfairly handicapped in the matter of rates and taxes. When people said that the foreigner should pay toll for the use of our markets, they advocated not only what was acceptable to those engaged in agriculture, but what was reasonable in itself. He could not pretend that the hop interest could compare at all in importance with the great barley interest, but as regarded capital invested and employment given to labour, it was certainly one of vast importance. Arable land was fast giving place to permanent pasture, which gave very little employment to labour; but it should always be considered that the employment which the hop interest gave to labour was phenomenal. While 100 acres of arable land gave employment to, perhaps, four men, 100 acres of hops employed all the year round from 35 to 50 men, and, during the hop-picking season, 400 or more; and it was not too much to say that this industry affected some half million of people in all parts of the kingdom. Referring to the alleged difficulty which the Revenue Authorities had in distinguishing between home and foreign grown barley, he asserted that the Revenue and Customs Authorities had been entrusted with duties of this kind, and had never found any great difficulty in carrying them out. But there was also the very simple process of requiring the brewers to make the distinction themselves.

  135
  Many good reforms of use to the community, and certainly to agriculture, would be accomplished by the simple process of ruling another column or two in their books, and asking the brewers to fill them in in accordance with certain specified terms. His right hon. Friend had met with several difficulties in bring-this matter before the House, but he trusted that he would not be discouraged by the languid interest apparently taken by the Committee, and especially by the Minister for Agriculture, from going to a Division. The present basis of taxation was perilously narrow, and the cry for a free breakfast table might at any time have to be listened to. And in seeking to widen the basis of taxation and to improve its incidence, they should not be deterred by the reflection that they might be incidentally benefiting a distressed industry.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he did not know that he should have troubled the Committee with any observations on that occasion if there had been any sympathetic response from the Government, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the appeals which had over and over again been made by hon. Members representing the hop counties for some relief to the hop industry. The old stock argument that all imposition of duty must in the end be paid by the consumer could not apply to the case of hops, because, whatever was the price of hops, the price of beer would not be affected at all. Therefore, it could not be said that if a small duty were imposed in this case the consumer would have to pay a single farthing of it. The only reason he could perceive why up to this time no Chancellor of the Exchequer on either side had had the courage to propose this simple act of justice to the hop industry, was the fear that he would be infringing upon that sacred principle, as it was called, of Free Trade—that mischievous policy which had brought the agricultural industry to its present state. They seemed to be afraid of being called Protectionists or Fair Traders. They had hgd the experience of 50 years to show what the effect of this policy had been, but they had learnt nothing, and would not even give the agriculturist a word of sympathetic
  136
  encouragement in his present distress; nor had hon. Members who represented hop districts received from other Members of the House representing agricultural constituencies that amount of consideration and support, when discussing the hop industry, which they had a right to expect. In the hop counties the industry was one of very great importance. It afforded employment all the year round—entire populations received remunerative employment from it. No one, he was sure, who had not lived in the hop districts could be aware of the great interest taken by the labouring classes in the progress of this industry; how it was to their interest that it should be a growing one, and what a blow it was to them whenever there was a failure of the crop. What was the position of the English hop-grower with regard to the disposal of his hops as compared with that of the foreigner? He was certainly at a great disadvantage. If the English grower happened to have a good crop, more than sufficient to satisfy the demands of his own market, he would naturally turn to the foreign market to dispose of his surplus stock. Let them take the case of America, for instance. If the English hop-grower wished to dispose of his surplus stock in America, he would be met by a prohibitive duty, so that he would be absolutely debarred from disposing of it in that country. On the other hand, the American grower, if he had a surplus stock, would have nothing to do but to send it over to this country, where it would be admitted duty free, and where he could undersell the home grower, who had the further disadvantage of paying rates and taxes from which the foreigner was free. Was that common sense? Was it fair—was it common justice? He knew perfectly well that nothing could be expected from the present Government, or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had frankly told them that nothing would induce him to entertain the proposal laid before the Committee by his right hon. Friend; but he might express the hope that in the next Administration there would be a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had fully acquainted himself with the nature and conditions of the hop industry, and who might see his way, whatever might be

  137
  done with regard to barley, to do the hop industry the simple act of justice which was now demanded.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, he was almost ashamed to obtrude himself on the attention of the Committee, for he could not but be conscious that the material points on the question had been argued again and again, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met them with full arguments on his side and with the utmost courtesy. But he would ask the Committee to allow him for a moment or two to draw attention to what would be the effect upon an ordinary agricultural mind of the short Debate to which they had listened that afternoon, because, as far as he had been able to gather the figures, a rather curious result would be produced. The agriculturist would have heard, in the first instance, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet that, under the existing conditions of the agricultural industry, 200,000 acres of land usually devoted to the cultivation of barley were no longer so used, and he would know that those acres could have been devoted to any other form of arable cultivation. He would, therefore, argue, in his mind that 200,000 acres of barley ought to produce on an average not less than five quarters per acre, and that this barley ought not to be sold on an average, at less than £8; and that their loss to the barley growing industry on those figures would amount to about £160,000. He (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) was only arguing now on what would probably be the conclusions the agriculturist would draw from the Debate that afternoon. The agriculturist would then go further and say that every 25 acres of those 200,000 acres placed out of cultivation meant the loss of employment to one agriculture labourer. Thus he would calculate that 8,000 ordinary labourers had been dispossessed of employment by this diminution of cultivation. It could not be supposed that each of those men would be earning less than £40 a year, and thus the loss of employment to 8,000 such men would mean a loss to the agricultural population of £320,000 a year. Then the agriculturist would hear what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now he (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) would here admit that
  138
  it would be unfair to judge the right hon. Gentleman entirely from what he had said that evening, because the strong arguments which the right hon. Gentleman used on a previous occasion, and naturally did not wish now to repeat, should be borne in mind. But what had the right hon. Gentleman to say? That he looked at the question from a fiscal point of view. He wrapped himself in the robes and virtues of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in that character said he could approach the matter. He said that if this proposal were carried he should have to face a loss to the Revenue of £400,000 or £500,000. But the agriculturist was not a man of quick calculation, or with a special turn for figures, and he would come to this conclusion—the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would lose £400,000 by acceding to this proposal, but taking the loss from the decreased cultivation of barley and the loss of wages, the aggregate loss to the agricultural community under existing conditions was at least £480,000 a year. Therefore, they were in this unhappy position, that the fiscal necessities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in direct antagonism to the financial needs of the agricultural community, that the loss entailed on this industry more than counterbalanced the fiscal necessities of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It must be allowed that that was the outcome of the Debate that evening, He wished to remind the Committee that there had been one or two significant admissions made on both sides of the House in the course of their various Debates on this and similar questions. For the first time since he had been a Member of the House he had heard admissions on both sides that it was at least conceivable that a state of things might come about in the country, which would emphatically demand some reconstruction of our fiscal system as being fraught with less evil than that which might be reached under the existing system. He did not wish to pose as an absolute protectionist, but merely to call attention to the fact that hon. Gentlemen, speaking from both sides, had admitted what he had not previously heard—that possibly they might arrive at a condition of things to which some such remedy as that now indicated might almost of necessity have to be applied as

  139
  the lesser of two evils. His object was to point out that the figures which had been quoted on both sides pointed to a conclusion that would be regarded as having a peculiar significance, and to say how heartily and thoroughly they must all deplore that under any circumstances a sort of alternative should be presented between fiscal necessities and agricultural necessities, and how loth they should be to adopt a fiscal arrangement and reconstruction which seemed to depend for its surplus upon the pockets of that industry which it was generally admitted was most depressed.
  *MR. CUTHBERT QUILTERsaid, he had gathered from the course of the Debate that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reaffirmed that evening statements he had previously made, and that therefore he should be in order in referring to them. The statements the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the other day, to which he took exception, were four. The first was as follows:—
  "I have a practical objection to the Amendment, and that is that it will not allow the tax to yield any money at all, because four-fifths of the beer is brewed from malt and hops."
  There must be many hon. Members who heard that statement with astonishment. He wanted to know where the Chancellor of the Exchequer got his information? The brewer was not obliged to disclose whether beer was brewed from barley-malt, maize-malt, rice-malt or any other kind of malt or corn. This was what in his Bill he had asked the brewer should be compelled to do. He intended to move for a Return of all brewers using corn or other malt substitutes and the amount used, and for a similar Return with regard to sugar. Since he last spoke he had been enabled to procure the following figures, which went far to prove the great loss in malt and corn and the great gain in sugar. For the period ending 31st of March 1894, there were 6,901,467 quarters of malt and corn, and 1,074,171 quarters of sugar; in 1895 there were 6,796,399 quarters of malt and corn, and 1,102,459 quarters of sugar; thus showing a loss of malt and corn of 100,068 quarters, and a gain of sugar of 28,288
  140
  quarters. Again, the right hon. Gentleman laid considerable stress on a compact which it was said the right hon. Member for Midlothian made. He said:—
  "When that change was effected the right hon. Member for Midlothian founded a system, which has since been very little altered, described in the phrase 'free mash'—that was to say, the brewer was allowed to use exactly what materials he chose, and upon that concession to him he was charged a higher rate."
  And he went on to say:—
  "There is not the slightest doubt as to the contract which was the basis of the repeal of the malt tax."
  If such a compact was entered into, which he denied, he presumed it was not irrevocable. Besides it had been repeatedly broken. For instance, the brewers were promptly stopped in the use of saccharin, as it would interfere seriously with the duty. He would not be in order in going in detail into this question, and, therefore, he contented himself with denying the existence of a compact, and, if any existed, it had been broken two or three times by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, always to the loss of the farmer. Another practical objection which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made, and one which apparently weighed with the House and the country, had reference to supervision:—
  "I say that if the Amendment were carried it would have the effect of subjecting the trade to an amount of Excise supervision and interference ten times greater than that which existed in former years—a process which would be extremely offensive to the Inland Revenue and extremely irksome and injurious to the brewers."
  The proposal involved practically no more supervision at all. The brewer had already to enter the materials he used, but malt and corn were lumped together. They only asked that barley-malt should be entered separately, and another column or so provided for the entry of other materials. The Excise officers would then see at a glance who was brewing from barley-malt only, and the dual duty would be levied accordingly. The brewers were already quite sufficiently supervised to obviate any

