Commons Sitting of 13 June 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  BOMBAY, BARODA AND CENTRAL INDIA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  CRYSTAL PALACE COMPANY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  GAINSBOROUGH GAS BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  MATLOCK URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
  RHONDDA AND SWANSEA BAY RAILWAY BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  BELFAST CORPORATION (HOSPITALS) BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  CROWHURST, SIDLEY AND BEXHILL RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  EASTON AND CHURCH HOPE RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  As amended, considered: to be read the third time.
  MIDDLESBROUGH CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
  As amended, to be considered upon Thursday.
  SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  BACUP CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  FOLKESTONE WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HAMILTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  HULL, BARNSLEY AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  KETTERING WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed.
  BELFAST HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
  (By Order); read a second time, and committed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
PETITIONS.
  ALIENS BILL.
  In favour: From Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  BOILERS' INSPECTION AND REGISTRATION BILL.
  Against: From Middlesbrough; to lie upon the Table.
  COMPANIES ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  In favour: From Liverpool; to lie upon the Table.
  DOGS' REGULATION BILL.
  Against: From Honiton; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation: From Bath; to lie upon the Table.
  GROCERS' LICENCES (SCOTLAND) ABOLITION BILL.
  In favour: From Melrose and Dunedin; to lie upon the Table.
  HABITUAL INEBRIATES BILL.
  For alteration: From Dundee and Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  In favour: From Pollokshaws, Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, Kilmarnock, and Linlithgow; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (MERCANTILE MARINE FUND) BILL.
  For alteration: From North Shields; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour: From Alyth and Wick; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  In favour: From Worcester; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour: From Sadberge, Battersea, Rochester, Bentley, Wooldale, Scholes, Nelson, Kexby, and Scotter; to lie upon the Table.
  SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Against: From Edinburgh; to lie upon the Table.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Against: From Middlesbrough; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PENSIONS (POLITICAL OFFICES).
  Return [presented 10th June] to be printed. [No. 235.]
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) (ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS).
  Copy presented of Report of the Proceedings of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869 to 1889, for the year 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PATRIOTIC FUND.
  Copy presented of Thirty-sixth Report of the Royal Commissioners [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (LICENCES REFUSED).
  Return presented relative thereto (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 180 of Session 1897) [Address 18th February, Mr. Henry J. Wilson]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 236.]
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (NEW CHARTERS) (HEMEL HEMPSTEAD).
  Copy presented of Charter of Incorporation of the Borough of Hemel Hempstead, dated 8th June, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2112, and 2115 to 2121 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copies presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Miscellaneous Series, Nos. 460 to 462 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  HONORARY BURGESSES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred from to-morrow till Monday next.

  NAVY (SEAMEN AND STOKERS' RE-ENGAGEMENT).
  Order [17th March] for a Return relative thereto read, and discharged; and instead thereof—
  Navy (Seamen and Stokers' Re-engagement),—Return ordered, "showing as nearly as possible for each year since 1891 the percentage of Seamen and Stokers respectively who, on termination of their first engagement, (a) re-engage at once to complete time for pension, (b) leave, but return to the Service within twelve months, (c) leave, but return TO the Service after twelve months, (d) leave, and do not re-engage (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 189 of Session 1894."—(Mr. E. J. C. Morton.)

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—
  YORK UNITED GAS BILL,
  Without Amendments.
ST. ANNE'S-ON-THE-SEA GAS BILL.
  CORPORATION OF LONDON (FOREIGN CATTLE MARKET, DEPTFORD) BILL.
  With Amendments.
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Felixstowe and Walton to purchase the undertaking of the Felixstowe and Walton Waterworks Company; and for other purposes."
  NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act to incorporate and confer powers on the Newhaven and Seaford Water Company."
  FILEY WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Filey to supply water and gas, and to acquire the undertaking of the Filey Water and Gas Company."
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act to authorise the Urban District Council of Newtown and Llanllwchaiarn to purchase the undertaking of the Newtown Waterworks Company; and for other purposes."
  BUENOS AYRES NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act to enable the Buenos Ayres Northern Rail way Company, Limited, to sell, and the Central Argentine Railway Company, Limited, to purchase, the undertaking of the Buenos Ayres Northern Railway Company, Limited, and to make provision for the distribution amongst the members of the Buenos Ayres Northern Railway Company, Limited, of the obligations or other consideration resulting from such sale; and for other purposes."
  KINGSTOWN AND KINGSBRIDGE JUNCTION RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act for the abandonment of the Kingstown and Kingsbridge Junction Railway."
  EXETER, TEIGN VALLEY AND CHAGFORD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Also a Bill intituled "An Act to authorise the Exeter, Teign Valley, and Chagford Railway Company to construct Deviation Railways; to revive the powers and further extend the time limited for the completion of their authorised Railway; and for other purposes."

  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  And also a Bill intituled "An Act to confer additional powers upon the North Eastern Railway Company for the
  32
  construction of new railways and other works, and the acquisition of additional lands; and for amalgamating the Scarborough and Whitby Railway Company with the Company; and for other purposes."

BILLS ADVANCED.
  FELIXSTOWE AND WALTON WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  NEWHAVEN AND SEAFORD WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  FILEY WATER AND GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  NEWTOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BUENOS AYRES NORTHERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  KINGSTOWN AND KINGSBRIDGE JUNCTION RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  EXETER, TEIGN VALLEY AND CHAGFORD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read the first time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
QUESTIONS.

  PATENT OFFICE.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the surplus on the Patent Office accounts for the year 1897 amounting to £111,299, he will consider the expediency of appropriating a portion of that excess of income to the cost of such preliminary examination for novelty of inventions as is made by the German Patent Office; and whether some rule can be adopted to prevent applicants, who have been refused patents in their own country, obtaining them in the United Kingdom?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The honourable Member's Question touches a very important matter which is receiving my careful attention. It is by no means free from difficulty, as is evidenced by the fact that it was discussed at the recent meeting of the International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the discussion was adjourned for a year, as there was no probability of general assent to any proposal with respect to it. The subject-matter of the second paragraph of the honourable Member's Question is also receiving my consideration; it is obvious that as long as the patent laws of different countries are different, patents must be granted in some coun-
  34
  tries for inventions for which they will not be granted in others. I am glad to say, however, that there is a constant tendency to assimilation.

  RAGLAN BARRACKS, DEVONPORT.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Raglan Barracks at Devonport will be again ready for occupation, and if the Royal Welsh Fusiliers will then be moved to them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): The South Raglan Barracks will be ready by the 10th September; the North Raglan early next year. As at present arranged, the Royal Welsh Fusiliers will be moved into the South Raglan Barracks.

  PIPER FINDLATER, V.C.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the military authorities recently stopped Piper Findlater's engagement at the Alhambra Music Hall, and forbade the officers and pipers of the Aberdeen Depot to patronise his performance there; aid whether there is any precedent for this official interference with the free action of a discharged soldier?
  MR. PIRIE: I begrat the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Piper Findlater, V.C, has been offered a post as compensation for foregoing a means of gaining his living, a means which was undesirable from a military point of view; and, if so, what is the nature of that post and its emoluments; and whether, arising out of this case, and the possibilities that might arise from similar cases in the future, the Government could see their way to bestow a better pension than the existing one of £10 per annum on soldiers who receive

  35
  the highest mark of distinction which can be bestowed by their Sovereign, more especially in view of the fact that several V.C. men are known to have lately ended their days either in a workhouse or in great destitution?
  MR. BRODRICK: The circumstances of this case are as follows: Piper Find-Liter received the Victoria Cross from Her Majesty's hands on 14th May, 1898, and was advertised shortly afterwards to appear at a music-hall. The military authorities requested that this appearance should not take place, it being repugnant to military feeling that an exhibition should be made at a music hall of a soldier who had been so recently decorated by the Queen. For the same reason they forbade the attendance of the officers and pipers of the Aberdeen depot at his appearance in Aberdeen. There are no precedents for such an exhibition. Piper Findlater's financial position is as follows: He receives £10 a year with the Victoria Cross; he has also a pension of 2s. a day, or £36 10s. a year, for his wound and gallant service, and I understand he has had an offer from the highest quarter of a permanent post with a residence, though I am not aware of the precise conditions and emoluments. An ample provision for a man in his position has thus been secured him. In reference, however, to soldiers earning the Victoria Cross, who, from old age, or infirmity not due to their own fault, may be in poor circumstances and unable to earn a living, it has been decided that at the Secretary of State's discretion the sum of £50 a year may be granted by way of pension in lieu of the £10, which has accompanied the Victoria Cross since its institution.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will Findlater's pension of 2s. a day be permanent or temporary?
  MR. BRODRICK: The custom is to give these pensions temporarily—in the first instance for a year, as a technical point, until it is decided whether the injury is permanent.
  COLONEL SIR H. VINCENT: Is there any foundation for the statement in the Question of the honourable Member for North Aberdeen that "several
  36
  V.C. men are known to have lately ended their days either in a workhouse or in great destitution?"
  MR. BRODRICK: NO such case has come to our notice.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: Did the military authorities prefer their request that Piper Findlater should not appear in the music hall to the manager of the Alhambra or to Piper Findlater himself?
  MR. BRODRICK: The request was made to the manager of the Alhambra, who met them in a very public-spirited manner having regard to the circumstances of the case.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The War Office, I understand, also applied to the gentleman under whose auspices Piper Findlater appeared at the concert in Aberdeen. May I ask under what legal authority the War Office attempted to interfere with this discharged soldier earning his livelihood in any way he chose?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is a Question of which notice should be given.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I will put it down.
  MR. PIRIE: In regard to the Question of the honourable Member for Sheffield, may I say that I shall be happy to supply particulars of the cases to which my Question referred.

  ADVANCE UP THE NILE.
  MR. J. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to, take his proposal as to financial aid to the Egyptian Government in respect of the military advance up the Nile, and in what manner it will impose financial obligations upon the British Exchequer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,): I am afraid I cannot say when the statement will be made.
  MR. J. ELLIS: Will It be this month?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The arrangement of the business of the House does not rest with me.

  CARDIFF: ITS USES AND DEFENCES.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the condition of the defences of Cardiff, and more especially Barry, in the event of war, has been reconsidered by the Admiralty during recent years; and whether, having regard to the importance of a regular supply of steam coal at home and abroad to Her Majesty's Navy and the mercantile marine, lie will impress upon the War Office the necessity of immediately and effectually safeguarding the principal sources of supply by placing in a more efficient state the land defences of the ports from which such supplies are chiefly obtained; I beg also to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the important factor Welsh coal has become in the fighting equipment of modern vessels of war, the Admiralty will consider the expediency of making Cardiff a naval port or base and concentrate there a depot and the necessary craft?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): With regard to the honourable Member's first Question, I have nothing to add to the answers given by the Under Secretary of State for War. In reply to the second Question, it is not proposed to make Cardiff a naval port.

  CUSTOMS REVENUE FROM TEA AND TOBACCO.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total net revenue derived from the Customs duty on tea and tobacco, respectively, in the year ending? 31st March, 1896–97 and 1897–98?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The total net revenue derived from Customs duty on tea in 1896–97 was£3,799,372; in 1897–98, £3,868,207. On tobacco, in 1897–97, £11,018,048, of which £10,196,117 was on unmanufactured tobacco; and in 1897–98, £11,433,909, of which £Which was on unmanufactured tobacco.

  PLYMOUTH AND THE CAPE MAIL SERVICE.
  SIR E. CLARKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the recent discontinuance of the landing of the Cape mails at Plymouth, by the Castle Line has been in any way due to the action or influence of Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, if lie will state the grounds of such interference with the service?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. W. HANBURY,): The discontinuance of the landing at Plymouth of the mails from South Africa, brought by the packets of the Castle Line, has not been due to the action or influence of Her Majesty's Government. My honourable and learned Friend is doubtless aware that this service is performed under a contract between the Government of the Cape of Good Hope and the company.

  WOOLWICH POSTMEN'S GRIEVANCES.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the postal staff at Woolwich is inadequate to deal with, the work of the office during the men's holiday season; that there is no reserve staff there; that auxiliary officers are detailed to perform established men's duties; that for some time past the last night delivery was done by established men as extra duty; that for it they were only paid on the auxiliaries' scale instead of their own

  39
  scale; and that their appeal to the surveyor to be allowed established rate of pay for it was successful, but that the concession was accompanied by an instruction that in future this last delivery should be performed by telegraph boys instead of by established men; is he aware that four boys named Goodman, Richmond, Bowden, and Sullivan, all under 16 years of age, are now working this last night delivery instead of established postmen, and that they do not finish it before 10 p.m.; and whether he will take steps to remedy the grievances complained of?
  MR. HANBURY: The established outdoor force at Woolwich—to which the honourable Member's Question seems exclusively to refer—is not adequate to deal with all the work for the eight months of the year during which the postmen's holidays extend, and there is no reserve staff of established postmen. The necessary aid for that period is ordinarily provided by delegating to auxiliaries, preferably assistant postmen, the duties of the full-time men, and by employing senior telegraph messengers on the assistant postmen's duties. The late night delivery at Woolwich was for a time performed by established men on overtime duty, and paid for at the rates paid to auxiliaries, but the error as regards payment was rectified as soon as it came to the knowledge of the surveyor. The surveyor gave the instruction referred to, as he thought the employment of the senior boys on the duty preferable to giving the established men overtime work. In consequence of an exceptional number of Vacancies and absence on sick and annual leave, the surveyor, last month, authorised the employment of four boys under 16 on the duty referred to; but the boys were exceptionally strong well-grown boys, they will all complete their sixteenth year during the present year, and the only alternative would have been, and is, the suspension of the annual leave of the established force during the most desirable period of the year. In the circumstances, the Postmaster General is not prepared to disturb the existing arrangement.