  141
  additional cost for extra supervision. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "No doubt the Pure Beer Bill prohibits the use of any other material for the manufacture of beer than malt and hops."
  He would point out that this was not so,—his Bill only required a definition of beer, and by requiring the brewers and publicans to declare the materials from which the beer was made, enabling the consumer to know what he was purchasing. He wished to make these answers to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were as accurate as research could enable him to make them. He apologised to the Committee if he gave them a little too much poetry on the last occasion, and if it was not of the highest class; on the present occasion he would only inflict a few lines upon them:—
  "The poet divine, that cannot reach wine, Because that his money doth oftentimes fail,
  Will hit on the veine and reach the high straine,
  If he be but inspired with a pot of good ale."
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment as proposed by his right hon. Friend, but he should have been glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could see his way, looking at the circumstances of the last two mouths since the 1st of April, to dispense altogether with the £500,000 which would be raised by the extra duty of 6d. on beer. He submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was not bound to take a more sanguine view of the Estimates of the year than he was able to take when he introduced the Budget, and whether, in short, he did not think this £500,000 would really not be required at all. There were two or three circumstances to which he would call his attention. In the first place he doubted whether the Budget statement sufficiently took into consideration the fact that the present financial year was leap year. Having examined the Estimate with regard to Customs, he could not find—the right hon. Gentleman would correct him if he was wrong—any allowance made for that item. Every day that passed represented an amount of —70,000. If the right hon. Gentleman had not taken the fact into
  142
  consideration in the case of Customs, he doubted whether he had done it as regards Excise. There, he thought, every day meant £150,000. The two together, with the extra day thrown in, would give the right hon. Gentleman a sum approaching another £250,000. Then he read, as they all read, this morning the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the City on Wednesday night, wherein he pointed to the fact that the revenue from stamps during the six months of this year exceeded last year's by £700,000.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In six weeks.
  MR. GOSCHEN: In six weeks. Well, no doubt a proportion of that £700,000 would belong, naturally, to the six weeks, and represented the increase the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself would expect from the Death Duties. The right hon. Gentleman must see that this was a somewhat abnormal increase, and the facts mentioned must affect the Budget as a whole. If he was right in his contention, that the able advisers of the right hon. Gentleman at the Treasury had not taken into consideration the fact that the present financial year was leap year, and, on the other hand, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw a considerably larger amount realised from stamps than he anticipated, it would be a great satisfaction to the growers of barley if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to announce to the Committee, not as a matter of controversy, but as a concession, which he now saw his way to make, that he would not impose the additional duty on beer. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make an announcement of that kind, the discussion on the Amendment could be brought to an end, and the announcement would be received by the agricultural interest as a proof that the right hon. Gentleman had been moved by the representations made to him on behalf of that interest.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the right hon. Member for St. George's had referred to the fact that this was Leap Year, and they all knew that in Leap year proposals could be made that would be considered rather extraordinary in ordinary times. To accept the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would not be consistent

  143
  with his duty. It was the first duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide, the country with an adequate revenue to meet the expenditure that was contemplated. That was the basis of the financial proposals which he had made. No man would impose a duty upon beer if he could help it, for it was well known how much opposition such a proposal was likely to meet with. Nothing but a sense of his duty with reference to the public revenue could have induced him to make that proposal. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would not want the money. Of course, if he could be sure of that, nobody would be more happy than he would be to withdraw the proposal, but he should not feel satisfied in his conscience that he had made that provision for the financial wants of the country which it was his duty to make if he were to withdraw it. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the fact that the yield from the Stamp Duties in the beginning of the financial year had been remarkably large. There were some peculiar circumstances connected with this item of revenue. The mortality, which had been extremely low in 1894, rose in February, 1895, in consequence of the influenza, and the Exchequer was now receiving the proceeds of the influenza, as he had pointed out would be the case. The arrears, in fact, were now coming in. These were exceptional circumstances. In respect of the ordinary stamp duties there had been a continuation of the increase that took place last year. The increase was due to peculiar features in the money market, and he would not be justified in the first six weeks of the financial year in calculating upon a continuation of that state of things during the remainder of the year. To accede to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the hope of its continuation would be a sort of speculation undertaken in order to obtain temporary popularity. That very afternoon he had had an opportunity of consulting a gentleman, whom the right hon. Gentleman opposite would consider to be the highest authority on fiscal matters, as to whether it would be wise or safe to dispense with this duty, whether they could dispense with it and yet leave a sufficient and adequate provision for the fiscal wants of the country.
  144
  That gentleman was decidedly of opinion that it would not be safe, and therefore he could not assume the responsibility involved in a step of this kind. He could not try to purchase cheap popularity by taking such a course. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him to grant this exemption as a boon to the agricultural interest. Well, he agreed with the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed over and over again that this tax did not fall upon the agricultural interest. When the right hon. Gentleman was himself pressed in the same way for a remission of the Beer Duty he stated over and over again that, in his opinion, the tax did not fall upon agriculture. For his part he adhered to that opinion, as he had before explained. An hon. and gallant Gentleman who had spoken had declared that the removal of this duty would restore 200,000 acres of land to the cultivation of barley. He could not understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's calculation at all. Why, if the duty were taken off, should it be a case of "Heigh, presto!—200,000 acres of land are growing barley again"? The brewers themselves admitted that this duty was paid by them, and very well could they afford to do it. Prices had been in their favour, for they realised four times the amount of the duty out of the cheaper prices of commodities. Therefore, the imposition of this tax was not an oppressive burden upon them, and the removal of it would not benefit the agricultural interest. On the subject of the provision for the financial wants of the year he ought to say that, while the revenue from stamps had advanced since the beginning of the year, the Exchequer was still, in regard to customs and excise, £600,000 in arrear, having regard to the sum received in the early part of last year. It was true that last year there had been a considerable holding back of spirits, and that the sum was swelled in consequence; and, therefore, he did not say that the present state of things was necessarily to continue. But, being in arrear in respect of customs and excise, he did not feel justified in altering the judgment which he had formed as to the provision that must be made to meet the wants of the year.
  MR. GOSCHEN, referring to some observations made by the Chancellor of

  145
  the Exchequer on a former occasion, said, that he had examined the figures and that they proved that the original duty of sixpence led, to a certain extent, to the substitution of sugar for barley. He was also informed that, after the imposition of the second sixpence, brewers who never used sugar before except for refining took to using sugar instead of barley. Therefore, he had come to adopt the opinion that this heavier taxation did affect—it was impossible to say to what extent—the barley-growers. The suggestion which he had made to the right hon. Gentleman that evening was based on the rosy-coloured speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman in the City on Wednesday. He had gathered from that speech that taxes were coming in more rapidly than the right hon. Gentleman had expected they would. He quite admitted, however, that it would be wrong to press the right hon. Gentleman further after what he had said.
  MR. EDWARD HENEAGEobserved that the brewers said themselves that they did not pay the tax, and were only collectors of it for the Government. The other day, when he stated that neither the brewers nor the maltsters paid it, and that, therefore, it must come out of the pockets of the barley-growers, the Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted him by interjecting the word "Consumer." But in his Budget speech the right hon. Gentleman said that the consumer did not pay, because the price of beer had not altered. Therefore, apparently, neither the brewers, nor the maltsters, nor the consumers paid the tax and so it must fall on the raw material. He was surprised that on this, the fourth, occasion on which this question had been discussed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should still try to refute the statement, which he thought had been acknowledged, that no matter how beer was taxed, not a penny would come out out of the pockets of the brewers.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 61: Noes, 190.—(Division List, No. 100.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6—

  REGULATIONS FOR AND ALLOWANCE ON EXPORTATION OF METHYLATED SPIRITS.
  "Regulations of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, under section One hundred and fifty-nine of the Spirits Act, 1880, may regulate the removal for exportation of methylated spirits, and where spirits used for methylation are removed from a place of methylation and exported in accordance with those regulations, there shall be paid to the exporter an allowance of twopence for every gallon of such spirits, computed at hydrometer proof, and subsection three of section three of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1885 shall apply, as if the spirits were exported and the allowance made in pursuance of that section."
  *MR. T. SNAPEprotested against the proposal in the clause to give an allowance or bounty of 2d. per gallon on exported methylated spirits. A similar bounty of 2d. per proof gallon on other plain spirits exported, and of 4d. per gallon on exported compounded or flavoured spirits was given by the Government. These allowances—or, to call them by their more correct name, these bounties—were defended on the grounds that the home distiller was put to extra expense as compared with the foreign distiller, owing to having to distil under excise restrictions, and that they operated as a countervailing duty to the surtax alleged to be charged by foreign Governments. As he had, on former occasions, gone into the reasons against giving these export allowances, he would only say then that, instead of the home distiller being at a disadvantage by the presence and acts of an officer of Excise, the contrary was the fact. The Excise officer was required to be present at all hours free of charge to the distiller, who had nothing to pay even for overtime. The exciseman, by his vigilance, drawing and proving of samples, and in other ways, fulfilled a useful purpose to the distiller, who would otherwise have to engage, in his own interest, paid help to do the work. The bounties were contrary to Free Trade, and were the only ones now allowed in this country on any exported produce, though, if there were any article which least deserved such consideration, it was that of spirits, owing to the harm which they did to the public welfare. As to the allowances being regarded as a countervailing duty, when continental

  147
  powers gave bounties on exported sugars, we refused, very wisely, to retaliate by countervailing duties, and we ought still more to refuse with reference to spirits. As the export bounties were allowed on other spirits, he would not divide the House on the proposal to give them also on methylated spirits, which were used for commercial purposes. But he protested against the allowances on spirits in any form, and he would not only renew his protest, but would, if the bounties were not abolished, take the sense of the House at some future time as to their continuance. An average of £35,000 annually of public money was thus given away, and though, compared with the large national expenditure, it seemed a small sum, it was a sum the taxpayers of this country ought not to be called upon to pay.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was glad the hon. Member did not intend to press the matter to a Division. This allowance of 2d. a gallon on the export of spirits manufactured here was a subject which had been often discussed. It had always been regarded as a necessary and just allowance and a compensation for the interference of the Excise officer in the discharge of his duty. The hon. Member seemed to think it was an advantage to the manufacturer to have the exciseman on the premises analysing the spirits; but it was highly improbable that the manufacturer thought so. All that was being done now was to extend to methylated spirits the allowance made in ordinary spirits. As far as his knowledge went, he believed it to be a fair allowance, and he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with the explanation.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
  On Clause 9 (Repeal of an Exemption from Stamp Duty on Receipts),
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exercised a wise discretion in not loading his Budget speech with detailed explanations of some of these clauses. Some of them seemed to him to be of importance, and it would be right that they should have
  148
  some general idea of the changes to be made in the law. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to state the object of this clause.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman and the Member for Hampstead would remember what occurred in 1893, when he stated the practical effect of the clause. What he said was, that a practice had arisen of attaching to cheques and dividends a form of receipt stating that, "No stamp is required on this receipt." Thus, a person who ought to give a penny receipt stamp was told not to give it, and the revenue lost largely in consequence. He consulted with several bankers on the subject, and they agreed that this was an evasion of the Stamp Act which ought to be stopped. The practice arose in the old days, when the charges were much higher than now, and when certain exemptions were allowed. The clause was settled in 1893, but he found that the alterations made in it to meet the views of the bankers would render it necessary to recommit the Bill, and in order to obviate the delay which that would involve he dropped the clause. On that occasion the hon. Member for Hampstead thanked him for the courtesy with which he had met the views of the bankers, and expressed his regret that the forms of the House would not permit him to move the clause then.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  On Clause 11,
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that its object was to reduce the Stamp Duty on a power of attorney for the transfer of a small sum of Government stock. The clause reduced the Stamp Duty wherever the nominal amount of the stock did not exceed £100; but it did not alter the Duty upon amounts over £100. The reduction was necessary in order to encourage persons with small savings to invest them in Government stock by facilitating transfer. It was obviously expedient to make the process as little expensive as possible.
  Clause agreed to.
  On Clause 12 (Collection of Stamp Duty in Cases of Property Vested by Act or Passbond Under Statutory Power)
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the object of the, clause was to replace clauses in local acts, and thus to save trouble to the promoters of private Bills. The collection of the Duty was usually provided for by a clause in a private Act; and there could be no objection to doing it once for all in a public one.
  Clause agreed to.
  On Clause 13,
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that its object was to remove doubts as to newspaper policies of insurance.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14:—