  BRYANT AND MAY'S MATCHES.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will undertake that no matches containing yellow phosphorus shall be used by any public department, and that any contract with Messrs. Bryant and May or other firm fox the supply of such matches shall be forthwith terminated?
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg at the same time to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the matches in use in the House of Commons are supplied by Messrs. Bryant and May; and, if so, whether, in view of the recent revelations showing that this firm were convicted of a breach of the Factory Act by which certain of their employees were poisoned, he win see that matches made by some other British or Irish manufacturer are used in the House of Commons instead of Bryant and May's?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer at the same time the Question addressed to my right honourable Friend and the Question standing in the name of the honourable Member for Kilkenny. No matches containing yellow phosphorus are provided under the contact made by my Office for the Houses of Parliament and various Departments which is held by Messrs. Bryant and May. The only contract with that firm is for safety matches which are guaranteed to contain none of this chemical, and which are, I am assured, non-poisonous and harmless to those employed in their manufacture I understand that the recent conviction obtained against Messrs. Bryant and May was in respect of the manufacture of a cheaper (or strike-anywhere) match, which matches are not included in the contract. I am, however, making inquiry into the subject, and am actuated by the same motives as the honourable Member for Aberdeenshire, and will take care that in asking for tenders in connection with any future contract stipulations as to non-poisonous matches are inserted.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that there are now in Belfast firms making matches who do not sweat their employees, nor

  41
  poison them? Will lie give them tin contract?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  BELFAST RIOTS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Roman Catholic houses were wrecked in Belfast on Monday night, and how many or Tuesday night; and why Roman Catholic public-houses in districts known to be dangerous were left without protection?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): I have not yet received full information in reply to my inquiries respecting this Question, and will ask the honourable Member to repeat it to-morrow.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Iraland whether he can now explain why there were only four constables on duty at the foot of Carrick Hill on Tuesday night last, when the Islandmen were returning from work; and why the riot which broke out was allowed to go on unchecked for 20 minutes?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In addition to the four constables stationed at the point mentioned, there were five men at McGlade's public-house, and three at the corner of North Street and Millfield, making 12 men in all guarding the approaches at the junction of the streets named. All the points where the police were posted were about 20 yards from the centre of the roadway, the scene of the riot. There were also four constables concealed in the space of ground almost opposite Carrick Hill, who arrested two of the stone-throwers. When the stone-throwing commenced the head constable in charge at once sent for assistance to Brown Square Barrack, about 200 yards distant, and meanwhile did all he could to quell the riot. In about 10 minutes a force of 50 men, in charge of two district inspectors, arrived on the scene, and dispersed the crowds.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to hold any inquiry into the riots in Belfast, and the arrangements for the preservation of the peace made by the city magistrates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: All the facts connected with the recent riots in Befast and the arrangements made for the preservation of the public peace are fully known to the Executive Government, and it is not proposed to hold an inquiry as suggested.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Executive will make any grant to the postman who risked his life in the endeavour to save a policeman from being murdered by the mob in Belfast on Monday night?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am making full inquiry into the facts concerning the rescue of Constable Torrens. There were others, besides the postman referred to in the Question, who contributed to make the rescue at serious risk to themselves. I would rather not make any further statement on the subject at present.

  DEATH OF MRS. CONNERLY.
  MR. O'MALLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has inquired into the cause of the death of Mrs. Connerly, of Kylsalia, Carna, Connemara, whose death was described by the Reverend Father Brett in the Freeman's Journal of the 6th May; and if he will state the information he has received on the matter?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Inquiry was at once made by the Local Government Board into the statements contained in the letter referred to in the Question. The Board's Inspector reported that this woman's husband had been employed on relief works in the locality, and had also been in receipt of outdoor relief. He died in February or March from Bright's disease. Outdoor relief was continued to the widow

  43
  and children, but Mrs. Connerly, who I was always delicate, took ill shortly after her husband's death in died in April, consumption being the cause of her death. Outdoor relief was continued to the children.

  FORTHCOMING MILITARY MANŒUVRES.
  ME. C. J. MURRAY): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the large expenditure sanctioned for the acquisition of an extended area for military operations, advantage will be taken of the forthcoming manœuvres to test the present efficiency of the transport service by entirely avoiding the employment of standing camps at fixed bases during the time when the corps are manœuvring against each other, and by replying during that time on movable camps in their Stead?
  MR. BRODRICK: From the 1st to the 8th September there will be no standing camps, and the troops will occupy various camping grounds.

  QUEEN v. T. AND P. HARRIGAN.
  MR. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why, in the case of the Queen v. Thomas and Patrick Harrigan, at Askeaton Petty Sessions on 10th May, the charge in the summons was altered on the morning of hearing by District Inspector Webster from that of unlawful assault and wounding to that of common assault, and why the medical certificate was withheld from the magistrates?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The honourable Member appears to have been misinformed in this case. The accused were not brought up at petty sessions on summons. They were charged with having seriously assaulted and beaten one James Blackwell, and this was the only charge entered for hearing and dealt with by the justices. Their attention was directed by the district inspector to the medical certificate, but they did not consider medical evidence necessary.

  GIBRALTAR HARBOUR AND DOCK WORKS.
  COLONEL SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his recent inspection of the harbour and dock works at Gibraltar satisfied him that they will be completed and ready for use within the period originally contemplated, namely, 1899–1900?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: The harbour works, as far as the inclosure and defence are concerned, will be practically completed within the period originally contemplated—namely, 1899–1900—as far as can be foreseen, but the final completion of portions of the upper structures may require some additional time. In the Naval Works Act, 1895, a provision of £361,000 was made for one dock (or docks), and that dock was to be completed in 1899–1900; but in the Act of 1896 it was decided to extend the dockyard and to construct three docks at an estimated cost of £2,674,000, in place of one dock. If the date in the schedule was not changed, it was by inadvertence. No such works could have been completed in that time. Under the new scheme the three docks will occupy the site of the New Mole Parade and the whole of the site of the present dockyard, which will remain until the new dockyard, now in progress, is sufficiently advanced to allow the existing establishment to be transferred. The date for the completion of the docks cannot be given until the works are more advanced, but it will be entered in the next Naval Works Bill.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Is it contemplated to place a floating dock at Gibraltar pending the completion of the docks?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: No, Sir.

  GREAT NORTHERN (IRELAND) RAILWAY.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, can he state how many fatal accidents have taken place on the Great Northern (Ireland) Railway since 1st.

  45
  January, 1894, and what was the verdict of the coroner's jury in each case; and seeing that two fatal accidents occurred on this company's system within the past three weeks, will any steps be taken by the Board of Trade to limit the danger of travelling on the lines controlled by the Great Northern (Ireland) Railway Company?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I am informed that 38 fatal accidents on the Great Northern Railway of Ireland have been reported since the 1st January, 1894, but I am unable to give the verdict of the coroners jury in each case. I may mention that of the 38 cases 16 were trespassers and 13 servants of the company. The Board of Trade watch the return of accidents carefully, with a view to inquiry in suitable cases. It is not possible for me to take any other action.

  WEI-HAI-WEI.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will lay upon the Table a copy of the despatch sent to the German Government, spontaneously intimating to them that we would not call in question their rights or interest in the province of Shan-tung, or lay down railway communication from Wei-hai-Wei to the interior, and also the reply of the German Government thereto?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. CURZON,): The honourable Member was informed by the First Lord of the Treasury on May 5th that Her Majesty's Government do not propose to lay any further Papers on the subject. I have previously informed the honourable Member that the exact text of the declaration made by them has been published both in Germany and in this country; but, in order to remove the suspicion under which he still appears to labour, I am quite ready, if he so desires, to repeat it to him now. The declaration was as follows—
  "England formally declares that, in establishing herself at Wei-hai-Wei, she has no intention of injuring or contesting the rights
  46
  and interests of Germany in the Province of Shan-tung, or of creating difficulties for her in that province. It is especially understood that England will not construct any railroad communication from Wei-hai-Wei, and the district leased therewith, into the ulterior of the province."
  The German reply, as I have also previously informed the honourable Member, was merely an acknowledgment of the British Note. But, as he appears to be suspicious on this point also, I will give him, if he desires, the exact words of the German answer. They were—
  "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's Note, in which you made the following Declaration in the name of the Government of the Queen. I take note of this Declaration in the name of the Imperial Government."
  MR. PROVAND: Why will not the right honourable Gentleman place these Papers on the Table of the House, and why have Members for weeks been kept waiting for information?
  MR. CURZON: For the very simple reason that there was no object in doing so, because, as I have previously pointed out, they had already been published. I have read them out again for the special edification of the honourable Member this evening, and therefore there can be no object in placing them on the Table.

  DUBLIN TRAMWAYS SYSTEM.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Works has agreed to allow the Dublin United Tramways Company to extend their system through a part of the Phœnix Park, Dublin; if so, under what authority has the Board so acted; and whether an opportunity will be given of discussing the matter in this House before the agreement, if made, is carried out?
  MR. HANBURY: The project to which the honourable Member refers has been under consideration, but the Board of Works have recently informed the tramways company that they are not in a position to proceed further with the matter.

  MILITIA HEAD DRESS.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, will he explain why the Militia battalions of the Welsh Fusilier regiment are not furnished with busbies like the rest of the regiment, including the Volunteer battalions; and whether he will direct the defect to be remedied, so that the full parade head-dress of the Militia battalions shall be uniform with that of the regiment to which they belong, and with which they may be brigaded?
  MR. BRODRICK: Full-dress headdresses are not issued to Militia battalions of regiments which have a special head-dress, such as the Fusiliers. The reason is that head-dresses, largely composed of fur, are very expensive, and, being only required for a small portion of the year, their safe storage for the remainder of the year is difficult. The Militia battalions are most likely to be brigaded, with regulars at the manœuvres, and there the regulars do not wear their full-dress head-dress.

  SPANISH AGENTS IN CANADA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the protracted residence in Toronto of the late Spanish. Minister to Washington and the activity of other Spanish agents sojourning in the Dominion, he can state what powers, if any, are possessed by Colonial Governments to prevent the hospitality of their soil being exploited in the interests of a particular belligerent; and whether a Colonial Government that expels such persons is liable to be sued for damages?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): This is a question which would be more properly addressed to the Attorney General, but it would not be desirable at the present time to express in answer to a Question in Parliament an opinion on such points as those which are raised by the honourable Member's Questions.

  "PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, unless the reply to a Question in this House is published in the Press, it is almost impossible for an honourable Member to obtain a copy until many days after the reply has been given, and that applications to the official reporter for a copy receive no attention; and whether he can take any steps to secure that Members should receive an early copy of the reply to their Questions?
  MR. HANBURY: The contractor for the "Debates" is required by the terms of his contract to furnish Ministers with proofs of their replies to Questions on the third day after delivery. He has undertaken to furnish these proofs also to the Members by whom the Questions have been put. The supply of proofs during the present Session has not been as regular as it ought to have been. I have made representations to the contractor on the subject, and I hope to be able to secure a punctual fulfilment of the conditions of the contract.
  MR. BARTLEY: Could not a copy of the answers be put in the Library, so that Members interested can see them? Would not that meet the difficulty?
  MR. HANBURY: I see no objection to that, but I cannot answer for other Ministers.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with reference to the inconvenience to Members of this House arising from the difficulties connected with supplying Members with copies of answers given by Ministers to Questions, to which attention has recently been drawn, it would be possible to arrange that the copies of what is at present sent up for the use of the Press by Ministers might be made available for Members by being duplicated and placed for the day in one of the lobbies of the House or in a room set apart for that purpose, thus obviating the necessity of Members, if they wish to see an answer given to a Question on the same afternoon, being obliged either to trouble the Secretary to the Minister or send to the Press Gallery?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the honourable Member's Question I have to say that I am afraid, there are difficulties in the way which will prevent an extension of the facilities already given. If I may make a suggestion, may I say there are certain classes of departmental Questions which might be more conveniently dealt with by honourable Gentlemen writing to the Department concerned, and this, I think, would save their time, the time of the Minister, the time of the Department, and the time of the House. Of course, I only make the suggestion; it is for honourable Gentlemen to carry it out if they think fit.
  MR. CAEVELL WILLIAMS: Will the right honourable Gentleman be pleased to answer the Question put to him?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I said I am afraid the privileges already given cannot be extended.

  BUTTERINA.
  MR. CHANGING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the advertisement in the London Commercial Record, of 29th April, 1898, of an article described as "butterina," manufactured by the Butterina Company, and recommended to restaurants, eating houses, and boarding house keepers, confectioners, and pastrycooks, as a special value in butter mixture; and whether he proposes to call the attention of local authorities to this violation of the third section of the Margarine Act, 1887, which provides that all such mixtures shall be described and sold as "margarine," or whether he proposes to take other steps to secure the enforcement of the Margarine Act in these and similar oases?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN,): I have seen the advertisement referred to. The Margarine Act, 1887, provides that sub-stances, whether compounds or other-
  50
  wise, prepared in imitation of butter, and whether mixed with butter or not, shall only be lawfully sold under the name of margarine and under the conditions set forth in that Act. Heavy penalties are provided for its contravention—20 on the first occasion, £50 on the second, and £100 on the third. I have no power to institute prosecutions in such cases or to give directions to the local authorities to do so. But they are well aware of their powers, and the Question of the honourable Member will have the effect, no doubt, of drawing their attention to the particular case in question.
  MR. CHANNING: While thanking the right honourable Gentleman for his reply, may I ask if the Local Government Board does not sometimes issue circulars to local authorities, advising them on these matters?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: No, Sir; not in relation to matters of this nature.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
  MR. J. REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will now fix the date for the discussion of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY': I have nothing to add to the statement I made last week.

  TROUT ANGLING.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the general deterioration of trout fishings in Scotland, of the importance of trout angling as a recreation to large numbers of all classes of persons, and of the numerous petitions presented last Session in support of the Trout Fishing Close Time (Scotland) Bill, he will consider the preparation of a Measure to secure for trout in Scotland similar seasonable protection to that provided for them in England and Ireland, as well as for coarse fish in England?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: In reply to my night honourable Friend I am re-quested to say that the Secretary for Scotland is entirely in sympathy with the objects he has in view, and is of opinion that a good case exists for some legislation in the direction he desires, but that at present it is not possible for the Government to come under any definite obligation to propose a Bill.

  TWEED AND SOLWAY SALMON FISHINGS.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether there is any intention of carrying into legislative effect the recommendations of the Royal Commission, on Tweed and Solway Salmon Fishings, contained in their Report presented in 1896?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: The recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Tweed and Solway Salmon Fisheries have not been lost sight of, but neither the Board of Trade nor the Scottish Office are prepared at present to promise any Bill for remedying the defects pointed out.

  SCOTCH SPARLING AND SMELT FISHERIES.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the serious deterioration of the sparling or smelt fisheries in the Scottish estuaries, and of the general agreement of witnesses examined before the Committee on Crown Rights in Scottish Salmon Fishings (1893) and the Royal Commission on Tweed and Solway Salmon Fishings (1896) as to the urgent necessity for a statutory close time for these valuable fish, he will consider the preparation of a Bill to secure that purpose?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): In reply to my right honourable Friend I can only say that in the event of its being found possible to initiate fishery legislation, this Question will not be lost sight of.

  IMPORTED MILK.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any further report has been received from Mr. Gurney, Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Cherbourg, with regard to the import of fresh milk from that district by Messrs. Lepont and Son, and as to the nature of the antiseptic said to be employed by them to preserve the milk; and if any such information has been, received, when will it be published?
  MR. CURZON: A further report has been received, and has been communicated to the Board of Agriculture and the Local Government Board. The whole of it is not suitable for publication, but the more important part will appear in. the Board of Trade Journal.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE UNIFORM.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether summer clothing will be issued to the Metropolitan Police during the present month, and if some lighter form of helmet or headgear could be issued to those on duty indoors?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY,): Summer clothing has already been issued and taken into wear. New helmets which are lighter than the old pattern, and the lightest it is possible to get consistently with being serviceable, were issued last year.

  KENTISH CHIEF CONSTABLE'S CIRCULAR TO PUBLICANS.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a circular issued by the Chief Constable of Kent, acting by direction of the Standing Joint Committee, requesting holders of public-house licences to refuse to serve children under 13 years of age for consumption off the premises; whether, in consequence, chil-

  53
  dren sent to fetch beer for their parents dinners have been refused; and whether he is aware that the intoxicating Liquors (Sales to Children) Act, 1886, as originally introduced, would have so operated, but that the Second Heading was only assented to by the then Home Secretary subject to the express reservation that the Bill should be so altered as to make it applicable to sales for consumption on the premises only, and that words so limiting the Bill were, after full discussion, inserted without a Division in Committee of this House; and, if so, whether any local authority is justified by law in bringing official pressure to bear in support of a principle deliberately rejected by Parliament?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I should like to ask the Home Secretary if it is not the fact that similar proceedings were taken by local authorities in the county of Lancaster with the approval of the Home Office?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: That is no reason for doing it in Kent.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I have asked for, but not yet seen, the circular referred to, and I am not aware whether children have been refused as suggested in the second paragraph of the Question. It is quite true that in 1886 Parliament refused to make penal the serving of intoxicating liquors to children under 13 for consumption off the premises. It is open, however, to justices, when deciding upon the granting or renewing of a licence, to take into consideration any abuses arising from structural arrangement or otherwise which are likely to occur in connection with such serving of children.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I should like to ask whether by law the holder of a public house licence is not bound to serve any intending customer who presents ready money, provided that that intending customer is not subject to any legal disqualification.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: I am not aware that there is any such obligation.

  JAMAICA RUM.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a petition from Jamaica praying him to withhold the consent of the Crown to a Bill lately passed by the Legislative Council of the Island giving increased facilities for the sale of rum; whether he is aware that this action has caused great dissatisfaction to those who are deeply interested in the moral and material prosperity of the people of Jamaica; and whether he can see his way to grant the prayer of the petitioners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Yes, the petition in question and the law to which it refers have been received and will receive my most careful consideration, but I am not at present in a position to express any opinion on the subject.

  ARCHITECT TO THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  MR. NUSSEY: I beg to ask the vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the architect to the Education Department is expected to devote the whole of his time to the work of the Department, or whether he is also allowed to take private practice; whether his attention has been called to any cases in which the architect to the Department has been employed by a school board in reference to the preparation of plans for a Board school or Voluntary school which afterwards came before him in his official capacity; and whether the architect has received any remuneration from the school board for the services thus rendered?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION (Sir J. GORST,): The architect to the Education Department, who was appointed in 1884, is a consulting architect only, and is not a Civil Servant. He has been expressly authorised to charge fees for giving professional information or suggestions to school boards and managers, or their architects, as to the best mode of making their plans conform to the rules of the Department.
  MR. J. ELLIS: This matter was brought up on the Estimates some years ago. Is it not a fact that it then transpired that this gentleman adjudicates upon tae plans which are referred to him and then receives emoluments for suggesting alterations and preparing the plans?
  SIR J. GORST: I said he was expressly authorised to charge fees for giving professional information and suggestions to school boards.
  MR. J. ELLIS: Is the right, honourable Gentleman aware that his predecessor the right honourable Baronet the Member for the Dartford Division of Kent gave an undertaking in Committee of Supply that this practice should be discontinued?
  SIR J. GORST: I am not aware of that, but I will inquire into it. I always try to make good any pledge I myself give. I cannot be held responsible always for pledges given by others.
  MR. J. ELLIS: Is there no continuity in the right honourable Gentleman's Department?
  MR. NUSSEY: In consequence of the right honourable Gentleman's answer I shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, under the clause in the Local Government Bill providing that the lists of Parliamentary voters are to be made up by poor law electoral divisions instead of by Parliamentary polling districts, it will be necessary for the clerks of the peace to have the entire registry in each county re-written, with the names arranged in poor law electoral divisions, for the supplemental lists to be published in July, or whether it is the ordinary supplemental lists with the local government supplement of women occupiers and peers that will be required to be posted for the purposes of revision in July; and, if the latter course is followed, who is to check the rearranging of the names of the clerks of the peace?
  MR J. ATKINSON: Under the Registration Act of this year, to which I presume the honourable Member refers, and the rules made in pursuance of it, the whole register of Parliamentary voters must, in this and future years, be made up in separate lists for each registration unit. These registration units being poor law electoral divisions, or, in the cases mentioned in the Act and Rules, parts of poor law electoral divisions, combination will then become available for all elections, Parliamentary and others. To this list will be added the local government supplement of peers and women voters.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he intends insisting on the Amendment, added in Committee, to clause 6 of the Solicitors (Ireland) Bill, enabling clerks in Government offices to practise as solicitors in petty sessions courts in Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): I have been informed by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War that the War Department will not press for the inclusion in the Bill of the Amendment in question.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, before the Report stage of the Local Government Bill, he will circulate either a reprint of the proposed Orders in Council under the Bill, or a statement of the points as to which it is proposed to amend them?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is doubtful whether a reprint of the proposed Order in Council could be concluded before the Report stage. If not, I will consider whether it is possible to meet the second suggestion contained in the honourable Member's Question.

  AUXILIARY POSTMEN AND STRIPES.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster

  57
  General, if provincial town and rural auxiliary postmen doing less than three hours' duty will be granted a similiar privilege to that conferred by the recent decision of the Comptroller of the London Postal Service in regard to such service on the part of London auxiliary postmen being allowed to count towards stripes?
  MR. HANBURY: Provincial town and rural auxiliary postmen doing less than three hours' duty a day, who were employed before April 1st, 1897, are allowed to count such service—two years for one—towards good conduct stripes in the same way as London auxiliary post-men. This concession, however, does not apply to men employed under allowances made to provide for the duty.

  DISCHARGED SOLDIERS AS POSTMEN.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the decision recently announced by the Secretary to the Post Office to the effect that auxiliary postmen drawn from the civil population and employed in London should have thrown open to them the same percentage of established appointments as formerly, notwithstanding the new regulations as to the employment of discharged soldiers and sailors, is intended to apply also to provincial auxiliary, rural auxiliary, and assistant postmen at the present time in the service of the Post Office?
  MR. HANBURY: No promise has been made to auxiliary postmen in London that they shall in the future have the same percentage of established appointments as in the past. In reply to a recent memorial, the London auxiliaries were informed that it is not admitted that auxiliary service gives claim to appointment, and that, although now and then in the past places had been found for auxiliaries, the number of these places was so very small that the introduction of the soldier rule had no practical effect in their case.

  DISTURBANCES IN SWAZILAND.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a (Question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the Government have received information confirming the reports that serious disturbances have occurred in Swaziland, that large numbers of armed Boers have entered that country, that the King and his principal chiefs have been obliged to retire to the mountains; and what steps the Government intend to take to secure the rights of the Swazis under the Convention of 1894?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: The notice of the honourable Gentleman's Question only reached me a very short time ago, and I must again ask him to be good enough in these cases to give me longer notice. In the meantime, I may state that a fight occurred on the 9th of April amongst the natives themselves, at the Royal Kraal, during which the chief Induna was killed. The King has himself admitted that this was done by his orders, but has not yet explained his reasons. I am informed that the resident white population are alarmed, and that the Transvaal Government are largely increasing the police. They are justified under the Convention in taking measures for the preservation of order in the country, and, so far, no occasion has arisen for the intervention of Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the right honourable Gentleman be so good as to make inquiries whether the statements in my Question are correct or not?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES: Yes, I will take care to get the information.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the following paragraph in a

  59
  letter of Sir Thomas F. Brady, published in the Dublin papers of Saturday last—
  "The amount contributed, however, falls far short of what is absolutely required to give the small pittance to the 10,000 children at present on the list. The Mansion House Committee at their last meeting voted another £450 for the next fortnight's supply of bread to these poor children, but where the money for the following fortnight is to come from I know not. These children absolutely require to be fed till at any rate the 1st August, or non-attendance at school for the greater number must be the result;"
  whether the allowance alluded to is one pennyworth per child, and in some of the districts one halfpennyworth of bread; and whether the Government will take any measures to secure that the supply of bread to the children is not stopped for want of means?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have only just received the notice, and have not had time to make the calculations necessary to answer the first part of the Question. Where the circumstances properly call for relief I have no doubt that relief will be given; if not, I shall be prepared to cause inquiry to be made into any specific cases that may be brought before me.

  LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL.
  MR. AMBROSE: Do the Government intend to take the London University Commission Bill to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  The House went into Committee upon I the Finance Bill.
  Upon the Amendment, page 1, postpone clause 1.—(Mr. J. A. Pease.)
  MR. J. A. PEASE: I placed upon the Paper a notice to postpone clause 1, for, by post-
  60
  poning clause 1 and clause 2, it would be competent in Committee to raise a clear issue as to the disposal of the surplus in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whether it should be given in relief of the duty upon tobacco or in relief of the duty upon tea. I understand, however, that the right honourable Gentleman is not prepared to accept the suggestion that clauses 1 and 2 should be postponed—he is not prepared to give the Committee the only opportunity which they have of raising a clear issue; therefore I move that clause 1 be omitted, in order that we may be permitted to discuss the merits of the reduction of the duties upon tea as against a reduction of the duty upon tobacco. I think it is a little unfortunate that the right honourable Gentleman will not allow the postponement of clauses 1 and 2, because his action may necessitate two Debates—one in connection with the tobacco duty and another in connection with the duty upon tea. The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was prepared to take an article in connection with indirect taxation, which was an article having a large consumption, with the view of obtaining an ultimate gain to the revenue. Now, I am of opinion that we ought to reduce the duty upon that article upon which there is the greatest certainty of the relief going to the consumer, and to deal with that article which is consumed by the greatest number in the community. Now it is the poorer classes who consume tea in large quantities, and it is they, rather than the rich, who pay a large portion of their income in indirect taxation. The honourable Member for Halifax stated that the average indirect taxation paid by the working man amounted to £1 16s. 10d. per year out of his total earnings. That is a sacrifice out of all proportion in comparison with that which the rich man pays out of his income. Now, the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has undertaken to prove that the benefit which he proposes to confer will reach the consumer, and he has stated that some of the tobacco will be reduced in price, while some will be increased in value by the reduction

  61
  of moisture. Now, I believe it is admitted upon all sides that the working classes, who are the main purchasers of tobacco in the United Kingdom, can only look for benefit by reason of their securing a drier article to smoke, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that we can add water to our tobacco. Unfortunately, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is under some disadvantage, he being a non-smoker, for my experience has been that tobacco which has been wetted very soon after becomes mouldy. Then there is this consideration: when a purchaser goes to a shop to purchase an article he does not want an article which he has to manipulate afterwards. He desires an article which he can consume without any manipulation upon his part. Now, the 5 per cent, by which the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to reduce the moisture is, I am informed, only equivalent to 2½d. in the pound, and if he is not going to give the small consumer more than five per cent., by the reduction of moisture, it must be apparent to the Committee that the working classes of the country can by no possibility obtain a greater benefit than 2½d. out of the 6d. by which the right honourable Gentleman proposes to reduce the duty upon the unmanufactured article. There is another point, as to which it is evident the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no experience, and that is in regard to that which regulates the consumtion of tobacco in relation to the amount which a person smokes. It is not the quantity he consumes when smoking which regulates the amount; it is the amount of leisure upon his hands or the occupation at the moment. Now, if the tobacco which the working classes are going to smoke in the future is going to be so much drier, it is obvious that a man's pipe will not last so long as now, nor will he derive so much satisfaction from it. He will naturally require two pipes instead of one, and he will find at the end of the year that he has spent more in tobacco than he otherwise would. So that both in the satisfaction he derives from his pipe and the increased cost of his tobacco he finds himself worse off
  62
  than at present. On that ground, if on no other, the working classes will receive no benefit from this reduction. I also have been informed by the trade generally, and others who have some knowledge of the trade, that the trade itself cannot afford to give more than 3d. to the consumer, having regard to the reduction of moisture in respect of this relief which the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer expects to give to the country. Those tobaccos which will be reduced in price will only be those of the most expensive, character, or which are purchased in very large quantities at a time, and in proportion; to cheapness and the smallness of the quantities purchased, so does the benefit decrease. You have, therefore, a graduated scale, whereby the rich man derives the most advantage out of this article, whilst the benefit to the working I classes diminishes to a vanishing point. No doubt there is a large quantity of tobacco consumed in this country, but when we compare the amount of tobacco consumed in this country with that which is consumed upon the Continent we find it is very much less. In the United Kingdom the consumption is one pound and three-quarters per head of the population, as against four pounds per head on the Continent. Tea is an article of very much larger consumption than tobacco. Take sour imports. Of tea we import 265,395,000 pounds every year: of tobacco we import 83,559,000 pounds every year, or a proportion of three to one in favour of tea. Take the value of each article, and we find tea £10,563,000, and tobacco £2,411,000, or a proportion of four and a half in favour of ten. Take the consumption per head of the population, and you have five pounds and three-quarters weight of tea, as against one pound and three-quarters of tobacco. Taking the exports, you have 34,000,000 pounds weight of tea against six and a half million pounds weight of tobacco. With regard also to transhipment, that of tea exceeds that of tobacco. In these figures I have taken unmanufactured tobacco as the tobacco affected by this relief. Now I come to the question of employment. The