  AMENDMENT OF 54 AND 55 VICT. C. 39, AS TO THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY ON CERTAIN FOREIGN SECURITIES.
  "Where foreign securities within the meaning of Sections Eighty-two and Eighty-three of the Stamp Act 1891, are issued in the United Kingdom, and the interest thereon in not payable in the United Kingdom, and such evidence of the amount of the securities as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue require is produced to them, then the Commissioners, if in their discretion they consider it expedient to do so, may accept payment of the amount of Stamp Duty which would be payable if all the said securities were duly stamped, and on such payment may dispense with the necessity of the securities being stamped. The Commissioners shall give notice in The London Gazette of any such dispensation."
  *MR. B. L. COHENin asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain the effect of the change in the law said that, as far as he understood, it was an exceedingly useful and simple alteration. From experience in the City he was aware that considerable trouble and unnecessary obstruction were caused by securities being obliged to be stamped which formed only part of a loan, of which the remaining part was not subject to stamp. If he correctly under stood the arrangements proposed, they would insure that bonds forming part of a loan, although issued in London,
  150
  would not necessarily bear in perpetuity an English impressed stamp, which they could be relieved of without loss or prejudice to the Exchequer by payment at the time of issue of the integral sum which would otherwise become payable. It was necessary the public should know that the Exchequer did not lose anything by this arrangement, because, although the proportion of the loan in question was only the proportion in respect of which taxes could become payable, no were paid on the creation of stock, no further gain would come to the Exchequer because ex hypothesi the interest on the loan was not payable in this country.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he attached considerable value to this clause. London was the great money market of the world, and although the Government raised considerable sums by stamps on many transactions, their object was to make the stamp revenue interfere as little as possible with transactions which we might have to carry on with foreign countries. Everyone who had charge of the finances of the country would always desire to remove any difficulty which prevented foreign business from coming here, which was the natural money market of all the countries of the world. In some markets where a loan was issued, objection was taken to the British stamp being on it. No one had anything to lose by that stamp not being impressed except the Exchequer. The stamp was put on in order that they might secure getting the money. But if they could get the money without, they were as well off as if the stamp were put on, and if they insisted on putting the stamp on, they would not get the money because the bonds would not be issued here but elsewhere.
  Clause agreed to and added to the Bill.
  On Clause 15, which abolishes the limit of time under the Stamp Act, 1891. Section 15 for mitigating or remitting penalties payable on stamping,
  *MR. COHENsaid he understood it gave the Commissioners power to mitigate penalties all over the country. This was a great advantage, and was

  151
  almost necessitated by the important changes which had been made in the death duties last year.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that inasmuch as the Inland Revenue had too constantly before the public mind the burdens imposed, he was glad of an opportunity of bringing into light those they remitted. Under the present law, after three months the full penalty had to be paid if an instrument was improperly stamped. Non-stamping might arise from mere carelessness, and the differences in the Death Duties might postpone stamping for a longer time; the instrument might be put aside and forgotten. Non-stamping might again be due to bonâ fide mistakes, arising sometimes from the accidental disregard of some provision of the instrument. All these might cause the expiration of time, and by law the penalty must be imposed. The limit of time had been found unworkable and to bear hardly, and under Treasury authority the Commissioners had taken the full penalty and repaid the amount they thought it inexpedient to insist upon.
  MR. HANBURYurged that there should be some check on officials in the Courts of Justice, and especially in the County Courts throughout the country, who fraudulently or otherwise did not use stamps of proper value, although they received the full fee or used cancelled stamps. In Scotland a couple of years ago, a fraud of this kind was found to have existed, and in that part of the kingdom a better check upon the officials had been devised. But in Ireland and England the Comptroller General found that practically there was no check against the Exchequer being defrauded. Frauds had been discovered, and he suggested the appointment of an officer connected with the Inland Revenue to watch over these officials. Similar officers should be appointed to perform similar duties in England and Scotland. Although representations had been made to that effect, the Department had not yet appointed such officers. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Hibbert) that, in the interest of the revenue of the country, a check should be placed upon the possibility of the fraud he had referred to being perpetrated. He should like to
  152
  hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that such officers were being appointed, in order to see that where there were opportunities for frauds of this character being perpetrated they should not be taken advantage of. He hoped that he should receive from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the Treasury would move in the matter.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT, Oldham)said, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. W. Han-bury) that the point to which he referred was a most important one, and he could assure him that the Treasury would consider how to meet cases of the character he had indicated. He was, however, not quite sure that the system that was in force in Scotland could conveniently be adopted in England and Ireland, but doubtless some plan might be devised that would be equally effectual in preventing these frauds from being committed. He could not say more than that on that occasion, and he hoped that his assurance would be satisfactory to the hon. Member.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, that although the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John Hibbert) had, in his usual courteous manner, explained his views from the point of view of the Treasury, he felt it to be his duty to say a few words on the subject of the Clauses. It was not always that those hon. Members who now sat upon the Opposition side of the House had the pleasure of agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, therefore, it was with much gratification that he rose to support this clause. The object of the clause was to extend the time within which the Revenue Authorities might remit penalties in respect of insufficient or improper stamping. He agreed that there ought to be some check upon improper and fraudulent stamping; and he wished to say, in confirmation of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Preston, that a case had come before the Public Accounts Committee which showed the necessity for some such checks being provided.
  "There was a considerable number of voted services in respect of which large sums are realised by the sale of fee-stamps. In 1893–4, the

  153
  sum thus received amounted to upwards of £800,000."
  Again he said—
  "During a visit to Ireland in July 1894 it came under notice that the only check as to the correctness in value of the stamps affixed to the documents in the Courts and as to the subsequent cancellation for preventing fraudulent use a second time rested with the officers of the Courts, without independent check"
  Of course, if there were not sufficient checks upon such fraudulent practices, some action should be taken by the Inland Revenue Department in the matter. He understood, from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, that some such action either had been, or was about to be, taken. As the hon. Member for Preston had said, special officers had been appointed in Scotland who exercised a check upon stamping; and he saw no reason why a similar course should not be adopted in Ireland and in England, seeing that equal risk was run in those countries as in Scotland. Some steps should be taken to prevent stamps which had been once used being used a second time.
  MR. HANBURYwished to ask whether the penalties that were imposed upon the members of the public, in respect to insufficient stamping, were equally imposed upon Government officials?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that that was a subject upon which he had not much information; but he must point out that this clause merely gave a discretionary power to the Inland Revenue Department to remit penalties—in fact, to extend the days of grace.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  On the return of the Chairman after the usual interval,
  Clause 17—

  INCOME TAX.
  "(1.) There shall he charged, levied, and paid for the year which began on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five, in respect of all property profits and gains respectively described or comprised in the several Schedules A., B., C., D. and E. in the Income Tax Act, 1853, the following duties of income tax (that is to say):—For every twenty
  154
  shillings of the annual value or amount of property profits and gains chargeable under the said Schedules A., C., D., or E., the duty of eightpence; and for every twenty shillings of the annual value of the occupation of lands, tenements, hereditaments and heritages chargeable under the said Schedule B., the duty of threepence. (2.) All such enactments relating to income tax as were in force on the fifth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-five, shall have full force and effect with respect to the duties of income tax hereby granted, so far as those enactments are consistent with this Act."
  CAPTAIN BETHELL CAPTAIN BETHELL moved—in Sub-Section (1), after "threepence" to insert—
  "Provided that for the purposes of exemption from or abatement of the said duties, the income arising from the occupation of such lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritages, shall be one-third of the full annual value thereof."
  The question dealt with by the Amendment was that of equalising the payment as between the English and the Scotch farmers. It would be remembered that last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertook that these persons should be charged in the same way. Hitherto Scotch farmers had been charged Income Tax on one-third of their rental, whilst English farmers had been charged one-half. He was aware that the matter was very technical, and although he had placed this Amendment on the Paper he recognised that owing to the difficulties in arranging the question he could hardly expect the right hon. Gentleman to accept it. It would, however, give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of explaining the matter. The question of one-eighth in the Income Tax seemed a little obscure. He had consulted the speech of Sir Robert Peel, and from that speech and also from the Finance Act he made out that the English farmers got this abatement of one-eighth, but he was not clear that the Scotch farmers did, and with that abatement of one-eighth to the English farmer the difference in payments made by them and the Scotch farmers up to last year was no doubt not so great as one had previously thought it. Still it was the fact now that although under the Finance Act of last year the Income Tax was apparently charged in the same way upon all farmers, yet when they came to the question of exemptions and abatements the English farmers had, in the demand note of the Inland Revenue, to

  155
  declare their incomes at half their rental, and the Scotch farmers at only one-third of their rentals. Englishmen were thus placed at a considerable disadvantage as compared with Scotchmen, except, curiously enough, in one limited area of their income. In incomes ranging from about £550 to something under £700 he believed the English farmers got a few shillings advantage as compared with the Scotch farmers; but, on the other hand, where they were at a disadvantage that disadvantage was very considerable. The point as he had said was of a highly technical character, and he should he glad if the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity of giving them a full explanation on the subject. He begged formally to move the Amendment.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen was perfectly right in saying this was a technical matter. It was extremely complicated and confusing, and he questioned whether any other Member except the hon. and gallant Member himself, who had gone into the point, would understand the explanation he was about to give. As the hon. Member was aware there was a difference in the actual figure that was charged up to last year. With an 8d. Income Tax, the charge would have been, under the old system, 4d. in the case of England and 3d. in the case of Scotland and Ireland. In the Bill of last year the Government equalised the matter in that respect, but made no alteration with regard to another peculiarity in the calculation, namely, that in the case of Scotland and Ireland the income is taken at one-third of the rent, and in the case of England at one-half. That would appear to create a disadvantage in the case of the English farmer by reason of his income being calculated at one-half instead of one-third of his rental. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred also to an advantage which England had in respect of the mysterious one-eighth. As far as he could learn it was founded upon this notion: (Of course, they were dealing here solely with the occupiers and not with the owners.) The one-eighth was given in England to the occupiers of tithe free land at a time when the tithe was collected in kind, and consequently fell on the occupier, and it
  156
  was supposed that an allowance ought to be made to the occupier of the tithe free land. In Scotland and Ireland, as he understood it, the tithe rent-charge fell upon the owner, and there the occupier did not get the one-eighth. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had correctly said that this was a question only of the exemptions or abatements. If they took the one-eighth and set it against the difference between the one-half or one-third, they would find that they compensated one another so exactly up to the rental of £480 a year that there was no difference. If they took the three things into consideration—namely, the one-third in Scotland and Ireland, and the one-half in England, and the allowance of one-eighth in the case of England, the abatements would work out exactly the same in the three countries. When they got above a rental of £500, there would be a very small number of cases where there was, perhaps, a little inequality. In the case of farms of not more than £480 a year rent, there would practically be no Income Tax at all. There was no doubt the matter might be brought to an actual equality if they applied the one-third limit to all the three countries, and took away from England the one-eighth abatement which was now allowed. Probably that would be the most correct way of doing the thing. If that were thought a desirable way of dealing with it, he would see if it could be effected in the Finance Bill of another year by him, or by his successor. That would bring about a theoretical equality. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would never do, because it would give to England the same figure as to Ireland and Scotland, and yet not give that one-eighth to them. If they were to make the cases equal, then they would, if they fixed the calculation at one-third in the case of England, have to take away the one-eighth. He hoped he had satisfied the hon. and gallant Gentleman there was no practical injustice in the present state of things, but that on an average justice was done. At all events no great injustice arose from the apparent inequality, and the matter might, perhaps, hereafter be put on a more perfect footing.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLobserved that he had looked into the matter more closely than he had done when he first raised the point. He had worked out the illustrations, and he had come to the conclusion that the difference was not very serious. That difference was mainly in the case of the higher rentals up to £700 and £800 a year, and although it was no consolation for a person who paid too much to know that others paid, perhaps, too little, he did not think, after the explanation that had been given, the matter was so important as to put the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the inconvenience of setting it right in the present Budget. He would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BARTLEY MR. BARTLEY rose to move: Page 6, line 15, after "Act," add—
  "Except that, in addition to the relief afforded to the joint incomes of married persons under £500 a year, under Section 34, Sub-section 2, of the Finance Act, 1894, similar relief shall he afforded when the wife's income is classified under and the Income Tax would be payable under any section of Schedules D and E of The Income Tax Act, 1842."
  He remarked that last year, in the alterations the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the Finance Act, he included one concerning certain changes in the Income Tax, and not only made the remissions on small incomes higher than they had been before, but he also made what was thought to be a great concession at the time in the case of the joint incomes of husband and wife There were at that time several Amendments on the Paper on the subject, including one which he had placed there with the view of bringing the question before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had also an Amendment which they all thought—as he believed did the right hon. Gentleman himself—would meet their entire wishes It met with his (Mr. Hartley's) wishes inasmuch as it made the exemptions in the case of such joint incomes entirely depend on the incomes being made by industry. The effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was that in the case of a husband and wife whose joint income was less than £500, that income was not be considered
  158
  as one, but as two, and therefore each was to get an abatement up to £160 a year. The only criticism on the Amendment was that it did not include the income of a wife derived from investments, with which he, personally, did not agree, for he held the views that it would not be reasonable to extend the concession to a wife's income when derived from such a source. But the feeling of the House undoubtedly was that the joint income of the husband and wife, when the income of the wife was derived from any other source but investments, would be treated separately. The authorities of the Inland Revenue, however, took a different view. The words of the great Income Tax Act of 1842 were "incomes derived from any profession, trade, employment, or avocation." In the Act of last year the word "trade" was left out; and that, it seemed, made all the difference. Most people would have thought that "employment or avocation" included "trade." In ordinary conversation it certainly would, but, then, an Act of Parliament did not take an ordinary view of things. Anyway, the authorities of Somerset House held that "employment or avocation" did not include "trade"; and, therefore, they had this extraordinary anomaly, that while a wife who worked as a typist got the benefit of the concession, her sister who kept a bonnet-shop was excluded. A great deal might have been said for resisting the concession altogether, but when it was made in the case of "any profession, employment, or avocation," the case of "trade" ought not to be excluded from the benefit. As the public could hardly realise that "employment or avocation" did not include "trade," the difference had given rise to a good deal of ill-feeling and hardship. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably say that to include "trade" in the concession would make a great difference to the Revenue. He did not know anything about that; but on the abstract question of principle, if they allowed the concession to a married woman who earned her separate income as a typist, he could not see how they could deny it to another married woman who earned her separate income in a bonnet-shop. If it was a reasonable concession in the case of one married

  159
  woman who earned her living, it was reasonable in all cases of married women who earned their livings, and the accident that one line of business was called a "trade," another "an employment," and another "an avocation," should not make a difference. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree that this was a reasonable proposal. The right hon. Gentleman spoke the previous night about the flourishing condition of the Revenue. If the concession did mean a slight loss, the virtue of the right hon. Gentleman in granting it would be rewarded by a continuance of the flourishing condition of the Revenue, and he would also have the blessings of those deserving people.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that when he made the concession referred to last year, he pointed out the danger which beset the question from the revenue point of view. Nobody knew better than the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment—for he had often called attention to the fact—the large amount of Revenue which was derived from lower incomes, and, therefore, anything that touched lower incomes seriously affected the fiscal result of the Income Tax. He was bound to acknowledge that the concession he made last year was due in a great degree to what he had learned from the hon. Member in regard to those joint incomes. But it was the fact that when they touched those incomes they touched one of the most productive strata of Revenue. That was not an altogether unsatisfactory circumstance. In the time of Peel the Income Tax yielded only £770,000 a year for every penny; today it yielded £2,000,000 for every penny, and that great growth of the Tax was mainly due to the fact that the non-paying Income Tax classes of society—men who earned less than £160 a year—had risen up into the Income Tax paying level, which, socially, was a very important and satisfactory circumstance. But the fact also showed how careful they must be, from the point of view of the Revenue, in dealing with matters affecting this class of the community. In the Income Tax Act of 1842 there was one category of rules which referred to all employments, and another category of rules which referred to
  160
  trade; and when he made the concession last year he intentionally confined it to the first category—that of employments. If that were not so, in the case of a man who had little of his own but who married a woman with a separate income of £350 a year from Consols, that couple would have to pay less than a man who had an income of £500 a year as clerk and married a woman who had no separate income, and who, consequently would not be entitled to the concession. Therefore, they would be giving to the woman with a permanent income, and, therefore, under no necessity of saving for the children, a greater benefit than they would give to the man with a precarious income and the responsibilities of the family. It was quite obvious it could not be applied to the income of a woman derived from investment. [Mr. BARTLEY: "I never suggested that."] Then hon. Member then said, "Why not apply it to trade?" From the Inland Revenue point of view it was impossible to apply it to trade. The case of a schoolmistress, for instance, was that of pure earnings, the result of the mere exertion and occupation of the wife herself. But when they came to trade they entered upon different considerations, because trade must involve some degree of capital. The woman might be a lodging-house keeper, and yet the purchase of the house might be made by the man. Under the Act of 1842 vocation really meant something corresponding to what was called salary—salary as distinguished from the earnings of trade founded upon capital. That was really the distinction between the two cases. He did not think it would be according to the principle, on which they proceeded if they made an exemption in the case of husband and wife making £500 between them. The hon. Member anticipated he would speak of the large loss which would accrue. He hoped the Committee would not think he spoke lightly. On the contrary, he realised the responsibility of his position, and he made his statements upon the information of those whom he could thoroughly trust. He asserted that if they opened the door in respect to trade, evasion would be very easy, and the loss to the Revenue would be very great. He had asked for information, and was satisfied that the

  161
  adoption of this Amendment would result in a loss of Income Tax which could not be valued at less than three quarters of a million sterling. [Mr. BARTLEY: "With the Income Tax at 8d. in the pound?"] Yes. [Mr. GERALD LODER: "And without the £500 limit?"] Under the £500 limit. He could not possibly say how many people would attempt to evade the tax, but the temptation would be very great. He could not accept the responsibility of opening the door to such a leakage in the tax. To open such a door would be to make too great a breach in the system of the Income Tax, and he must press on the Committee the absolute necessity of preserving the integrity of the framework of the Income Tax Act. They must take extreme care they did not undermine the foundations of that Act. Holding to views he had expressed, he could not recommend the acceptance of the Amendment.
  MR. BARTLEYthought the right hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake in estimating the loss at £750,000, because according to the return of Income Tax which was made upon his (Mr. Bartley's) Motion, the amount of Tax paid by persons with under £500 a year was only just over £1,000,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERasked the hon. Member to pardon him; he was addressing himself to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The argument he used was mainly with reference to trade, but he overlooked a most important point. The Amendment covered a great number of things which were not merely connected with trade. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's attention had not been called to the fact that his Amendment said, "Similar relief shall be afforded when the wife's income is classified under, and the income-tax would be payable under, any section of Schedules D and E of the Income tax Act, 1842." Section D of the income-tax would cover all investments in railways. All investments in foreign securities, in water companies, in industrial associations, would come within the Amendment, because the wife's income would be classified under Schedule D. The Amendment would, therefore, produce a result the hon. Gentleman did not desire. The Amendment would not give the woman relief if her money were in land, Consols, or
  162
  Russian bonds; but it would give her relief if her money were in London and North-Western debentures, French Rentes, and Prussian bonds. The hon. Member would see the adoption of his Amendment would produce most extraordinary anomalies. The Amendment related very largely to investments of a most miscellaneous character, and its effect would be most unequal in regard to those investments. When he gave that figure, it included all those securities to which he had referred.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that if his clause had the interpretation ascribed to it by the right hon. Gentleman, it was imperfectly drafted. The object as set out in the preamble of his Bill, was that all married women who earned their incomes should be entitled to the allowance. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman strengthened his view. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the extension to all earned incomes were made, the cost to the Exchequer would be three-quarters of a million. That could not be so, because the whole amount received from earned married women's incomes under Schedule D, in 1893, only a little exceeded a million. He wished all trade incomes of married women to be included. Since the 1893 figures were published the right hon. Gentleman had made fresh exemptions, so that of course, the cost of the concession for which he asked would be proportionately reduced. He did not think, however, that the cost was very important. He pressed the proposal as being right and just.
  MR. GERALD LODERsaid, that lie had put down an Amendment covering still wider ground than his hon. Friend's; for he proposed that the incomes of married women from whatever source, should be exempt from Income Tax if below the requisite amount. The remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer justified him in having put down that Amendment, and made him regret that he had not moved it. It would be much simpler and more just to act on the principle of that Amendment. As to what it would cost the taxpayer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, in speaking of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Deptford,