  63
  Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated that 95 per cent, of the imported tobacco gives employment to the British industrial classes, but the 232,000,000 pounds weight of tea gives employment to a far greater number of people. It gives employment to those engaged in the shipping industry, and those engaged in handling, mixing, and selling it—employment far in excess of that which is given by 83,000,000 pounds weight of tobacco. Perhaps, the most important point which we ought to consider is that we obtain 90 per cent, of the tea which comes to this country from our dependencies, Indian and Ceylon. Of the 232,000,000 pounds weight which arrives in this country, 211,000,000 come from India and Ceylon, and only 21,000,000 pounds from China. I believe that every Member of this Committee is in favour of drawing together more closely the bonds which unite the mother country to her dependencies, and I hope this Committee is not going to allow this opportunity to pass without attempting to further cement those bonds and ties which now exist between this country and India and Ceylon. Not only will the consumer gain a more direct benefit if this relief is given upon tea, but the hundreds and thousands engaged in the tea industries will have their industries increased and their positions improved. I welcome any change from indirect to direct taxation. I believe the fact of indirect taxation promotes waste in the community, whereas direct taxation will enable every taxpayer to know what he pays; and it is more likely to cause him to look with a vigilant eye after the spending department of this country if he knows what he is paying into the Exchequer. Few of the working classes realise, when they are paying threepence an ounce for tobacco, that twopence of that threepence goes direct to the State. But this proposed reduction is not enough to enable the price to be reduced by one halfpenny per ounce. If this rebate is given upon tea there is a far greater certainty of the reduction reaching the consumer than if it is given upon tobacco, and I do not think I need occupy the time of the Committee by arguing it, because it is too well known that if the duty
  64
  upon tea was reduced by twopence, every person who purchases tea would derive a benefit of twopence per pound in the price he would pay for tea, from it. Tea is largely consumed in every household; tea is generally consumed once, twice, or three times in every 24 hours. If you take the working classes you will find that, as a rule, a workman buys half a pound of tea each week; but if you take tobacco you will find that the average amount consumed by him is eight or twelve pounds a year. Taking eight pounds as the average, if we divide the tobacco which comes into this country by that figure we find only one in four of the population in this country are smokers. Therefore, it appears to me that the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only prepared to relieve one-fourth of the community, in connection with an article of consumption, and of those 10,000,000 who will be directly affected, the greater number will get no benefit whatever from this proposal for their relief. I am in favour of relief being given upon tea rather than upon tobacco, because it will reach the poorer classes of the community. The right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already given relief to the richer classes out of the large surpluses which he has had at his disposal. I do urge the Committee to do something to-day for the poor rather than for the rich, by allowing this money to be utilised, by giving a reduction upon the duty upon tea, which is a necessity of life to the poorer classes, rather than let it go to the relief of the duty on tobacco, which is, more or less, a luxury. I believe nothing has endeared Mr. Gladstone's name to the whole community more than the fact that he was the medium through which so many reductions in taxation took place in times gone by. Now, I hope the name of the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer may also be associated with a relief in taxation upon an article which is necessary to the poorer community. I trust that it will not be said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he has all this money to dispose of, has neglected again the interests of the poor rather than those of the wealthy. I hope it will not be said that

  65
  in selecting tobacco, rather than tea, he has, consciously or unconsciously, been giving relief to a staple industry of his own particular constituency, rather than selecting an industry by which the whole nation would be benefited. The whole argument of his speech was that the revenue would be made up by the increase of consumption, and therefore tobacco is selected. Let the Conservative and Unionist Party recognise that they cannot claim any popularity for their Government in the country by this reduction if this rebate has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer merely with a view to the ultimate gain which it will yield to the revenue. I would merely, in summarising my points, say that in taking tea you are not surrendering any article of taxation, and therefore, in taking tobacco, you reap no advantage; that the reduction, by five per cent., of the moisture in tobacco, as proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is absolutely inadequate, and is not equivalent to the reduction in the duty of sixpence in the pound upon the manufactured article; that the tea trade employs, in all its branches and its large shipping industries, more employees than the tobacco trade; that our fellow-subjects in India and Ceylon, the tea-producers, ought to share the benefit of the reduction, and we should thereby strengthen the bonds by which we are united to them; that the consumers of tea in this country are far more numerous than the tobacco-consuming community: that the reduction of the duty upon tea reaches the consumers with certainty, whilst in the case of tobacco it is more than doubtful; that in the case of tobacco it will only reach the trader, manufacturer, and merchant, and the rich customer, whilst, if tea is taken, the poor and the many will receive the benefit, and appreciate the boon.
  SIR J. LENG: In the Debate upon the Second Reading I ventured to say that if in the interval between that time and the Committee stage we had some further information as to what the ultimate result of this reduction of sixpence in the duty upon tobacco would be, it would be an advantage. I hoped there would have been some observations made upon the subject in the interval. Now, according
  66
  to my information, the reductions that have been made by several wholesale dealers to the retailers are so small that it is quite impossible for the retailers to give the consumers any advantage whatever. I mentioned, the other night, the fact that a circular had been issued by a wholesale firm in Scotland to the effect that the reduction which they were able to give out of the sixpence would only be one penny on the pound. I have no doubt that the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that out of the sixpence at least fourpence would go to the consumer of tobacco when he purchased it. Now, if only one penny be given to the retailer, the consumer will get nothing whatever. I have been looking for a statement of declarations upon the part of large wholesale dealers in England, but I have not seen what is going to the retailers and the consumers. If it be the fact that no direct pecuniary advantage is going to the consumers, I think the right honourable Gentleman must be greatly disappointed, and certainly the smokers of tobacco in this country will regard the apparent concession made as entirely a delusion. It is a large sum which the right honourable Gentleman is giving away—a million sterling. Even if half of it had gone to the consumers it would have been half a million, bur it is, apparently, to be so manipulated that five-sixths will go to the wholesale dealer, one-sixth to the retail dealer, and the consumer will obtain nothing at all. If these are the facts, it will be a great disappointment. We have here one gentleman, principally connected with one of the largest wholesale establishments in the country; and if he would enlighten us upon this matter it would be a very great advantage to us in this Debate. But without entering into the merits of tea or tobacco, I think the Committee should be satisfied as to whether it should be the consumers or the manufacturers, who have made already a large and satisfactory profit, who are to derive the benefit of this reduction.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT): Before the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks, I should like to ask him one or two Questions, the replies to which, I think, would be very useful to

  67
  the House. My honourable Friend who has just sat down has asked a very important question. What would be the effect upon the price to the consumer of the proposed reduction of this duty? I have endeavoured to obtain some information upon that subject from one whom I consider of the highest authority upon these subjects, and this is the information which I have received. I am told that there are two classes of tobacco. There is one which we may call the lower class, which contains the greatest amount of moisture, and which is consumed by the mass of the working classes. Up to the present time the proportion of moisture added to this class of tobacco has been 35 per cent. Five per cent, of that amount of moisture is now to be prohibited, so that in future, as I understand, the extreme moisture which will be allowed will be 30 per cent., and in the pound of tobacco in future there will be five per cent, more tobacco than there is now. Therefore, there will be more tobacco in the pound and more tobacco in the ounce than there has been previously; but I am also told that the change which will take place in that class of tobacco consumed by the masses of the people will not allow of any diminution being made in the price per ounce. There will be a commodity supplied which will contain less moisture and more tobacco, but the price will remain the same; that is what I am informed will be the way in which it will work out. Of course there is another class of manufactured tobacco which at present contains less moisture. In that I suppose the amount of moisture will remain the same, and in that there will be some room for some reduction in, price. Upon that I shall be glad to know what the right honourable Gentleman would suggest as the probable reduction in price. At how much is that reduction estimated by experts? It is not the lowest class of tobacco but the highest upon which the reduction will be given, and if that be so all you will have will be the fact that on the largest amount of tobacco consumed—the lowest grade—there will be no reduction in price, but there would be an increase in quantity; which, of course, would be to the benefit of the Exchequer, because in each ounce of tobacco as sold
  68
  there will be more leaf consumed, and therefore a larger yield to the revenue. Now, I do not quite understand the figures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the cost of the proposed reduction in the tax, and I ask him to give some explanation to the House upon them. The information I have received is that upon the clearing of tobacco last year, which is given to me as £68,000,000 sterling, the remission of sixpence would give a loss of £1,700,000. Now, I presume that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated that loss at £1,120,000, he must, if my figures are right, have allowed for a recovery of more than £500,000, which seems to me to be a considerable sum to recover; upon that we must have some explanation. If we compare the merits of a reduction upon tobacco with the merits of a reduction upon tea, the Committee ought to know exactly what is the cost to the revenue of the one as compared to the other, and what the consumer will receive on the one in proportion to the other. I grant that the duty upon tobacco ad valorem, is a very much higher duty than that upon tea, but the duty upon tobacco is one which apparently the consumer is willing and able to pay. That is to be seen in the immense increase in the yield of the tobacco duty, which in 1883 was £8,800,000 and in 1897 £11,000,000, which showed that there had been a very large increase in the produce of the duty. Now, with regard to the duty on tea, I am told by a very high authority upon that subject that any reduction that was made in the tea duty would go directly to the consumer. Great tea dealers have talked to me upon that subject. Now, while it is a remarkable fact that all the tea dealers agree in saying that the whole of a reduction made in the duty on tea would go to the small consumer in point of price, the dealers in tobacco say that that will not be the case so far as tobacco is concerned. The reduction of twopence upon the tea duty only resulted at once in a loss of £1,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that it would cost £1,500,000, but it never did cost £1,500,000 since the reduction of tea in 1891. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that this reduction would cost at once £1,700,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: £1,600,000.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Very well, £1,600,000. Now, I should like to have some explanation of that; that is very nearly the figure at which the Customs authorities placed in 1891 the estimate of loss on the tea duty. The Customs Revenue put it at £1,500,000, and I should like to know why a similar reduction now upon tea should cost more than it did in 1891. You cannot expect to recoup so much upon this as upon a reduction of the tea duty. I do not see that the loss by a reduction of twopence on the tea duty ought to be more than £1,200,000, and I must say I should like to hear an explanation of the figures which the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had upon that subject. Perhaps the right honourable Gentleman will throw some light upon those two points to which I have drawn his attention. If he does that, and if we have some explanation upon the matter, we shall be then able to deal with it.
  MR. WILLOX: I desire, Mr. Lowther, to meet the challenge which has been thrown out by the honourable Gentlemen On the opposite side of the House as to the effect of the reduction of the duty on tobacco, both upon the merchants and the retail dealers. I will not discuss at the present time the relative merits of a reduction of the duty upon tea and of a reduction upon the duty on tobacco, but I should like just to point out that, while the general public have not any idea of what the sixpenny reduction in the duty on tobacco means, it has entirely failed to realise the anticipations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject. By the reducing of the moisture of the tobacco there is this fact to be considered, that it has a more serious effect upon the price of tobacco than the general public are aware of. When prosecutions have taken place in the trade it has always been assumed upon the authority of the Excise that one per cent, additional moisture represents one halfpenny in the price of the article sold. As a fact, it has represented more, so that if we take the moisture and estimate
  70
  it upon that authority, it represents 2½d., although really it estimates more than that sum; so that it is impossible for the manufacturers to give, and unreasonable for the consumers to expect, that they should derive the benefit of the whole of the sixpenny reduction, seeing the net result upon the higher grade tobacco is not really sixpence, but three-pence, or something like that. If the Government and the public bear that fact in mind they will see that it is impossible that there can be any reduction in price in any of the lower grades of tobacco which contain a larger percentage of moisture there. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth has accurately described the different phases of the trade, and correctly represented the amount of moisture introduced into the different grades of tobacco. It is quite true that the great bulk of tobacco in this country is consumed by the working classes, and is of a quality which is invariably retailed at threepence per ounce; that article has always carried the maximum amount of moisture, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would perhaps permit me to say that, even in that case, it would be quite impossible to reduce that price of threepence at the present time, for reasons which must be obvious and apparent to everybody. In the first place there is a steady and inevitable increase in the price of raw material used, and if the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not altered, as he has done, the duties upon tobacco, there is no doubt that the people of this country would, within a very short period of time, have been required to pay an increased price for the article. With regard to the actual profit realised by the manufacturer and the dealer with whom it has to be divided, I may say, and I speak with authority, that the invariable fixed price at the present time for roll and plug tobacco, as they are called, is 3s. a pound paid to the manufacturer. Out of that 3s., 2s. 8d. goes immediately to the Exchequer, which only leaves a balance of fourpence for the cost of material and labour and manufacture. Of course, I am well aware that there was some compensation to be found in the amount of moisture introduced into the tobacco.