  163
  which was wider even than the present proposal, or that which he had put on the paper, because it applied to all married women's income, whether the joint income of husband and wife amounted to £500 or not—in speaking to that Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The Amendment did not limit these concessions to people of small income. The Inland Revenue had made calculations, and they informed him that the concessions proposed in the Amendment would involve a loss of at leas £500,000, a year, and more probably of £750,000."
  If that were the case, it was impossible that the concession, if extended only to incomes below £500, should cost £500,000. That was not very important. But last year, in moving the exemption on the Report Stage, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it perfectly clear that it was only to apply to incomes from "professions, employment, and vocation." But in discussion on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make that clear, at least to the Opposition. In response to an appeal from his supporters the right hon. Gentleman promised on that occasion to consider the subject and move an Amendment on Report; and it was distinctly understood by the Opposition that exemption was to apply to incomes from trade as well as to those from "employment, profession, or vocation." Why should trade incomes enjoy the privileges of incomes derived from a profession or vocation, seeing that they were precarious and fluctuating? The instances given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had always referred to people already married. Take the case of a widow who had a small tobacconist shop or a lodging-house. If she married again, her income was clubbed together with that of her husband for Income Tax purposes. But in the case of her sister, who was, say, the manageress of a hotel or of a mercantile concern, the incomes of man and wife would not be clubbed together, and the income of the wife would come under the exemption. This was extremely unfair, as well as illogical. If a married woman's income was her own, it ought to be hers for all purposes, whether advantageous or disadvantageous to herself. He hoped that
  164
  his hon. Friend would divide on the question, as there were many people who felt strongly about it. He knew the difficulty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have in making up the deficit; but private Members could not move any Amendment except by way of reduction. It was not for them to point out how the deficit could be met, but only to voice the grievances which were felt by those whom they represented.
  MR. HANBURYasked whether the women who worked in mills would be regarded as within the definition "employment or vocation."
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he would inquire. [The right hon. Gentleman then walked down the floor of the House and held a brief consultation with one of the occupants of the seats under the Peers' Gallery devoted to the use of Strangers.]
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that he was astonished that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Secretary to the Treasury—the latter being the representative of a Lancashire manufacturing town—could answer such an important question without reference to the Inland Revenue officials. Even the Attorney General did not know what to say.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,who meanwhile had resumed his seat: I do not administer personally the details of the Inland Revenue. I do not pretend to know them, and it is impossible that I should. But I speak with the authority of the men who do know, and when I am asked a question which does not come within my personal cognisance I refer to them. I was asked whether in particular instances the allowance was made—a thing I could not know and could have no means of knowing. But I have inquired, and my answer to the question now is that, in respect of the persons referred to by the hon. Member, the allowance is made under the head of "Employment." That is probably a more satisfactory answer to his question than I could otherwise have given.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that this was a very difficult question. If the right hon. Gentleman could not say at once whether a mill

  165
  hand came within the definition of "employment or vocation," surely the public had cause to complain? That the should have to go to the Inland Revenue Office to find out whether they were within the exemption or not was a great grievance. It would not matter, of course, if it did not affect them so seriously financially. On the Report Stage some words ought to be brought up which would make the question quits clear, so that "he that runs may read." A smaller allowance to all married women who earned their incomes would be better than a larger allowance to a few.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If I can make the words clearer I shall be extremely glad to see what can be done. But the hon. Gentle man, with his long experience of Customs and Inland Revenue Bills, surely never expects them to be in a form where "he that runs may read.'' I have found them very far from that. If there is a subject which can exercise the human intellect more than high analytical mathematics it is the Bills of the Inland Revenue. They are like the secrets of an ancient order, which were kept by those who had to administer them.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he rose in order to come to the rescue of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He sympathised with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that the secure method of levying taxation was to levy a considerable portion of it at the larger end of the pyramid and not at the smaller. He did not see, however, how a mill hand could come under the designation of being employed externally to trade. His view was that none of those exemptions should exist, and if the exemption was not to exist in the case of trade, it should be taken away in the other cases as well. Therefore, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised to reconsider this point, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was entering upon a dangerous course. It was right in his view that two persons earning £500 between them should pay towards the expenses of the State.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEthought that this question would be made painfully clear to tens of thousands of working men and women all over the country.
  166
  If certain allowances were made in the incomes of wives who earned their living by typewriting, literature and other means, why should not that exemption be extended to the earnings of women engaged in trade or business? In each case the money was earned by ingenuity, skill, eyes and brains. It would be impossible to persuade women that one class of earnings should be favoured by an allowance arid not the other. If the limitation suggested was adopted, it was clear that the loss to the revenue would be very slight.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHENthought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would expect him to aid him with what might be called his "professional co-operation." He had still ringing in his ears the denunciations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the exemptions of last year. He foresaw the dangerous course on which the right hon. Gentleman was embarking then. He gave the right hon. Gentleman not only his own views, but the views of the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) with regard to exemptions, and he showed the Chancellor of the Exchequer the danger and the injustice involved in many of the proposed exemptions. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was a matter of the greatest importance when they came to touch that portion of the income tax which lay below incomes of £500. It had not been realised by the country to what extent the financial strength of the income tax rested on the lower strata of incomes as well as upon the higher; and this was a matter which must not be lost sight of. The anomalies, injustices and difficulties of those exemptions had been illustrated by what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others had said. He thought that in this case the argument was against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for a great deal of the income from trade was less certain and more exposed to every kind of fluctuation than the income enjoyed by the receiver of dividends; and therefore, from the just point of view, trade ought to be exempted. On the other hand, the argument was in the right hon. Gentleman's favour, inasmuch as every kind of evasion might be practised. But they could not argue the question entirely on the principle of justice; they must argue it on the ground

  167
  of expediency and general policy. If therefore the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to embark on a policy such as had been indicated by some of his hon. Friends, and admitted this class of exemption, they would be driven from point to point until there would be a danger of seeing the whole revenue from the tax whittled away. On that ground he should vote against the Amendment of his hon Friend.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 56; Noes, 144.—(Division List, No. 101.)
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid that, though he was in the Lobby, he had been unable to record his vote. He intended to vote for the Amendment.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. HANBURY,in rising to move the following new clause regarding the assessment of Land Tax—
  "The cost of the assessment and collection of Land Tax shall be defrayed out of the net quota or sum from time to time remaining in charge against any parish tithing or place in respect of such tax, and the amount, if any, collected over and beyond such net quota or sum shall be used for the purpose of redemption of the Land Tax chargeable upon such parish tithing or place in accordance with the provisions of the Act of the 43rd and 44th years of Victoria, chapter 19,"
  —explained that his object was to remove a great injustice adding largely to the incidence of the Land Tax in small country parishes. The Land Tax, as they knew, was a fixed quota upon every parish, or was supposed to be so. It varied a little from year to year in consequence of re-assessments, and, therefore, it was not possible for the assessor to always collect the exact amount of the quota. But then, in such cases, the ordinary provision of the law was, that the surplus of the tax so raised should be paid into the Bank of England, and be held in the names of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and there be allowed to accumulate until a sufficient amount had accumulated to redeem the tax. If that were carried out it would be fair, and the parishes would have nothing to complain of, because, although more might be raised than the actual quota in any given year, the money would accumulate for the benefit of the parish and the redemption of the quota. So far the law was just and fair, and it
  168
  was only when they came to deal with other provisions disposing of the surplus Land Tax that injustice arose. It applied more especially to the poorer parishes, because, for instance, in places where the Land Tax was only £50 or £60, it was a great hardship that it should be increased by 9 and 10 per cent., and sometimes even by 20 per cent. There were two provisions in the Act called the Tax Management Act 1888–89, dealing with the payment of the collector, who was often also the assessor, out of the Land Tax. One of those provisions was swept away in 1891, and the collector, who was often the assessor, was removed, but the other still remained, and it was to the injustice of that particular proviso that he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was to the effect that the Board of Inland Revenue could give their permission to the Commissioners of the Land Tax to pay to the two assessors any amount of the surplus tax that they might assess. The amount was an uncertain sum; but it was evident that if the assessors were to be paid out of the surplus Land Tax, and to receive, as they almost invariably did receive, with the assent of the Inland Revenue, the whole of that surplus Land Tax, it was clearly to the interest of the assessors to increase that tax in a parish as much as they could. He, therefore, had these two objections to the existing mode of paying the assessors—in the first place, that the amount paid was an uncertain sum; and secondly, that the assessor had every temptation put in his way to levy an additional amount of taxation, because he received the whole of the surplus. That was a bad system, and it had also the effect on many small parishes that rather than pay this surplus amount to the assessors they practically had no re-assessment at all. They went on year after year without making any re-assessment. An hon. Member for Bristol had told him that he knew of several parishes where there had been no re-assessments for many years for this reason, and that the Land Tax in those parishes had practically remained the same every year. There was this further point. He had also been informed that the men referred to collected both the Income Tax and the Land Tax, and also the assessment

  169
  in many cases, and that the payment made to them for collectors of the Income and Land Taxes was so inadequate that unless they filled at the same time the office of assessor they would not get sufficient remuneration for their work, He proposed to meet the difficulty by a very simple remedy, which he thought was a fair one, and which he did not think would affect the Budget to any considerable extent. It was this—that to avoid placing temptation in the way of assessors, and to avoid raising these large amounts of surplus Land Tax, which was very hard on the country parishes arid on the land, he proposed to pay the assessor a fixed sum out of the ordinary Land Tax, and so avoid any surplus being raised at all.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERagreed that the present mode of remunerating the assessors was not a good one, and ought to be amended. The hon. Member was quite right in correcting his Amendment or his clause by omitting the word "collection,'' because the collection was already provided for under the Inland Revenue Vote, and did not come out of the Land Tax at all. Therefore no complaint arose under the head of collection. There was a sum of £18,000 now paid to clerks and collectors, and it came out of the Vote. Now, as to the assessment, the amount of the surplus Land Tax raised was not so large as the hon. Member supposed, for the aim unit going to the assessors all over the country did not much exceed 1 per cent. What he was informed was this: if the net quota of a parish were £200, the Commissioners might make an assessment of £205, allowing £5 as remuneration to the assessor; if the amount fell short of the assessment to £202 or £203, the assessor took the £2 or £3. He did not think the particular form of the Amendment the best way of dealing with a bad system, but perhaps the hon. Member would be satisfied with the assurance given, not on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the Inland Revenue, and the matter would be dealt with next year in the Inland Revenue Bill. There were other reasons why he could not accept the particular form of Amendment. The matter was one really almost de minimis, but if the hon. Member
  170
  would take his assurance, he on his part would take care to have it considered.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, it was not a case of de minimis in relation to the small parishes. In two parishes with which he was intimately acquainted, where the quota was about £65 each, £5 or £6 of surplus Land Tax had been levied for some years. The grievance did not apply to the large parishes. Nor did he quite understand what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do with the assessment during next year; for instance, before it could be dealt with in the Budget Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My suggestion was, that it must be endured for this and next year. I do not understand on what principle it is that people raise, in the parishes of which the hon. Member speaks, this extravagant amount of surplus Land Tax; but, of course, his local knowledge is of more value than my personal opinion on the matter. What I suggest is, that he will allow the matter to stand over for this year, on the understanding that the matter will be dealt with in the next Inland Revenue Bill.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the practice was adopted, and could only be adopted, by consent of the Inland Revenue Department, and therefore he submitted the grievance could be remedied by an Act of Administration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question whether it could be done by an Act of Administration was one he would inquire into, but for the future the matter would be put on a proper basis.
  MR. EVERETThoped the right hon Gentleman would remember, in devising a new system, that the collectors of Land Tax were not overpaid at present.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Progress reported.