  71
  It is not that it is necessary for the manipulation of the reduction. It would be quite impossible to manufacture tobacco unless it was moistened, and I think it will be found in practice that we have reached almost the limit beyond which it would be either practicable or desirable to reduce the amount of moisture. Bearing in mind that figure, the fact that of the sale price of 3s. 2s. 8d. goes to the Treasury, and that the article is retailed in small quantities, with a great amount of expenditure in the shape of rent, and at the expense of great labour and trouble, at threepence per ounce, it will be seen that the working classes who have chiefly been used as the stalking horse in this matter, have no especial grievance or cause of complaint. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire called attention to the fact that there was nothing lost on tobacco of a higher grade with less moisture, and sometimes none at all. I may, for his information, and for that of the Committee, say that in that article, where the duty is reduced in value by sixpence, and where the moisture is not to be a factor, there is a substantial and all-round reduction, which will probably benefit the consumer—a reduction fair in amount—I think I am right in saying it will be a reduction of at least fourpence upon the higher grade of tobacco. I think it will be seen from my remarks that, while the lower grades of tobacco have not in detail been reduced, because the conditions of manufacture will not permit it, there is a substantial reduction upon those classes of tobacco where it has been possible to make it. I am sure it must be in the interest of manufacturers, as well as the vendors, to grant every possible concession that the grades of tobacco will permit, because I know of no trade in which competition is more keen, and in which the cutting of prices has been carried to such an extreme limit than that of the trade I am now referring to. In fact, I think the public will have a share in the goods which he requires, so far as the principles of business will permit, an adequate participation in this reduction. There is also another point to which sufficient importance has not been attached in this Debate. Tea proceeds directly from the producer to the retailer
  72
  and consumer. It is not manipulated; it does not employ the industry of this, country. The reverse is the condition of things with reference to tobacco. Practically the whole tobacco of this country is imported in a raw state. It. undergoes processes of treatment, and in each of those processes a very large amount of manual labour is employed. Of that labour, probably three-fourths of it is female labour; so that that phase of the subject, deserves consideration. There is another point, I am sure, which will further tend to the development of the-employment of British labour, and that is the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with the cigar duty, because that duty in its original amount, which placed British industries at a great disadvantage in competition especially with Continental manufacturers, is now placed upon such a basis that the higher class of labour in this country will be assured of employment against the cheaper and less well paid labour in Continental towns. I think we may very briefly epitomise the benefits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget, as it affects the tobacco duty, by saying that it will assure the labouring classes, who are the great consumers, of an article better manufactured and free from moisture, and that amongst the better classes, who are the consumers of the higher grade tobaccos, there will be an immediate and substantial reduction of price, while the effect will be to stimulate and increase the employment of British labour in our home markets.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has contributed in a very desirable manner to our knowledge on this subject. He has pointed out that the working man was made a stalking-horse in this matter. Now, we understand that the average smoker of tobacco will get no benefit at all. The honourable Gentleman pointed out to us very soundly and conclusively that the circumstances of trade do not admit of a reduction being accorded to the consumer. He has given us his reasons, which I have no doubt are sound and in accordance with his practical knowledge and experience. What advantage has the community at

  73
  large to get from this reduction? We have been told that this is absolutely unasked for, and that it is a reduction made simply to enable my right honourable Friend to say that he has reduced taxation. Many of us have ventured to suggest that he had better have kept the money in the national pocket; that, having regard to the demands likely to be made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being and in time to come, it would be wise to allow the smoker of tobacco to remain in that contented frame of mind in which he was up to the moment of the introduction of the Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is assenting to no demand, and as to his mode of dealing with the money, so far as I can see, he is going to please nobody. The working man has already been described as a stalking-horse by the honourable Gentleman who spoke with a practical knowledge of this subject, and the consumers of the more costly forms of tobacco—namely, cigars— have been excepted from this remission of taxation. As I pointed out two years ago, it is entirely a mistake to say, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer then did, that so much taxation is paid by the propertied classes and so much by the working classes. That fallacy, however, is, I am sorry to think, still lingering in influential quarters in this House, as the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire tells us, that the mass of the voters who are not contributors to the income tax already pay half of the taxation. I say they pay nothing of the kind in indirect taxation. A proper scientific analysis would show that a very considerable proportion of the indirect taxation is paid, not by what are known as the working classes, but by those who are large contributors to the direct taxation. If you remove the tea duties, you are remitting all taxation from a mass of people who, for all practical purposes, if they are not smokers or consumers of alcoholic drinks, would be non-contributors to the taxation of the country. The old Liberal doctrine used to be that taxation and representation should go together. The new Radical doctrine seemed to be that those who controlled the national destinies by their votes should be relieved of all taxation, which would be a most dangerous condition of affairs, and I hope the right honourable
  74
  Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire will not lend his great authority to any doctrine so dangerous. As regards this question of tobacco, is it too late to ask my right honourable Friend once more whether any good object can be served by persevering in a reduction which, as I said, nobody asked for, and scarcely anybody appreciates? He has himself told us that his calculation has been to some extent upset by the litigation he has referred to. That, I think, is a calculation which must be largely disturbed by the growing force of opinion outside. I am not going into detail in regard to the expenditure of foreign States upon war-like preparations, knowing that he and his colleagues are prepared to regulate the naval and military expenditure by some similar expenditure. These considerations alter, and the right honourable Gentleman is entitled to ask the House to relieve him of obligations entered into without the knowledge he has now. If he has to come and ask the House for any considerable addition to meet the exigencies of the current year, I want to know where he is to get it. Everybody knows perfectly well that continual changes in these duties are found to be a serious disturbance to trade. To take 6d. a pound off tobacco duty one year and put it on again the next, wholly or partly, would be justly regarded as trifling with a national industry, and would not seriously commend itself to any experience. An amount made in a certain manner, when we are dealing with indirect taxation, has almost perforce to be more or less of a permanent character. We have to face the prospect, perhaps in the comparatively near future, of a declining revenue and an increasing expenditure, and the obligation would rest upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being of finding some addition to our national resources. Many of the items forced upon us are of automatics growth; you cannot restrain or restrict them, and there is no alternative but to find the money and raise taxes. I would suggest many economies, but I know I would not be listened to. I might point out, for instance, the monstrous demands for the support of education, which are increasing year after year. That, of course, would not be listened to—to say that we must cut our coat

  75
  according to our cloth, and spend less upon education. I ask him what, when the revenue shrinks, he is going to do to replace this duty? He had better keep the money, for he is sure to want it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have been attacked from very different quarters. The right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down objects altogether, as I understand, to any kind of remission at the present time.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Except the Death Duties.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Oh, then, after all, my right honourable Friend's speech was not against a reduction of taxation, but only against the particular reduction of taxation which I have proposed.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I beg pardon. What I said was that my right honourable Friend wag committing himself to the doctrine that I did not advocate any reduction of taxation, and I said I must make an exception in regard to the Death Duties. I would substitute for the Death Duty a duty on foreign imported goods.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That leads me into a subject in which I must decline to follow him during a discussion of a clause of the Bill. I think it is my duty to deal with the financial circumstances of each year as I find them, and if I find, as I did this year, in considering the estimates of ravenue, that I had a surplus, should I have been justified for a moment in retaining that surplus and refusing to propose any reduction of taxation, because next year additional expenditure may be thrown upon us? That may be the view of my right honourable Friend, but I confess it is not my view. The particular subject I have chosen for a reduction of taxation may be a right one or it may be a wrong one, but I do not think I have any business whatever to maintain taxation in this country because next year I may be called upon to provide for greater estimates of expenditure than I have to provide for this year. My right honourable Friend's prophecy has been made
  76
  before in the short time in which I have held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, so far, it has been falsified' by events. It may be, of course, that the increase of revenue may not continue at the rate at which it has gone on. It may be that there will come a change in the financial circumstances of the country. I look forward to that time, I admit, with some anxiety, but I do not contemplate any change, such as my right honourable Friend suggests, which would involve an addition of 2d. in the income tax in order to make up for the reduction of taxation which I now propose. I will deal further with the view of my right honourable Friend later on, but for the moment I turn to the objection to this clause of the honourable Member who first addressed you. I do not gather that the honourable Member for Durham considers that the tea duty, as well as the tobacco duty, should be reduced. He is prepared to admit, I think, with the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire that in this matter we have not to deal with more than £1,100,000; only, in his opinion, that sum should be devoted to the reduction of the tea duty rather than to the reduction of the tobacco duty. Sir, the honourable Member put forward an argument to show that, in his opinion, tea should have the first claim. I do not at all agree with the argument drawn from the fact that there is a greater production of tea in India and Ceylon than there is of tobacco in the British Empire. That is undoubtedly a fact. But I think that in these matters our primary concern ought to be for our own people. I believe it is an undisputed fact that, as my honourable Friend the Member for Liverpool said just now, the manufacture of tobacco is a most important industry in this country, employing a very large number of persons in each part of the United Kingdom. It forms an industry to which there is nothing corresponding in regard to tea. Therefore, anything which increases the consumption of tobacco is of direct benefit to a very important industry here.
  MR. PEASE: I was not alluding merely to those engaged in the manufacture of tobacco as compared with those engaged

  77
  in the retail business connected with tea as it comes over here. My point was that there were three or four times the bulk of tea in weight to deal with as compared with tobacco, and that from the shipment of tea, and all the stages from its production to its sale to the consumer, the number of hands employed was probably greater than in the case of tobacco.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My information is to the contrary. I do not think the number of hands in the two industries can for a moment be compared. That, I confess, is one reason why I prefer tobacco to tea. I do not want to go into the respective merits of the two articles to-night. I have been favoured with a good many letters on the subject of tobacco, from individuals who are members of anti-tobacco leagues, and I have been denounced in the most vigorous language for what they consider an absolutely un-Christian proposal to lower the tax on so noxious a weed. I think that tea and tobacco may be considered as very similar objects. I do not believe in either of them as necessaries of life in the sense that water or food are necessaries of life. They are articles of great consumption; they are very useful and valuable as stimulants for all classes of the population, especially the poorest among them. They are consumed, no doubt, by many persons to a greater extent than is good for them. But I do not think it can be said for a moment that tea is a necessary of life, and tobacco is a luxury. I think we must put the two articles as necessaries of life upon the same basis. I have to deal with the admitted amount of £1,100,000, and the question is whether it should be devoted to a reduction of the duty on tea or a reduction of the duty on tobacco. The Member for West Monmouthshire suggested, as he has suggested before, that the sum of £1,100,000 would be sufficient to reduce the duty on tea by twopence in the pound. I am obliged in matters of this kind to be guided largely by the opinions of my advisers, and I find their calculations do not bear out that conclusion. The right honourable Gentleman referred to the occurrences of 1891.
  78
  What happened at that time? I will quote the figures as to tea. The yield of the tea duty in the year ending 31st March, 1889, was £4,630,000, and in the following year it was only £4,490,000, a falling-off of £140,000, in spite of an increasing population. Now, the reason for that decrease in 1890 has been carefully examined, and proved to be due to the decrease in the payments on tea in anticipation of the reduction in 1891, so that tea which otherwise would have been cleaned in the year 1889–1890 remained to be cleared until the duty was reduced. And, therefore, it happened that in the year 1890‱1891, after the reduction of the duty, the receipts were, as the right honourable Gentleman has said, only short by a million of the receipts of the previous year. And as the following year shows almost precisely the sam receipts as the year 1890–1891, I think it will be seen that the year 1890–1891 was credited with more receipts than properly belonged to it, and that, therefore, the apparent loss at that time was not a normal or fair test of the actual cost of the reduction of those duties. Now, I will state to the Committee the calculation made for me with regard to the probable cost of a reduction of 2d. on tea. Each penny on the tea duty now produces £980,000. It has largely increased since the days of which I have spoken, and therefore there would be a reduction of £1,960,000 for the year on 2d. Assuming that a month would pass before the new duties were levied there would be a sum of £150,000 to set against this, besides the gain arising from increased consumption, which is calculated as about 11,000,000 pounds of tea. But it must be remembered that the gain from increased consumption in 1891 produced a much larger duty at that time than a similar increase would produce now, because the duty was 4d. instead of 2d., as on the assumed reduction it would be now. Therefore, my adviser have shown me that in their opinion the net result of a reduction of 2d. in the pound on the tea duty now would involve a net loss in the year of £1,700,000, so that practically the sum of £1,120,000 would only allow a reduction of the tea duty by a penny and a

  79
  farthing in the pound. That, I think, is a calculation made by some honourable Members at an earlier stage of this discussion. Now, it is said that the reduction on the tobacco duty will not reach the consumer. Well, now, in my belief, both with regard to tea and with regard to tobacco any reduction must, eventually reach the consumer. It may be that it will not reach the consumer at once, for some little time must be allowed for arranging fresh prices, but it will eventually reach him, and if a penny farthing in the pound is to be divided amongst a number of ounces so that the small purchaser may reap the benefit, surely such a division is much more difficult than to divide a reduction of 6d. on tobacco amongst a number of ounces. Evidently the smaller the reduction in the pound the more likely it is to be attached by the manufacturer and the retailer before it reaches the consumer at all. But, now, what is the case with regard to tobacco? The right honourable Member for West Monmouthshire has asked me how I have arrived at my figure of £1,120,000 for the loss in the year as a consequence of the reduction of the tobacco duty by the sum of 6d. Well, Sir, the estimated gross proportionate loss would be about £1,750,000, and against that there is to be allowed a considerable sum for a period of three weeks or a month, during which the duties stood at the old amount, and for the anticipated increase of consumption on the reduction of duty; and there was a further reduction of estimated loss by no less than £200,000, on account of the reduction of moisture. Now, I am very glad that my honourable Friend the Member for Liverpool has stated to the Committee the important effect of the reduction on moisture. I do not think that when we were dealing with this matter at an earlier stage it was really understood what an important matter that was, not only to the consumer, but also to the manufacturer of tobacco. I can quite understand that the manufacturers are justified in referring to the reduction of moisture as a very important factor as affecting the future prices of tobacco. I have studied a good many of the new price
  80
  issued throughout the country showing the reduction in the price which they have made owing to the reduction of the duty on tobacco. Sir, I find in these lists reductions commencing at a rate larger than the reduction of duty, showing that there are other factors in the question besides the rate of duty. I find reductions commencing at 7½d. in the pound, and going downwards from 6d. to 3d. and to quite small sums upon the cheaper classes of tobacco. Well, I admit that with regard to the cheaper classes of tobacco the reduction in the price will be small as compared with the better classes of tobacco, and that is precisely on account of the important effect of the reduction of moisture in these classes of tobacco. But the consumer of the cheaper class of tobaccos will have an immense benefit from the reduction of moisture, and will obtain more tobacco for his money, and that, coupled with a certain reduction, will certainly tell in his favour. But I demur altogether to the suggestion that the working classes consume only the cheapest kinds of tobacco. Why we see cigarettes consumed by all classes of the population, and cigarettes are made of all kinds of tobacco, and certainly not, as a rule, of the cheapest kind. I believe that in regard to tobacco as in regard to other articles which they buy, very often the working classes are more particular than some of those above them in the social scale, and it would be contrary to the fact to suggest that the small reduction on the cheaper class of tobacco proves, as is argued by the honourable Member for Durham, that this reduction will benefit the rich, and will not benefit the poor. But now I come to another argument of the honourable Member, who compared the consumption of tea in different households in the country, and contended that a reduction of the tea duty would affect individually more persons than a reduction of the tobacco duty, because there were more consumers of tea than of tobacco. The question is not how many consume these articles, but what taxation the household bears. The taxation upon tobacco is infinitely higher than the taxation on tea, and I am convinced that a greater number of households will gain by a reduction of taxation upon tobacco than by a