  STANDING COTMMITEE (SCOTLAND).
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [9th May]—
  "That, in addition to the two Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, a Standing Committee shall be appointed for the consideration of all Bills introduced by a Minister of the Crown relating exclusively to Scotland, which may, by Order of the House,

  171
  be committed to them; and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 47 shall apply to the said Standing Committee; that the said Standing Committee do consist of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies, together with Fifteen other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard in such appointment to the approximation of the balance of parties in the Committee to that of the whole House, and who shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by them, and to appoint others in substitution of those discharged; that Standing Orders Nos. 49 and 50 do apply to the said Standing Committee."—(Sir George Trevelyan.)
  Question again proposed:—Debate resumed.
  DR. CLARKsaid, he regretted very much, after the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he should require to oppose as strongly as he could the setting up of this Grand Committee. He did so on two grounds—firstly, because it would be a reactionary measure; and secondly, because the course to be pursued would retard the progress of the Crofters' Bill, in which he was much interested. He should like to say a word about the position of Parties in relation to the Government. When in 1888 the late Government proposed to set up Grand Committees he and his friends agreed to the present Grand Committee, and they endeavoured to set up two Grand Committees on the principle of nationality. They proposed to have a Grand Committee for Scotland and one for Wales. They lost the Scotch Grand Committee by a fair majority, and the Welsh Committee by a majority of some half-a-dozen. Though the late Government objected to these Special Grand Committees, they recognised practically the principle of nationality in carrying out their business. The Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Act in 1888 was referred to a Committee composed of 25 persons. Of these, 21 were Scotch Members, three were Scotchmen who had been Scotch Members, and one was an English Member, the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan, who was nominated on the Committee as an expert, having great knowledge of municipal government. There was, therefore, a preponderance of 24 Scotchmen out of 25 on that Committee. In 1890 this doctrine of nationality made still further progress. A Bill was introduced to re-model the Scotch system of
  172
  police superannuation, and was sent before a special Committee. How was it proposed to constitute that Committee? Twenty-one Scotch Members were put down for nomination by the ex-Lord Advocate—not a single English, or Irish, or Welsh Member. That showed that the chief Scotch authorities of that day were in favour of devolution of the basis of nationality. One of the Scotch Members originally named for nomination was the Solicitor General for Scotland, but he was made a judge, and in his place the name of the hon. Member for Ipswich was proposed, he having been at one time a Scotch Member. That was the position as far as the late Government were concerned. What did the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues do. Objecting on principle to the mode of constituting this Committee, an Amendment was moved in their behalf by the present Civil Lord of the Admiralty, proposing that there should be a Grand Scotch Committee, consisting of the 72 Members for Scotland. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Secretary for Scotland, the present Lord Advocate, the present Minister for Agriculture, and other right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Ministerial Bench, who were in the House at the time, all voted for the Amendment, which, however, was defeated by a small majority. But the Liberal Party pledged itself to the principle of that Amendment. A memorial, signed by the Scotch Liberal Members, had been sent to the Government this Session, asking that all Scotch Bills, after the First Reading, might be sent to a Scotch Grand Committee, and that the stages of Second Reading, Committee, and Report should be dealt with there. He did not sign the memorial himself, because he thought it would be as difficult for the Government to grant that demand as to grant Home Rule for Scotland, and if there was to be a contest he preferred to fight for the greater issue. After the memorial had been considered, a compromise was suggested, and the Government proposed to constitute a Scotch Grand Committee for the Committee Stages of Bills. That was objected to on the other side, and then the Chancellor of the Exchequer who voted, in 1890, for the Amendment of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty,

  173
  turned round and took up a different position, proposing that 15 English Members should be added to the Committee, which addition would be quite enough to take from it the element of nationality. But he understood that now a great many more English Members were to be added. The Committee was not to be a Scotch Committee at all, but what was called a microcosm of the House. The Committee was to be dominated by Englishmen. [At this point the result of the Warwick and Leamington Election was made known in the House, and received with Opposition cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite wore cheering on account of news which they had heard. Results of the kind were only to be expected when their Leaders did not act with spirit. If the Ministerial Party were dispirited in that House their constituents would be dispirited also. If their Leaders would give way to the Opposition and allow the Opposition to dominate and master them, nothing else could be expected than results of the kind. How would the last plan of the Government with regard to the constitution of this Committee work out? At the present time there were 48 Liberal Members returned from Scotland and 24 Unionists, that was to say, the Liberals were as two to one. But if 20 English Members were added to the Committee, as proposed, there would he a Unionist strength of 44, and the Liberals would only have a majority of four. But would that be a real, effective majority? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian would be a Member of the Committee, but he had not attended the House for some months, so that it was not likely that he would attend the Committee. Then there were two Secretaries of State, the Attorney General, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty. Their official work would prevent them from attending. Last year they only attended the Committee once, and that was only when the Secretary for Scotland accepted the Amendment of a Unionist Member, and called them in to vote against the Liberal Members for Scotland. The Government were now going to set up a Unionist Grand Committee, and he for one, as a practical man, objected to any such Committee. If it had been even an
  174
  ordinary Grand Committee he would have objected just as much, because any Member might make the Motion to send the Bill to an ordinary Grand Committee; and in that respect again this was a retrograde proposal. The Government did not propose to set up a Committee similar to the Grand Committees on Law and Trade. Only a Minister of the Crown was to have the right of sending a Bill to this Committee, and if it were only on account of that limitation the Committee ought not to be appointed. Another reason against it was that they were told that only non-contentious Bills were to be sent to it. Non-contentious Bills were as a rule passed after Twelve o'clock, or after Half-past Five on Wednesdays, and did not require to be sent to such a Committee; and now, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to send a Bill to it, hon. Gentlemen opposite would say it was a contentious Bill, and so it could not be sent up. What was the character of the Bills it was proposed to send up? There was the Fatal Accidents Bill. In principle the Bill passed the House two years ago, and it passed the Committee Stage in the Grand Committee on Law. Therefore there was reason to start a new Committee for purposes of the Bill. Then they were told that the Local Government Bill would probably be sent to the Committee. That was another reason why he opposed the Motion; because if they set up the Committee that night, and the Local Government Bill were referred to it, the unfortunate Crofters' Bill, instead of occupying the first position, would be still further from being passed. But was the Local Government Bill a non-contentious Bill? A day would be required for the Second Heading, and another day for dealing with the Instructions to the Committee. The chances of carrying any Scotch business were being lessened and lessened by the course the Government were taking. There might be another Bill, the Fisheries Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was asked whether the Bill could be sent to the Committee, and he replied that now that the constitution of the Committee had been changed, now that the English element was to be so increased, Bills partly applying to England might be allowed to come before the Committee.

  175
  But the form of the Motion was the same as last year. The words "exclusively applying to Scotland" were still retained, and when the Fisheries Bill was introduced in the other House it did not exclusively apply to Scotland, though for all he knew it might do so now. He could see no ground why Scotch Members should permit a retrograde movement of this kind, why they should permit this Government to go back more and more every Session and allow what was practically of no use to them to be carried. He could not discuss the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer now, but he regretted very much to hear what he said. He regretted the course the right hon. Gentleman had adopted in taking instruction and in being willing to make deals behind the Speaker's Chair when he was Leader of the House. It was high time, he thought, that the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Leader of the House should be on the Treasury Bench, and not on the Opposition Bench. He used to accept the pledges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He knew the right hon. Gentleman made them with the best possible intention, but they all knew of the Twelve o'Clock Rule, and at the end of the Session the right hon. Gentleman would say, "I have done my best, but I cannot help it." The right hon. Gentleman told them last year that this same Bill would be passed, but it was not passed. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman told them that a Committee to consider the financial relations between England and Scotland would be appointed when the Budget was over, but no Committee was appointed. Last year a similar pledge was given in favour of a Committee on that important question, but the Budget was over and the Session was finished, yet no Committee was appointed. While the Chancellor of the Exchequer might do all he could to carry out his pledges, events were much more powerful than he was; and this unfortunate
  176
  measure, which might have been passed if it had been referred to the Grand Committee, would fail to pass this year as it did last. He warned the Members of the Cabinet, who are Members for Scotch constituencies, that they were taking note of their continued neglect of Scotch business, and they would hear of it if they did not put pressure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show less contempt for Scotch Measures and Scotch Members.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the hon. Member below him admitted that the Scotch Grand Committee ought to be set up for exclusively Scotch business. It was well they should understand clearly what they were about to do. The essential principle of the Resolution was, that the Scotch Grand Committee should be set up for exclusively Scotch legislation, and that there should not be referred to it any Bill including any provisions that affected English trade or fishing. He had already pointed out that there was one Bill bearing a Scottish title which did not relate exclusively to Scotland. There were a number of English and of Irish constituencies that were interested in that Bill; and beyond that, having regard to the International Fisheries Convention, 1882, the questions involved were also British questions. The question was whether the Scotch Fisheries Bill came within the category of those to be referred to the Scotch Grand Committee. If this Resolution was carried in its present shape, he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether or not that Bill, which was not exclusively a Scotch Bill, would be sent to that Committee? Although nominally a Scotch Bill, it affected English and Irish interests, and, therefore, it ought not to be sent to the Committee.
  *MR. BUCHANANsaid, the last printed form of the Bill contained the statement in Cluse 2 that it should apply to Scotland only and to the parts of the sea adjoining Scotland, and he did not think that words could

  177
  more clearly indicate that it was an exclusively Scotch Bill. The explanation of the opposition of the hon. Member for Grimsby was accounted for by the fact that the Grimsby trawlers wanted to fish in Scotch waters. Their right to do so was fully recognised, but the Scotch Members maintained that Scotch fisheries should be under the administration of the Scotch Fishery Board, and that Scotch Fishery Bills should be referred to a Scotch Committee. He viewed with great regret the limitations placed upon the work of the Committee, which would have been much more valuable if the Crofters Bill could have been referred to it. There was only two points about it that were contentious—one being the proposed extension of the Measure to several other counties, and the other the question, as to leaseholders; and, if it were sent to the Grand Committee, these points could be discussed afterwards by the House. The details of the Bill could be considered better by the Committee than in Committee of the whole House. He recognised, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, owing to the opposition raised, it was impracticable to refer the Bill to the Committee; and then the question arose whether it was worth while having the Committee or not. [Opposition cheers.] Of course the Opposition did not want any Scotch Bills passed at all. "Oh, oh!"] Although the limitation of the functions of the Committee was not satisfactory, still it was worth while to set it up, because it might be the means of passing two or three useful measures which were before the House. As regarded the Crofters Bill no part of Scotland took a greater interest in it than the constituency which he represented. They looked to obtain the reforms they wished for, but they could not expect to obtain the Bill without full discussion. Considering the attitude the Opposition had taken up the House must recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come to
  178
  the only conclusion he could—that it must be discussed in this House. It might be suggested that possibly the setting up of the Committee might indirectly postpone the consideration of the Crofters Bill. The Scotch Members wanted an assurance that at at an early date after Whitsuntide the Second Reading of the Crofters Bill would be taken so that it might be ready for the consideration of the Committee of the House the moment there was an opportunity, and that the Government would pass it this Session, and keep the Session going until they have done their best to pass the Bill through the House.
  *MAJOR DARWIN*MAJOR DARWIN (Lichfield) moved the following Amendment—
  "Line 7, leave out from 'of,' to 'and,' in line 11, mid insert 'Eighty-seven Members nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall adjust the relative proportion of parties in the Committee so as to be as far as practicable the same as the relative proportion of parties in the House, and who shall nominate as many Members representing Scottish constituencies as is consistent with this condition.'"
  He said he was glad the Government had decided not to refer the Crofters Bill to the Committee, for from his experience, to refer contentious Bills to a Grand Committee would be to wreck it altogether. If the Government wished to make this a working reform which could apply to any other Session and form a precedent for future occasions they should accept some words such as those he had proposed. Last Session 15 Members were added to the Committee, and it was distinctly understood that these 15 were to be Unionists added for the sake of re-adjusting the balance of Parties on the Committee of Selection. Hon. Members from Ireland put forward the contention—and he did not dispute their right to do so—that they should be treated as a separate Party, and they demanded one representative, which was granted by the Committee of Selection. If the 15 were increased to 20, as was proposed

  179
  this year, what guarantee had they that the 5 additional Members would not be chosen from among the Nationalist Members. It would be a perfectly rational demand on the part of the Irish that those five Members should be Nationalist Members. He had mentioned 87 as the number, because it was the number proposed by the Government themselves. But it was not an essential part of his proposal. The essential part was that the Committee should, under all circumstances, be a reflex of Parties in the House. He had put down his Amendment in the belief that it offered a reasonable compromise to both sides of the House. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Scotland, was to be congratulated upon having brought through the Scotch Committee a Bill which placed the Local Government of Scotland upon a proper footing. That, however, did not remove his objection to the proposal of the Government. He contended that the element of nationality ought not to enter so largely into the formation of Committees even in the case of non-contentious Bills, and still less in the case of contentious Bills. He asked the House not to form a precedent in this matter by adopting the proposal of the Government, but he begged to move the Amendment which stood upon the Paper in his name as a reasonable compromise which might be accepted for this Session.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Derby): I should like to call the attention of the House to the manner in which this matter stands. The hon. and gallant Member who has just moved this Amendment says that it is his desire, by means of that Amendment, to lay down some general principle which shall govern the formation of these Committees hereafter. I do not say that that may not be a proper course to take at some future time, but I do not think that the House is ripe
  180
  with the experience it had already had to lay down any universal rule upon this matter. Let me remind the House how the question stood the last time we had it under discussion. The Government then proposed the Resolution which now stands for consideration, and undoubtedly the characteristic words of the Resolution were those which the hon. Member now proposes to omit—namely—
  "That the Committee do consist of all the members representing Scotch constituencies."
  Those words embody the fundamental principle of the proposal of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham then got up and said that he did not object to the principle of the Resolution as long as it was modified by the Amendment which he proposed—namely, that the word "fifteen" was left out and the word "twenty" substituted for it. The Government accepted that Amendment, and it was understood on the part of the Government that in doing so they were meeting the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Then arose the question whether or not the Crofters Bill should be referred to that Committee. Objection was taken to that course being adopted on account of the contentious character of that Bill, and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said—
  "Only tell us that the Crofters Bill shall not he referred to the Committee and we shall be content."
  Therefore the motion of the Government, with the Amendment we are now prepared to move, was practically accepted on the terms that the Crofters Bill do not go to that Committee. I think that is a fair and correct statement. We admit that the Crofters Bill is of so contentious a character that it could not properly be referred to that Committee, a view confirmed by some of the advocates of the Bill, like my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire. If we are really to carry out what I think has

  181
  been a fair and honourable understanding in this House, I think the House ought unanimously to agree to this Committee, with the Amendment, and with the understanding that has been come to on the subject of the Crofters Bill. I think that a departure from that would not tend to that reasonable and honourable agreement to an understanding come to, and I think the Government have entirely adhered to the declaration they have made. I cannot help thinking that that is a view which will commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the right hon Member for West Birmingham. The Government have endeavoured to act in good faith, and I hope they will have the support of both sides.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, I can only presume to speak for myself and my friends, but I do feel bound to substantially confirm what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We took, undoubtedly, two principal objections to the proposal of the Government. The first was that the Committee which he was going to set up was not a reflex of the position of parties in this House, and the second that he was not going to submit to it what he considered to be non-contentious business. I must recognise that the Government have met us with regard to both of those points, absolutely and completely as regards the withdrawing of the Crofters Bill from that Committee. We admit that that is a very great concession, and, as far as I am concerned, I should be ungrateful if I did not do my best under those circumstances to assist the Government in passing the Resolution in its amended form. As regards the first of the points I raised, I think there is a slight misunderstanding; I pointed out that in order that the Committee should be a reflex of the House in the present circumstances it would only be necessary to add five or more Members. My suggestion was not that
  182
  that should be the form of the Amendment. What I was anxious for was that some Amendment in the form now raised by my hon. Friend should be adopted which would insure that in all such cases these Committees should be a reflex of the House. If the Government do not think it desirable to enter upon the general question, no doubt their proposal will substantially meet this particular case, and, although I would greatly have preferred the Amendment of my hon and gallant Friend, still, considering the circumstances, I should feel disposed to advise him to withdraw it. Originally, no doubt, the idea of the Government was to establish a National Committee, but under existing circumstances the idea of nationality has disappeared. This will not be a national Committee, and if there were an Irish Committee of the same character, still less would it be a National Committee if it were a reflex of the opinion in this House. What, therefore, we are establishing is, I think, a principle of some considerable importance, which can be of advantage, not only to this Government, but to others who may succeed it, and that is the principle of a Committee of experts. We are going to take care that upon a Committee which is to deal with Scotch business there will be a larger proportion of Scotch Members than there would be on an ordinary Committee. That is a very reasonable proposal which does not raise this question of separate nationalities. The business referred to it will be some of it local, some special for one reason or another, and I cannot help thinking that in regard to non-contentious business there may be great advantages in setting up similar Committees. On the whole, therefore, I recommend my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR J. BALFOURI only rise to make two observations. The sort of understanding that passed in the House at question time relative to this matter, referred rather to the time the discussion should take than

  183
  to whether or not we were obliged to accept the proposal. I believe some of my friends object to the claim of nationality which the amended proposal still embodied, and they are, so far as any arrangement is concerned, at perfect liberty to give expression to their views in the Division Lobby. I cannot help thinking the views of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment and those of the Government could easily be reconciled by a form of words acceptable to both. The Government are anxious that every Scotch Member should be on the Committee; we are anxious that the Committee should reflect the sense of the House; and I would suggest that a less arbitrary way of arriving at that result would be attained if, after the word "that" in line 8, these words were inserted, "Such other number of Members as may be required to adjust the relative proportions of parties in the Committee so as to be, as far as practicable, the same as the proportion of Parties in the House." That would leave on the Committee every Scotch Member, and it would not have the artificial character of the suggestion of the Lord Advocate, and it would exhibit very clearly upon the proceedings of this House the exact principle which animated us in adding to the number of Scotch Members a number of Members to be chosen by the Committee of Selection.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Partick to leave out "15" and insert "20" was the one suggested by the hon. Member for West Birmingham for the acceptance of the Government. That was the Amendment which they had agreed to accept. To say that there was to be an indefinite number of Members added would be to change the whole situation, and he therefore hoped the suggestion would not be pressed.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not suggest the acceptance of a definite
  184
  Amendment, but of a principle—namely, that the Committee should be a reflex of the House.
  MR. BALFOUR: I need hardly say I make no charge against the Government, but I believe the form of words I have suggested is far more definite, and explains on the face of it what is to be done. There is no ambiguity as to the Parties to which Members belong, and the direction which I propose to give by my Amendment could be easily carried out. If, however, the Government insist on their particular form, I will not resist it.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs)said, the vague form of words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would undoubtedly be more suitable if this was a Standing Order of the House, because it would be varied from year to year according to the various circumstances of the constitution of the House. But when they were dealing with one individual year, the House was as good a judge as the Committee of Selection of what would most nearly carry out the intention of the House.
  MR. J. CALDWELLobserved, that the contention of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and his Friends was that this Scotch Committee should be a reflex of the House and that contentious Bills should not be sent to it. But the reason contentious Measures were not sent to the Grand Committees on Law and Trade was simply because they were not a reflex of the House, but composed of experts in law and trade matters. It was not laid down as essential in the Resolutions appointing these Grand Committees that they should be a reflex of the House, and if the Scotch Committee, therefore, was to be a miniature of the House there would be no justification whatever for excluding any Measure whatever, contentious or otherwise, from such Committee.
  MR. LEONARD COURTNEYpointed out, in reply to

  185
  the last speaker, that in the Standing Orders relating to the appointment of Grand Committees it was expressly provided that their composition should be a reflex of the division of Parties in the House, and should be a microcosm of the House. With respect to the main question, he was afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the pursuit of the economy of time, was really losing time. The right hon. Gentleman supposed this matter could be settled at once by assenting to a given number as being adequate, and he rejected the proposal of the hon. Member for Lichfield, which laid down a principle that could be applicable to all future occasions. By so insisting on saving five minutes of the time of the House, the right hon. Gentleman was inviting a recurrence of these Debates whenever in future Sessions they desired to set up a special Grand Committee. The adoption of the proposal of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield, would have avoided such discussions in future Or, if the Government had taken the simpler proposal suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—namely, to add such a number as would make the balance of the Grand Committee correspond to the balance of the House, leaving that number to the Committee of Selection to ascertain—they would then have laid down a principle which would guide all future Grand Committees. He would point out that when this question was last under discussion the right hon. Member for West Birmingham insisted that the Grand Committee should be so constituted that it should be a reflex of the opinions of the House. The right hon. Gentleman committed himself to the general principle, the words he used being perfectly definite. He said:—
  "He proposed, if they would accept the principle, that not 15 nor any fixed number of Members should be added to the Committee, but that such a number should be added as would redress the balance and cause the Committee to represent accurately the state of Parties in this House."
  It was perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman made no distinct reference to
  186
  a special number, but what he desired and insisted upon was the acceptance of the general principle. He regretted that the Motion of the hon. Member for Lichfield should be withdrawn. He thought if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spent a little more time over it and accepted the proposal, or that of the hon. Member for Leeds, they should have set the principle once for all, and saved themselves from a recurrence of these Debates in future years.
  *MAJOR DARWINsaid, that after what had fallen from his right hon. Friend, the Member for West Birmingham, he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE*THE LORD ADVOCATE moved the omission of the number "15" from line 8 of the Motion, Order to insert the number "20."
  MR. BALFOUR: May I ask whether it is proposed to insert in the instruction to the Committee of Selection, in regard to the 20 the same direction as last year in regard to the 15.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE: Yes.
  DR. CLARKthought that that was not the only matter to which the attention of the Committee of Selection ought to be directed. The Committee of Selection ought also to give their attention to the number of Ministers of the Crown representing Scotland who were Members of the Committee and who would not attend the meetings of the Committee. He had said last year and wished to say again that in a Committee of Scotch Members, if a question were decided by a majority he would be bound by it and would not raise it again in the House. There were three occasions last year when the majority of Scotch Members were overridden by English Members, and if the same thing occurred again this year, and it would occur when they increased the number of Members of other nationalities on the Committee by 25 per cent., the questions