  81
  reduction on tea. No doubt single women would benefit by a reduction on tea rather than by a reduction on tobacco, but the single man would certainly benefit by a reduction on tobacco rather than by a reduction of the duty on tea. But, Sir, after all, there is a matter which I think it is very desirable should be considered by the Committee in comparing the two proposals, and which has already been alluded to by the right honourable Member for Thanet. I think that last year the honourable Member for Devonport, who is very well acquainted with the tea trade, told the Committee that he was strongly in favour of the abolition of the tea duty, but opposed to the reduction of 1d. in the pound upon the duty. I think I am justified in inferring from the speech of the right honourable Member for Durham, and those who are prepared to vote with him, that it is not by any means so much the reduction of a penny and a farthing in the pound, or whatever it may be, on the tax upon tea that they desire, as a total abolition of the tax upon tea, which they think would necessarily follow from their proposal. Well, Sir, as I have previously explained to the House, I do not desire a total abolition of the duty on tea. I do not desire to lessen the number of articles which are at present in our customs tariff. If you abolish the duty on tea you must also abolish the duty on coffee and chicory, and that class of articles, and you would reduce general taxation by something like£4,500,000 a year. Well, Sir, that is a considerable amount in itself, but by abolishing that taxation you would, as my right honourable Friend the Member for Thanet has said—and I am glad in this matter to find myself in complete agreement with him—relieve from Imperial taxation altogether every person in the community below the income tax limit who neither uses alcohol nor smokes. Sir, I certainly will not be responsible for such a financial proposal as that. I have, therefore, proposed not to remove any article from the customs tariff altogether and not to deprive the revenue of what I believe it will need in the near future, any great amount of that which it now receives, but simply to reduce a duty which is in itself an enormous duty, and
  82
  which has remained for 56 years, as it is now, the cause of an average increase of 500 per cent. on the cost of the unmanufactured article. That, reduction, in my belief, and in the belief of all the authorities who, whether they approve of the reduction or not, have expressed themselves on this subject, will certainly lead to increased consumption, and therefore to an increase of the revenue. It will be a boon to the consumer either by a reduction in price or a reduction of moisture. It will prevent that reduction of the revenue in the future to which my right honourable Friend the Member for Thanet looks with great alarm, because the revenue will come from increased consumption. And therefore, in spite of what my right honourable Friend has said, I would suggest that even from his point of view he should support me against the proposal of the honourable Member for Durham. I bear in mind not merely the necessities of the present time, but the possible necessities of the future. I believe I can provide for those necessities, but I have no right to ask the country to bear a greater amount of taxation than I believe is necessary. Therefore I have made this proposal, and I hope it will be supported by the Committee against the proposal of the honourable Member for Durham.
  MR. BAINBRIDGE: Sir, I do not know why in the conduct of the financial department of the Government, of which the right honourable Gentleman has charge, the principles on which ordinary business is carried on should not be observed. As the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on a previous occasion, we have passed through a good year and have a good surplus, and it seems to me to be desirable, in view of the great competition which we have from abroad, that something should be put aside to meet it. We have to deal with increasing competition with America, with its great resources, and with. European nations with low wages and a splendid education, and I beg to urge upon the Committee that instead of taking something off the duty on tobacco it would be better to apply this money to the purposes of technical education.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: Sir, I should be glad to say a few words, because while I agree with the honourable Gentleman opposite that if the duty were to be reduced either on tea or tobacco it would have been wiser to reduce the duty on tea, I am unable to support the present Amendment. I will not detain the Committee by going into a full discussion of the subject, but must confess that I am not satisfied with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of his reason for giving a preference to a reduction on tobacco. I believe it would be better for the country if our people smoked less tobacco and drank more tea. Moreover, the reduction proposed will in the main benefit men only, while a reduction of the tea duty would have been an advantage to both sexes. The interests of the women ought surely to have been considered. But, Sir, I am unable to vote in favour of the Amendment proposed by the honourable Member opposite, because I am disposed to agree with the honourable Member who has just sat down, in the opinion that in view of the expenditure which in the near future may be necessary, it would be better not to make any reduction of taxation at all at present. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that he does not consider that he should look forward to the future, but that he should deal only with the circumstances of the year as he finds them. I am not quite sure that in all cases that is a desirable view to take, especially in a year like the present, when the Government must know that there is a large expenditure looming in the future. But, Sir, there is another consideration which I think disposes of the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Committee will remember that in the earlier part of this Session we had the Naval Works Bill before us, by which it was proposed to take £2,000,000 of the surplus of last year's revenue, which would have been available for the reduction of the National Debt, and to apply it to naval expenditure. Well, Sir, we made no objection to that Bill, because we thought it would be useless to pay off debt if we had to borrow again a few months afterwards, or to impose additional taxation in order to meet the
  84
  large expenditure on the Navy. But, Sir, if we had known that the money which ought to have gone in reduction of the National Debt was going to be diverted in order to reduce the tax on tobacco, I must confess that I for one should have had very great scruples in supporting that Bill. I must express my regret that Her Majesty's Government should have taken the surplus of last year to make a reduction of the duty on tobacco.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Thanet have denounced the idea of a total abolition of the tea duty. May I recall to the recollection of the Committee what happened only so recently as the year 1893? The honourable Gentleman who was then the honourable (Member for the Eye Division of Suffolk, whom I do not see in his place at this moment, proposed an Amendment to the Bill to the effect that this House was unwilling to sanction a Bill which involved the continuance for another year of the tax upon tea. That was a proposal to abolish the tax upon tea altogether, and for that proposal almost the whole of the then Opposition voted. It is true that it was just on the eve of a General Election, but I regard a promise given on the eve of a General Election as a solemn pledge to the electors, and there must be a great many honourable Gentlemen present, if not right honourable Gentlemen, who voted on that occasion for the abolition of the duty upon tea. I am glad to see in his place the honourable Member for North Islington, who has taken a great amount of interest in the condition of the working classes. We all know the work he has done in that direction. Well, Sir, in the same Debate, or on the same day, he produced a very interesting calculation, of which I will remind the House. I will leave it to the honourable Gentleman to explain it in his own way, but he said a man who earns £1 a week pays out of it to the State 1s. 6d., a man who earns £500 a year pays 1s. 2½d.,. and the man who earns £10,000 pays 10d., and those who have between £10,000 and £100,000 pay 7d. in the £ to the State. That calculation, I think,

  85
  is a sufficient answer to the arguments put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right honourable Member for Thanet in regard to this question. But, Sir, there is another point, and I am glad to see the honourable Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield in his place on this occasion. The honourable Member, I have not the least doubt, having regard to his previous utterances upon this question, will walk into the same Division Lobby with my honourable Friend. May I remind the honourable Member, who appears to take such a large amount of interest in the whole of the British Empire, that 900,000 of our fellow-subjects in India and Ceylon are employed in the production of tea, and in view of that fact I ask the honourable Gentleman to support the Motion now before the House. Two years ago 88 per cent, of the amount of tea imported into this country came from India and Ceylon, and only 12 per cent, from China. I believe that since that time the amount imported from India and Ceylon has considerably increased. I believe since then the amount imported has considerably increased; but, however that may be, a reduction would be a very great advantage not only to the consumer of ten in this country, but also to the very large number of people who are engaged in the production of tea in India and Ceylon. I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been unable to devote a portion of his surplus to reducing the taxation upon this necessary article. During the last three years we have had very large surpluses, and if the reduction does not take place at a time like the present I suppose it will never take place at all. At all events, I call upon honourable Gentlemen who in 1893, by their voice and by their votes, supported the same proposal as is now before the House to take a similar course to-night.
  COLONKL SIR H. VINCENT: I only wish to say one word, and that is that, having supported the proposal on a former occasion, I desire to support it again. I am heartily glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised the necessity of reducing the taxation on articles which we can produce in this country. At the same time I am sorry that he has not seen his
  86
  way to increase the number of articles upon which duty is levied at our Custom Houses. I quite agree with what he said upon the inadvisability of reducing the number of articles upon which that duty is levied. If he would like me to produce a list of the articles upon which a tax may be levied I shall be most happy to supply him with a list, and if not in this House at any rate in the country, he will be able to gain a very considerable volume of support for it. There are one or two articles especially from which a very considerable revenue might be obtained with great advantage to our trade. I would earnestly invite the attention of my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the very serious condition of trade, as is shown in the recent trade reports. The imports have increased in the five months of this year by seven millions, and the exports of British and Irish produce have fallen by five and a quarter millions. These figures give the Chancellor of the Exchequer ample food for reflection, and material for seeing if he cannot possibly pave the way for a Budget which will be productive of benefit to the British producer more than in recent years. I shall certainly support the proposal which has been made by the honourable Member for Durham, and supported by the last speaker.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the amount which would be lost by the reduction of the tea duty. The right honourable Gentleman founded his reply upon some observations which I am bound to respect. He has told us that the Customs authorities estimate that a reduction of 2d. in the tea duty would cost between £1,600,000 and £1,700,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It would cost £1,700,060.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I entirely adhere to the opinion I have expressed, that the reduction of the tea duty would be a very much better thing than the reduction proposed in the tobacco duty. In fact, everything that

  87
  has been said by the honourable Member for Liverpool, who is a great authority on the subject, convinces me more and more of the comparatively less advantage of the reduction of the tobacco duty as compared with, the tea duty. I cannot, however, give a vote which will lead to a deficit; that would not be consistent with my views on sound finance. I very much regret that we did not get a sufficiently large surplus to enable both the tea and the tobacco duty to be reduced. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it is quite true that our choice is between the one and the other, and, as a reduction of the tea duty would mean a loss to the amount of £1,700,060, and as I believe the Estimates the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made this year are pretty close, both as to revenue and expenditure, though I cannot give a vote for the reduction of the tobacco duty, at the same time I cannot give a vote which would lead to a deficit in the balance between the expenditure and revenue.
  MR. COURTNEY: I rise to express my approval of the choice which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the duty on tobacco instead of tea. It has been said that the consumer will not get the benefit of the reduction. I am entirely sceptical as to that assertion, and I do not accept it for a moment. Even if the benefit does not come in price, it will come in the quality, and the smoker will get more tobacco per pipe instead of tobacco and water. Well, Sir, I should like to say a word or two as to why I prefer the reduction on tobacco to a reduction on tea. I agree with the reasons brought forward by the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Thanet, and approved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that unless you contemplate an absolute abolition of the tea duty you must beware of reducing it 2d. in the £; I am strongly in favour of the reduction of indirect taxation, so as to secure equal proportions of contributions, or their equivalent, from all the taxpayers of the community; but I am persuaded that you cannot realise that unless you maintain some system of indirect taxation, in which something like the tea duty is a necessary and
  88
  essential element. But why do I say the tobacco duty instead of the tea duty? One reason why I prefer the reduction of the tobacco duty is, because that duty is much more heavy in proportion to its value than the duty on tea; indeed, immeasurably more. Directly you reduce the duty you will find such a reserve of consuming power on the part of the community as to get back the whole of the revenue within a very short time, and you will get, at the same time, a reduction to the consumer without any equivalent loss to the Exchequer. That, from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is eminently in favour of a reduction of the tobacco duty. There is another reason which has got weight with me. We heard a good deal last year about the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. I myself altogether dispute the conclusions drawn from the investigations of the Royal Commission as to the difference of burden between the two islands. But I admit that the investigations of the Royal Commission show that there is a difference of burden between the different classes of the community, which consume what may be called, perhaps, the rougher forms of excisable articles taxed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The consumer of spirits, the consumer of beer, and the consumer of tobacco contribute much more than their share towards the revenue of the country. By reducing the duty on tobacco you will get a greater approximation to a proper adjustment of taxation between the different classes of the community, and in that way you will get a truer approximation to a proper adjustment of taxation between the two islands which constitute the United Kingdom. Now, there is only one point in the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from which I am bound to say I dissent—I allude to the point raised by the honourable Member for Liverpool. My right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reduces the duty on tobacco, but he will not reduce the duty on manufactured cigars. Now, the duty on manufactured cigars ought to be reduced at the same time. The duty has been adjusted, but it has not been accurately adjusted. It has been so adjusted that it does not give any advantage to the English manufacturer over the foreign manufacturer of

  89
  cigars. That is the principle of Free Trade. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reducing the duty on tobacco while not reducing the duty on cigars, gives a bounty of the home manufacture of cigars which is in entire disagreement with the principle of Free Trade. I therefore protest against it.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I gather from the Debate that it is admitted on both sides of the House that only one-half of the reduction on tobacco will go into the pockets of the consumers. ["No!"] It is admitted—["No!"]—yes, by the wholesale dealers of tobacco themselves, that one-half will go into the pockets of the consumer and the other half into their own pockets. [" No !"] Yes, it is a face. My honourable Friend the Member for East Bristol [Sir W. H. Wills] said so himself in this House. It seems to me, putting aside every other consideration, that it would have been far more reasonable to have reduced the duty on tea than on tobacco. But why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer say he will not reduce the duty on tea? He has put forward two reasons, and they are really such extraordinary reasons that I think we ought to take note of them. The right honourable Gentleman says that it would be impossible to reduce the duty on tea, because, if unjust, we ought to take the duty off altogether.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I said I thought it would be difficult to take the duty off tea.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, "difficult" and "impossible" is almost the same thing with a Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right honourable Gentleman says, then, that it would be difficult to reduce the duty on tea unless we are prepared to take the duty off altogether, that the consequence of a further reduction would be that we should have to do away with the duty on tea altogether. Well, Sir, we reduced it by 2d. in 1890, but we still have a duty of 4d. It does not, however, follow as a necessary consequence that because we reduce it we are obliged to take off the duty altogether. But then the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say that he objected to
  90
  the abolition of the duty on tea, coffee,, chicory, and such like articles, because, they provided the only way by which poorer people paid now towards taxation. Now, Sir, there I and many honourable Members on this side of the House join issue with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If a large revenue is to be collected, when it expands we ought not to leave out of consideration the taxes which press upon the poor people. Mr. Bright was always in favour of a free breakfast table, and although many of the economic doctrines of Mr. Bright have been repudiated, Liberals still hold that it is desirable to remove the taxes on the breakfast table. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as, I presume, the exponent of Her Majesty's Government, declares that the, as a matter of principle, objects to taxes being taken off the poor and placed on the shoulders of the rich.
  MR. BARTLEY: I do not think the honourable Member for Northampton is really in earnest as to the statement he has just made, for it certainly is not strictly in accordance with the fact.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Which statement?
  MR. BARTLEY: That we on this side of the House are in favour of the taxation of the poor, and not of the rich. I only rise because reference has been made to a speech which I made some three or four years ago on the subject of the taxation of the poor. It is deduced from that argument that I am in favour of taking off the duty on tea rather than tobacco. To a certain extent it is true now that the poor pay more out of their small incomes than the rich, and, as has been pointed out, that must be so as long as we tax alcohol, and no one proposes to abolish that tax. But that is no argument for taking off the tax entirely upon tea. As has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others, it is clear that if we take off the tax on tea we relieve a large section of the community who pay practically nothing to the revenue of the State. It is quite clear that a teetotal family learning 10s. or 15s. a week and consuming half a pound of tea a week only pay 2d. a