  187
  in dispute would have to be debated over again in the House. He therefore opposed the Amendment on the ground that it would make the Committee a mongrel Committee, on which the views of the Scotch Members, being in a minority, would be overridden by the votes of Members of other nationalities. To fairly represent the working Scotch Members on the Committee they would have to strike out the Ministers of the Crown, who rarely attended the meetings of the Committee.
  MR. PARKER SMITHagreed with the hon. Member for Caithness that it was useless to keep on the Committee certain Members who could not and certain Members who would not attend the Meetings. He thought the fault of the Committee was that there were already too many Members on it.
  *MR. WEIRsaid, he was greatly disappointed by the weakness shown by occupants of the Treasury Bench. He supposed the right hon. Gentlemen were smarting under the fact that the Unionist majorities were increasing at every election. But they would probably have to taste still more defeat for their want of backbone. The additional five Members would mean that the Tory Party would have a majority on the Committee; inasmuch as the five right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench who were Members of the Committee, would never attend—although one might have expected them to stand to their guns. Some other gentlemen also who were engaged in the Law Courts, and who thought their fees of more importance than the attendance at the meetings of the Committee would likewise be absent. He thought those five right hon. Gentlemen should be struck off the Committee altogether, as their non-attendance would give a majority on the Committee to the Tory Party.
  A Division was called, but Dr. CLARK and Mr. WEIR did not persist in their
  188
  opposition. The word "fifteen" was, therefore, negatived, and "twenty" substituted.
  *MR. WEIR*MR. WEIR moved to add after "House," in line 11, "and the number of Members who sit for Scotland who are Ministers of the Crown." He proposed this Amendment in consequence of the non-attendance of Ministers. The Committee was simply a farce, a sham, and a delusion if right hon. Gentlemen failed to attend.
  The Amendment was not seconded.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, that, in addition to the two Standing Committees appointed under Standing Order No. 47, a Standing Committee shall be appointed for the consideration of all Bills introduced by a Minister of the Crown relating exclusively to Scotland, which may, by Order of the House, be committed to them, and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 47 shall apply to the said Standing Committee; that the said Standing Committee do consist of all the Members representing Scottish constituencies, together with twenty other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard in such appointment to the approximation of the balance of Parties in the Committee to that of the whole House, and who shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by them, and to appoint others in substitution of those discharged; that Standing Orders Nos. 49 and 50 do apply to the said Standing Committee.

  PERJURY BILL [LORDS].
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th April], "That the Order for committing the Bill to a

  189
  Committee of the whole House be discharged."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT REID, Dumfries)said, that he hoped that the House would consent to the discharge of the Order. It was then his intention to refer the Bill to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision, from which it would come back to Committee of the whole House. The Bill was not wholly a Consolidation Bill, but it was in the nature of a Consolidation Bill.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that it was not usual to refer Bills to this Joint Committee after they had already passed through one House of Parliament; and this Bill had come down from the Lords.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Bill had been most fully considered by a very strong Committee in the House of Lords. He was originally prepared to refer the Bill to the Grand Committee on Law, but that proposal was objected to; and he was then prepared to submit it to a Committee of the whole House, but that did not meet with approval. The Bill was wholly non-contentious, but it dealt with about 200 Acts of Parliament, and the reference to the Joint Committee seemed to be the only way of meeting the difficulties of the case.
  Order for committing Bill to a Committee of the whole House, discharged.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved that the Bill be referred to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It is distinctly understood that any new matter will be struck out?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Anything that is controversial will be struck out.
  DR. CLARKobjected. He said that there was a Bill of similar character brought forward last Session, which had to be opposed, because under the form of Statute Law Revision there was the re-imposition of a power of rating which had been rejected by the House in another Bill. He objected to legislation in this form.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill committed to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills, &c.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.—(The Attorney General.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) STOCK TRANSFER (No. 2) BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
  On Motion, "That this Bill be now read a third time."
  MR. W. BROMLEY DAVENPORT MR. W. BROMLEY DAVENPORT (Cheshire, Macclesfield) rose to a point of Order. He asked whether a Third Reading could be taken immediately after Committee except with the consent of the House. He objected to it, because it was becoming a matter of custom to take the Third Reading directly after Committee. The objection on this occasion was very general.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It has been a very general practice, unless there has been some special reason why the Bill should not be disposed of. It is a question for the general sense of the House.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir WALTER FOSTER, Derbyshire, Ilkeston): I am willing to postpone the Third Reading till to-morrow if the hon. Member objects.
  Motion postponed.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL.
  Read 2°, and committed for to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  SHOPS EARLY CLOSING (RECOM MITTED) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report progress. To sit again this day.

  AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
  On the Order for the resumed Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill,
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND, York, W. R., Rotherham)proposed that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, and said that he hoped the Motion would be allowed to be carried.
  MR. T. M. HEALYobjected to the Bill being referred to the Grand Committee. Both Grand Committees were very congested. He thought that there ought to be a third Grand Committee—a Grand Committee on fads.
  *MR. W. JOHNSTONhoped that attention would be given to the fact that the opposition to the Government came from their Irish Friends.
  Debate adjourned.

  WOMEN'S PARLIAMENTARY AND LOCAL FRANCHISE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.—Bill withdrawn.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (IRELAND) (CONSTITUTION AND POWERS) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for committal to Standing Committee on Law, &c. [13th March], further adjourned till this day.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered of the number of Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors, the renewal of which has been refused in the years 1893 and 1894 by the licensing magistrates in each licensing district in Scotland, showing also the result of appeal (if any) (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 497, of Session 1893–4).—(Sir George Trevelyan.)

  LASCAR SEAMEN.
  On the Motion "That this House do now Adjourn,"
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid, he wished to bring before the House a matter of considerable importance. He put a question the other evening, (Tuesday) to the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the accommodation provided for Lascar seamen on board the P. & O. steamship Himalaya and other vessels. The answer he received was to the effect that there was accommodation on board the vessels for 123 feet cubic space for each Lascar, whereas he had ascertained that no fewer than 154 men were living in the forecastle with most inadequate accommodation. He desired on the previous occasion to move the adjournment of the House on the question, but the Speaker ruled that, under the circumstances, he could not do so, because it was not a matter of "urgent public importance." Consequently, he now brought the matter again before the House,

  193
  having reason to feel confident that the President of the Board of Trade was entirely wrong as to the cubic space he said was allowed to the Lascar sailors on board the ship named. The right hon. Gentleman said the seamen were engaged under the Indian Act, and that they entered into their contracts in India. Now he had given the right hon. Gentleman notice of his intention to bring the matter forward to-night—he sent a letter to him to that effect about 10 o'clock.
  MR. BRYCE: I received it only five minutes ago.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid, that delay was no fault of his—he sent the letter in good time. Now, according to the Merchant Shipping Act, all vessels registered in the United Kingdom were bound to give the seamen 72 cubic feet of accommodation, and yet the P. & O. Company were cutting-down the space to 36 cubic feet for the accommodation of those poor men. He could not understand how the Board of Trade could tolerate such a scandal.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT rose to a point of Order. He asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to make a speech of great length at that time of night?
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, an hon. Member might take advantage of the Motion for Adjournment to bring a matter of importance before the House, but it was not usual on such occasions to make a speech of any great length.
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid, this was a matter of such importance to the men he represented that he was certainly entitled to call the attention of the House to it, and to expose the scandalous state of things that existed. When it was considered that even a convict was allowed 380 cubic feet of space, was it not a disgrace to the country that the Government should allow any shipping company to crowd men into the forecastles of vessels
  194
  to an extent utterly repugnant to human beings? He had noticed that when a captain or a seaman committed breaches of the Merchant Shipping Act, the Board of Trade came down upon them, the captain's certificate was suspended, and his living taken from him. Now he demanded that exactly the same measure of justice as was meted to the officer and the seaman should be meted out to the shipowner. The P. and O. Company received nearly half-a-million a year from the country for carrying mails, and yet they employed poor Lascars at between £1 and £2 a month instead of engaging competent British-born seamen at a fair rate of wages. Then, instead of giving the 72 cubic feet of space to which they were entitled, they brought them down to 36. And what was the consequence of this conduct? What was it doing? It was crowding out the British-born sailor entirely. In another ten years they would not be able to get British-born sailors to man our warships in the event of a great war. He did not intend to say a word about the poor Lascars, but the more sober and intelligent and desirable they were as a body of men the less excuse there was for treating them like dogs or slaves, crowding them into forecastles in a manner compared with which pigs in pig-styes had more accommodation. He was determined to follow the question up, and to use all the power he could as a Member of the House to insist that the President of the Board of Trade should administer the Merchant Shipping Act in the manner laid down by law. In the case of the Himalaya, the President admitted that 154 men were crowded into a space only certified to accommodate 123, and yet he refused to take action. He was entitled to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House, and still more of the country at large, to this shameful state of affairs. It was stated

  195
  there was a Petition, written and signed by the Lascars themselves, in which they talked about being very happy and comfortable. He would like to see the Lascars who were said to have drawn up this Petition. He had been endeavouring during the last six weeks, by means of interpreters and visits to the Docks, to find out these Lascars, but he had been unable to discover any trace of them. He did not ask for any new legislation, but he did ask the President of the Board of Trade to make up his mind to enforce the existing law. He hoped that there would be no more shuffling upon this question.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)said, that he told the hon. Member a few days ago exactly how this matter stood. Either he had failed to convey to the hon. Member what he had intended to convey, or else the hon. Member had ignored his explanation. He had told the hon. Member that the Board of Trade were putting the law in force and doing the best they could to insure the application of the Merchant Shipping Acts. The Indian law on the matter was not identical with the British law. Under the Indian law the same amount of cubic space was not required. The Board had instructed their surveyors to deal with these cases, and had told the company that they must not overcrowd the Lascars, and that the British law must be enforced. Steps had also been taken which had had the effect, where there was overcrowding, of increasing the amount which vessels had to pay for light and harbour dues. A kind of fine was thus imposed in the case of ships where there was an overcrowding of Lascars. It was very surprising that the hon. Member should say that the Board were encouraging the reduction of the accommodation. The Board had communicated to the Indian Government their desire that the Indian law on the subject of the cubic space available should be
  196
  brought up to the level of the British law. There was no reason why a full inquiry should not be made into the conduct of the Board in this matter.
  MR. D. CRILLYthought the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was a justification of the action of his hon. Friend opposite.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that he had given exactly the same reply as he gave a few days ago.
  MR. CRILLYsaid, that when the hon. Member wished to raise the question a few evenings ago it was apparent that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to shirk it. Was it, or was it not, true that these Lascars, who came from India to the Thames had not the same cubic space of accommodation as British sailors had? When his hon. Friend made an effort the other evening to raise this question he was prevented from doing so.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must not refer to past decisions of the Chair. The question is: That this House do now adjourn.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS LICENCES (SCOTLAND).
  Return ordered—
  "Of the number of Licences for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors the renewal of which has been refused in the years 1893 and 1894 by the licensing magistrates in each licensing district in Scotland, showing also the result of appeal (if any)—(in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 497, of Session 1893–4)."—(Sir George Travelyan.)
  House adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes after Twelve o'clock.