  91
  week towards the Imperial revenue, and although that may be a large tax to them, it is not, perhaps, an unreasonable sum to pay for all the advantages which a family gets in the way of protection at the hands of the country. I think it would be a very evil thing if, in trying to adjust the taxation of this country, we should do away with a tax on any one particular class. It is also quite true that during the last three or four years we have done a great deal to make the taxation of the rich heavier than it was before. The memorable Budget of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, of course, did a great deal in that direction. As far as that went most of us strongly approved of it. The tendency to make those who paid a comparatively small income tax pay on death practically means the payment of an accumulated income tax, and that adjusted, to a great extent, the anomaly to which I drew attention. But it is quite clear that as long as you tax alcohol, whether you take off the duty on tea or not, there must be an anomaly. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear in mind the fact that if the tea duties are abolished it will do a great deal of mischief in the sense that we shall have a large number of persons paying nothing to the revenue. Taxation and representation, it seems to me, ought to be the backbone of all principles of political economy, but it seems to me that if the tax is taken off tea the principle of taxation and representation will be very much done away with. I certainly am not in favour at the present time of taking off the tea duty in preference to the tobacco duty.
  MR. DILLON: I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided to adhere to his original proposition to reduce the duty on tobacco. I cannot agree with the statement of the honourable Member for Northampton that this proposal, compared with a proposal to reduce the tax on tea, is in favour of the rich and against the poor; because I maintain, and have always maintained, with regard to the poorest parts of Ireland with which I am acquainted, that the reduction of the duty
  92
  on tobacco gives more relief to the labouring man than the reduction of the tea duty; because, whether for good or for evil, the poorest labouring man, as a rule, spends more on tobacco than he does on tea. I believe that the reduction of the tobacco duty, as has been stated by the right honourable Gentleman opposite, goes a longer distance towards diminishing the grievance under which Ireland at present suffers, under the existing system of taxation, than would be the reduction of the tea duty. There is one other point which I should like to mention in connection with the income tax. It has been assumed Toy a good many speakers that we must treat tobacco as a luxury and tea as a necessity. Well, I consume both myself. I am very fond of tea, but I must confess that every year I live I become more strongly convinced that tea is not a necessity any more than tobacco, and that it would be a very great benefit to large sections of the community if they never drank another cup of tea in their lives. Our American friends are discussing the question year after year, and I know a large part of the country where the nerves of the working classes are very seriously injured by drinking too much tea. However, that is another aspect of the question. The only reason I have risen is to point out that it is not quite just, in dealing with the tobacco tax and the tea tax, to assume that tea is an absolute necessity and tobacco only a luxury. Tobacco to some working men is, practically speaking, as much a necessity as tea, and for these reasons I feel compelled to-night to vote in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal. There is only one fault that I have to find with the reduction, and that is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not fix the reduction at such a figure as would ensure that the consumer felt the immediate relief of the reduction of the halfpenny in the ounce.
  MR. LOGAN: I regret that greater reduction of taxation has not been made for the benefit of the poorer portion of the community. I understand that the object with which my honourable Friend has moved his Amendment has been with the view of raising the

  93
  question of the tea duty. Personally I regret very much indeed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not reduced the duty on tobacco very much more, and that he has not seen his way to abolish the duty on tea altogether. We on this side of the House have always told the people of this country that we should support the abolition of the tea duty, and every time the Budget comes before the House I shall feel it my duty to do all I can in that direction. I am surprised that, after there has been a year of unexampled prosperity like the present year, the Government, although they have been able to give large sums of money away to their friends, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not see his way to be just before he was generous, and endeavour to do something to remove the heavy burdens of taxation from the shoulders of the very poorest portion of our community. Both the tobacco duty and the tea duty, I maintain, are very heavy burdens upon the very poorest people in this country. There are very few people who consume tobacco who understand that when they pay 1s. for tobacco they are really only getting 2½d. worth of tobacco, and paying 9½d. for duty. I contend that in a year like the present, when money has been flowing into the Exchequer to such an extent as it has done, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought, in common fairness to the struggling masses of the people of this country, to remove these great burdens of taxation from their shoulders. We are told, Sir, that the burden of the tea duty is but a very little burden. Well, it may be a very little burden, but it is an illegitimate burden to put upon the shoulders of the people. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Thanet said that if the tea duty were removed then the last vestige of taxation would be taken off the shoulders of the electorate of this country. I am sorry that the right honourable Gentleman is not here. Had he been here, I should have liked to have asked him who it is that finds the whole of the money that pays the taxation of this country. It is, Sir, the present day toilers who find the whole of the money that pays the taxation of the country. If the honourable Gentleman doubts it, I
  94
  would ask him how he would be able to get at the minerals in his land without the assistance of the toilers. I contend that if you remove the toilers of this country, the whole of the land minerals and machinery are absolutely of no use at all; therefore, the money which goes to pay the taxation of this country is eventually found by those who toil. I am sorry that the right honourable Gentleman the Colonial Secretary is not here, for it is only a very short time ago that he said—
  "Do what you may, you cannot remove the burden of the taxation of this country from the very poorest of the people."
  But upon whoever's shoulder this burden does fall, there can be no doubt that to the poor man receiving 12s. a week— and there are many thousands and hundreds of thousands who do not get a bigger wage than 12s. a week—this burden of the tobacco duty and the tea duty is a most serious one, and it amounts to quite 5 per cent, of their total income, and I say that 5 per cent, of a man's earnings is a very heavy burden indeed. I think that in a year of prosperity like the present the very least which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have done was to have endeavoured to reduce that burden somewhat. Indeed, Sir, it is a marvel to me how honourable Gentlemen in this House, returned as they are by the votes of the poorer portion of the population to a greater extent than by the votes of the rich men, can allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to leave this burden on the shoulders of the poor people, when millions of money have been given away to a favoured class of the community. There can be no doubt about that. Every year for five years two millions have been given to the English landlords; £100,000 reduction has been made off the land tax; and this year a further sop has been given to Ireland to relieve agricultural depression there. In the face of that fact honourable Gentlemen opposite, representing to a much greater extent the poor man than they do the rich, it is a marvel to me how they can support Measures which they have supported while they refuse to press upon

  95
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer the absolute desirability, in the interests of the poor people, of reducing the burden of taxation which now falls so heavily upon their shoulders. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer will very likely say: "How am I to meet the expenditure if I cannot get the money in the way I suggest?" Sir, I do not pretend to suggest how he can get it, but there are many ways in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have further extended the principle of the graduated income tax which he has accepted himself this year. And then, Sir, there is one other source of income which, upon every Budget that comes forward, I shall press upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a means of providing money for the necessities of this country; I mean a tax upon the land values.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The honourable Gentleman is really making a Second Reading speech. The question under consideration is whether the tobacco duty should be reduced.
  MR. LOGAN: I did not intend to make a Second Reading speech. I only wanted to show the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he could find money by putting a tax upon the land values of this country. Now, the land values of this country—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The honourable Gentleman ought to have raised that upon the Second Reading, and he is not in order in making those remarks now.
  MR. LOGAN: I have no intention of making a Second Reading speech, but I thought that if I suggested the remission of taxation I was entitled to anticipate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answers. However, I will bow to your ruling, and, in conclusion, for this is all I have to say, let me express my regret again that
  96
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his unexampled year of prosperity, has not seen his way to reduce the taxation upon those shoulders on which it presses so heavily—that is, upon the shoulders of the very poorest portion of our community, who to-day pay a much greater proportion of their income in taxation than do the very richest in the country, and therefore, Sir, I think they are entitled to our first consideration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I admire the ingenuity with which the honourable Gentleman has brought up his favourite topic. I beg to point out, however, that if he desires—and he says that he does desire—that the duty on tobacco should be reduced he ought to have supported this clause. I have only risen to express the hope that, as we have had a very full discussion upon this subject, the Committee may now be disposed to come to a decision.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: If the honourable Member will permit me to say so, I also am in favour of a reduction of the tobacco duty. I proposed that this clause be postponed to allow of a clear issue; although many of us are in favour of a reduction of the tobacco duty, we feel bound to vote against this clause.
  Amendment put, and negatived without a Division.
  Question put—
  "That clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.
  MR. J. A. PEASEmoved—
  "Page 2, postpone clause 2."
  Amendment negatived.
  Question put—
  "That clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  Agreed to.

  FINANCE BILL.

    CLAUSE 3.
    MR. J. A. PEASEmoved—
    "Page 2, line 32, at beginning insert 'in lieu of.'"
    Question put—
    "That these words be added."
    The Committee divided—Ayes 103; Noes 239.—(Division List No. 135.)

    AYES.

    Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

    Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

    Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Hazell, Walter

    Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Healy, Maurice (Cork)

    Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Jacoby, James Alfred

    Robson, William Snowdon

    Bainbridge, Emerson

    Johnson-Ferguson, J. Edw.

    Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

    Billson, Alfred

    Kay-Shuttle worth, Rt Hn Sir U.

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Kearley, Hudson E.

    Schwann, Charles E.

    Brigg, John

    Kinloch, Sir John G. Smyth

    Shee, James John

    Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

    Kitson, Sir James

    Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarsh.)

    Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

    Knox, Edmund Francis V.

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Langley, Batty

    Souttar, Robinson

    Burns, John

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland)

    Spicer, Albert

    Burt, Thomas

    Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

    Steadman, William Charles

    Caldwell, James

    Leng, Sir John

    Stevenson, Francis S.

    Cameron, Sir G. (Glasgow)

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Strachey, Edward

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Lloyd-George, David

    Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

    Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

    Macaleese, Daniel

    Tennant, Harold John

    Channing, Francis Allston

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

    Clark, Dr.G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

    McDermott, Patrick

    Thomas, A. (Glamorgan, E.)

    Clough, Walter Owen

    McLaren, Charles Benjamin

    Wallace, Robert (Perth)

    Colville, John

    Maddison, Fred.

    Walton, J. L. (Leeds, S.)

    Cozens-Hardy, Herbert Hardy

    Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

    Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

    Crombie, John William

    Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

    Wayman, Thomas

    Dalziel, James Henry

    Moss, Samuel

    Wedderburn, Sir William

    Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan)

    Norton, Capt. Cecil William

    Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

    Dillon, John

    Nussey, Thomas Willans

    Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

    Doogan, P. C.

    O'Brien, Jas. F. X. (Cork)

    Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)

    Doughty, George

    Oldroyd, Mark

    Wilson, John (Govan)

    Dunn, Sir William

    Owen, Thomas

    Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbro')

    Evans, S. T. (Glamorgan)

    Paulton, James Mellor

    Woodhouse, Sir JT (Hudd'rsf'ld)

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

    Yoxall, James Henry

    Ffrench, Peter

    Price, Robert John

    Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

    Priestley, Briggs (Yorks)

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    Reid, Sir Robert T.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph A. Pease and Mr. McKenna.

    Haldane, Richard Burdon

    Richardson, J. (Durham)

    Harwood, George

    Rickett, J. Compton

    NOES.

    Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

    Barton, Dunbar Plunket

    Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

    Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

    Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

    Cayzer, Sir Charles William

    Allsopp, Hon. George

    Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M.H.(Brist'l)

    Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

    Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

    Beach, W. W. B. (Hants)

    Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J.(Birm.)

    Arrol, Sir William

    Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

    Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

    Bethell, Commander

    Charrington, Spencer

    Baden-Powell, Sir Geo. Smyth

    Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

    Clare, Octavius Leigh

    Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

    Biddulph, Michael

    Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

    Bailey, James (Walworth)

    Blundell, Colonel Henry

    Coddington, Sir William

    Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

    Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

    Coghill, Douglas Harry

    Baird, John George Alex.

    Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

    Cohen, Benjamin Louis

    Balcarres, Lord

    Brassey, Albert

    Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

    Baldwin, Alfred

    Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

    Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready

    Balfour, Rt.Hn.A.J. (Manch'r)

    Brown, Alexander H.

    Colston, C. E. H. Athole

    Balfour, Rt. Hn. GrldW. (Leeds)

    Burdett-Coutts, W.

    Compton, Lord Alwyne

    Banbury, Frederick George

    Butcher, John George

    Corbett, A. C. (Glasgow)

    Barnes, Frederic Gorell

    Carlile, William Walter

    Cornwallis, Fiennes Stanley W.

    Barry, Rt Hn AHSmith-(Hunts)

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Edward

    Courtney, Rt. Hon L. H.

    Bartley, George C. T.

    Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs)

    Cox, Robert

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Howard, Joseph

    Pym, C. Guy

    Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton)

    Howell, William Tudor

    Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

    Cubitt, Hon. Henry

    Hudson, George Bickersteth

    Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

    Curzon, Rt. Hn. G. N. (LancSW)

    Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

    Richardson, Sir T. (Hartlep'l)

    Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

    Johnston, William (Belfast)

    Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

    Dalrymple, Sir Charles

    Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

    Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Charles T.

    Denny, Colonel

    Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

    Robertson, Herb. (Hackney)

    Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph.

    Kemp, George

    Round, James

    Dixon-Hartland, Sir F. Dixon

    Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H.

    Royds,, Clement Molyneux

    Dorington, Sir John Edward

    Kenyon, James

    Russell, Gen. F. S. (Chelt'm)

    Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

    Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

    Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

    Drage, Geoffrey

    Kimber, Henry

    Rutherford, John

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

    King, Sir Henry Seymour

    Saunderson, Col. Edw. Jas.

    Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

    Lafone, Alfred

    Savory, Sir Joseph

    Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc.)

    Laurie, Lieut.-General

    Scoble, Sir Andrew Richard

    Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

    Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

    Seton-Karr, Henry

    Finch, George H.

    Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverp'l)

    Sharpe, William Edward T.

    Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

    Lawson, John Grant (Yorks)

    Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renf.)

    Firbank, Joseph Thomas

    Lecky, Rt. Hn. W. E. H.

    Sidebottom, T. H. (Stalybr.)

    Fisher, William Hayes

    Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs)

    Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

    FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

    Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

    Simeon, Sir Barrington

    FitzWygram, General Sir F.

    Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

    Smith, J. Parker (Lanarksh.)

    Fletcher, Sir Henry

    Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)

    Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Liverp'l)

    Spencer, Ernest

    Forwood, Rt. Hon. Sir A. B.

    Lowles, John

    Stanley, Lord (Lancs)

    Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

    Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

    Stanley, E. J. (Somerset)

    Fry, Lewis

    Lucas-Shadwell, William

    Stanley, H. M. (Lambeth)

    Galloway, William Johnson

    Macartney, W. G. Ellison

    Stephens, Henry Charles

    Garfit, William

    Maclure, Sir John William

    Stewart, Sir Mark J. M 'T.

    Gedge, Sydney

    McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

    Stock, James Henry

    Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H. (C. of Lond.)

    McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs)

    Stone, Sir Benjamin

    Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

    McCalmont, Mj-Gn (Antrim, N)

    Strauss, Arthur

    Giles, Charles Tyrrell

    McEwan, William

    Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

    Gilliat, John Saunders

    McIver, Sir Lewis

    Sutherland, Sir Thomas

    Godson, A. F.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

    Goldsworthy, Major-General

    Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

    Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf dUny)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward

    Milbank, Sir P. C. J.

    Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)

    Gorst, Rt Hon. Sir J. Eldon

    Milton, Viscount

    Thornton, Percy M.

    Goschen, Rt.Hn.G.J.(S.Geo.'s)

    Monk, Charles James

    Tritton, Charles Ernest

    Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

    Montagu, Hon. J. S. (Hants.)

    Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

    Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

    Graham, Henry Robert

    More, Robert Jasper

    Warr, Augustus Frederick

    Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

    Morgan, Hn. F. (Monm'thsh)

    Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

    Green, W. D. (Wednesbury)

    Morrell, George Herbert

    Welby, Lieut,-Col. A. C. E.

    Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury)

    Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

    Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon

    Gunter, Colonel

    Murdoch, Charles Townshend

    Wharton, Rt. Hon. J. L.

    Hall, Sir Charles

    Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

    Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)

    Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

    Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

    Whitmore, Charles Algernon

    Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

    Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

    Williams, Col. R. (Dorset)

    Hardy, Laurence

    Myers, William Henry

    Williams, J. Powell (Binn.)

    Hare, Thomas Leigh

    Newark, Viscount

    Willox, Sir John Archibald

    Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

    Newdigate, Francis Alexander

    Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

    Heath, James

    Nicholson, William Graham

    Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

    Heaton, John Henniker

    Nicol, Donald Ninian

    Wylie, Alexander

    Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

    Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S

    Wyndham, George

    Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

    O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

    Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

    Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead)

    Phillpotts, Capt. Arthur

    Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

    Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

    Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

    Hobhouse, Henry

    Pretyman, Ernest George

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

    Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

    Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

    Hornby, William Henry

    Purvis, Robert

    Clause 3 agreed to.
    Clause 4 agreed to without a Division.
    Clause 5 agreed to without a Division.

    CLAUSE 6.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELL:
    "Page 3, line 27, at end, add—
    "Provided that when the Commissioners are satisfied that in a British possession duty is payable in respect of any income accruing

    101
    in such possession, they shall allow a sum equal to the amount actually paid as such duty to be deducted from the amount payable as income tax in respect of that income if received in the United Kingdom."
    The Amendment standing in my name raises a question of much complexity, but one above the level of mere Treasury considerations, affecting, as it does, our political and commercial relations with our Colonies. This double income tax is a question which has arisen only in recent years, and is mainly owing to the financial crisis which had arisen in Australia, which has led five out of six of those Colonies to impose an income tax for the first time. As we all know, the income tax is also levied in India. Now, with regard to the political effect, I have had during the past few years in which I have taken a great interest in this subject a great number of letters, and although I do not wish to go into details I wish to show that they are all of the same tenor; and if I mention one or two of them perhaps we shall be able to understand what is the opinion of our leading men. One of the highest authorities on trade affairs, resident in London, tells me, in a letter, that this double income tax is a gross blunder, and he describes it as "simply plunder" by the Government. Others write of it as "a gross injustice," and an Australian judge says that now, if he wishes to live in the mother country on the pension he has earned in Australia, he can only do so provided that he pays 1s. 4d. in the £ of his income. Last May the financiers in Victoria, some of the most important men there, who handle most of the capital of that country, formed a deputation to the Premier, and pointed out to him that this double income tax was having a very evil effect upon the supply of capital in Victoria. In many other of our Colonies similar events have taken place. I know myself of one case, in which some capital that was earning something like £12,000 per annum in New South Wales has been removed from that Colony because the people who own this capital do not wish to continue to pay this double income tax, and they have taken that capital to other British Colonies where no income
    102
    tax is levied. This double income tax is having even a greater effect on the capital employed, because a great many investors are finding out that there is an overlapping of this right of taxation between our different Colonies. We all of us know very well that the Imperial Parliament delegated to the Parliaments of some of the Colonies the right of taxing themselves, but this system of double taxation which has grown up seems to many of our friends in the Colonies to be an unjust exercising of the delegated right of taxation, and they allege that, by levying an income tax in this country on revenue, and income made in these Colonies, we are exceeding our rights, and taxing a local source of revenue, thereby making that local source of revenue less profitable and less prolific for the taxation instituted by the local Government. I would point out, further, with regard to the political aspect of the question, that the levying of income tax in one Colony, provided it is not done on a right basis, as a matter of fact does interfere with the right of raising revenue by means of income tax in the other Colonies, and thus we come upon the very large Imperial question of the financial relations of our various Colonies and it is all due to the fact that these Colonies, or some of them, have recently followed in the footsteps of the mother country and levied an income tax. My Amendment suggests a solution of the difficulty. I do not know that I need say much about the commercial aspect of this question, but I would remind the Committee that the progress of the Empire should not be judged by the imports and exports only. The main item in the growth of our Empire—certainly the main item in the value of our Empire to the mother country—has regard to the capital which earns income in our Colonies. That capital is sensitive to a very high degree, and beyond that it is perfectly free as to where it should be invested. The magnitude of this aspect of the question will, perhaps, La seen from figures which I will venture to present to the Committee. We have a

    103
    very adequate return of income received in this country under Schedule C, and I have the result in round numbers. We have the figures for 1873, 1883, and 1893, though we may omit 1883 from our calculations. Taking the period of the last 20 years, it will be found that while income received in this country from investments in the United Kingdom has fallen by a fourth, and income derived from investments in foreign countries has fallen a half, income from investments in India of British capital has decidedly increased, and income from investments of British capital in the Colonies has increased during the past 20 years not less than fourfold. The Committee will see at once the importance of watching most carefully the investment of capital in our Colonies, and what I desire to insist upon is that if the present arrangement is to continue to be a permanent feature in the financial relations of the Empire, it is likely to greatly check investment, at all events, free investment of capital in our Colonies, and for this reason alone, if for no other, it should be dealt with by the Imperial Parliament. I am well aware that in some Colonies there is a tendency to let the double income tax stand, because they wish to do all they can to create a taxable charge on absentee landowners; but that, after all, is a very minor matter. They understand as well as we do that progress depends on the free use of capital obtained from outside, and they know that capital from the mother country flows very freely. But in these Colonies to which I refer particularly—New Zealand and New South Wales—and I can speak from personal experience in these investments, the system of double income tax has a very serious effect on the amount of capital flowing from the mother country to these Colonies. I do not know whether more need be said regarding this evil. I know that when the death duties were considered in 1894 the same grievance was brought up and dealt with. The grievance consisted in the fact that the same tax was levied on the same property in the name of the same Queen. The right honourable Gentleman, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer,
    104
    said that this was a policy to be avoided, and I think that he will agree, and that we shall all agree, that an overlapping ought not to be allowed to be established or set up between the income tax levied in the British Colonies and that levied at home. It is quite another matter what foreign States may do, but there should be no overlapping of income tax levied in the British Colonies, and in the name of our gracious Queen, for the maintenance of the Queen's peace and the maintenance of the integrity of our Empire—those being the objects of the tax. Another point I may mention is that of the income tax levied in England, a great proportion is levied on income which is neither raised nor spent in the United Kingdom. The precedent of the death duties, to which I have alluded, renders it necessary to make a short quotation from what happened in regard to the Finance Act of 1894. The clause finally inserted in that Act was as follows—
    "When the Commissioners are satisfied that in a British possession to which this section applies duty is payable by reason of a death in respect of any property situate in such possession, and passing on such death, they shall allow a sum equal to the amount of that duty to be deducted from the estate duty payable in respect of the property on the same death. Nothing under this Act shall he held to create a charge for estate duty mi any property situate in a British possession."
    It will be seen how these clauses apply to the present question, and I would like to read what was said by the right honourable Gentleman who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I am glad to see in his place. On June 21st he said—
    "The view of Her Majesty's Government is that whatever they did should be done for the Colonies, and not for all places outside the United Kingdom. In principle the Government was prepared to accept the principle ret forth in the Amendment of Sir Richard Webster. The object of that Amendment is to prevent the imposition of double duties— that was to say, when the Colonies charged the duties, that amount should be deducted from the charge made in this country."
    On July 2nd the right honourable Gentleman said in the same Resolution—
    "They did give the Colonies this advantage: that they made it impossible in their

    105
    case that double duty should be charged, ant to that extent they were placed in a preferential position as compared with foreign countries."
    These principles have thus been advocated by—if I may be allowed to say so—one of our best and most trusted financial authorities, and they have been ratified by Parliament and the country by their embodiment in the Act of 1894. If these principles were applied to the evil now under consideration, it would certainly be remedied. I would now wish to point out briefly that the chief difficulty connected with the present system is that income tax is levied on different principles in different Colonies. New Zealand and Tasmania follow the lead of the mother country, and impose income tax on incomes made or received in the respective Colonies; that is to say, they tax both by the domicile of the person receiving the income, and also by the locality of the property yielding that income. In New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, the tax is levied only on incomes made in each particular Colony, and in the two latter dividends on loans to the Government are exempt. In Queensland the tax is levied only on the dividends paid by companies working in the Colony. Many curious results are caused, though I need not follow them up. I will only point out that a resident in Victoria, is not taxed on income made in England, but a resident in England is taxed on income made in Victoria. I may also point out that there is a tax on income received in India on Indian securities, and a tax on all sterling shares in all industrial companies. Let me give an instance. If a firm in Bombay pays income tax on the profits of their business in India, and a partner in that firm happens to reside either temporarily or permanently in England, he has to pay another tax on that same income. I hope I have made myself sufficiently clear. I do not wish to detain the Committee, but I may say that no one feels more than I do the difficulty of separating one form of taxation from another. In England it in extremely difficult to separate either the incidence or the effect of the income tax.
    106
    But in handling taxation from any particular point of view it is necessary to take taxes as they exist in the category, and handle them accordingly. One must simply take income tax as income tax, whether in this country, the Colonies, or India. Before doing so I may mention I have endeavoured to estimate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose if this Amendment were accepted. I have endeavoured to make some estimate of the effect in England of this proposal, though I found it impossible with the returns available to make that estimate exact. I wish to show that under Schedule C the total amount received from income tax on incomes from Colonies where it is levied does not exceed £180,000, but I am aware that there are large items under Schedule D which ought to come from the same Colonies, and I do not wish to put £180,000 as the limit. Now I think I have said enough to indicate the magnitude and character of the evil we must remedy if we can. The remedy happily can be found. Now that we have delegated to the various Colonies full liberty to tax themselves, a permanent remedy—if I may so call it—would be to come, by conference or correspondence, to some general consent or agreement among these Colonies, in which, of course, mutuality and reciprocity must be the main elements. But in coming to that conclusion it is perfectly apparent to me, at all events, that one of two principles must be adopted in levying income tax. You might confine the raising of this revenue to the domicile of the receiver of the income, or it might be confined to the locality in which the property yielding the income is situated. In other words, income tax might be confined to incomes either made or received in that particular portion of the Empire. That would be a final settlement of this question; but a preliminary settlement, and one which I venture to suggest would be quite sufficient as fur as the interests of this country are concerned, would be to follow the precedent set up by the right honourable Gentleman opposite with regard to the death duties, or by adopting some proviso such as that I now suggest, coupled with reciprocal action. I feel myself there is a large outside public both in the Colonies and in this country

    107
    which feels that something should be done to avoid a great injustice to investors, a great injury to colonial development, and a great interference with the fiscal rights of each portion of the Empire. I hope I have not spoken at too great length in describing a great and severe evil. I have suggested two classes of remedy, and I feel certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pardon me for having interrupted the consideration of his admirable Budget by describing a great evil, and suggesting an appropriate remedy. I beg to move, Sir.
    Question put.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My honourable Friend has made his proposal in a somewhat inconvenient manner. As the Amendment is worded, and now stands, he proposes to make a permanent alteration in the law with regard to income tax in a clause essentially temporary, and confined to the present year. Further, he proposes that the Commissioners shall satisfy themselves on the point to which he alludes. The Commissioners, under this clause, would be the local commissioners of income tax, and according to his proposal every local board of income tax commissioners throughout the country might interpret the proviso according to their own sweet will and in different ways. Further, my honourable Friend makes no proposal whatever for reciprocity in this matter between the Colonies and the mother country. He would give an advantage to the Colonies for which the Colonies would give nothing in return. I do not wish to dwell on these points, for I think my honourable Friend has really placed this Amendment on the Paper rather with a view to calling attention to an important subject than of pressing the Amendment in this particular form. The subject is, no doubt, one of very great importance. We have levied in this country for many years income tax on incomes received, from whatever source they happen to come. Of late years, some of our self-governing Colonies have imitated our example, and have levied an income tax, varying in kind, but generally, I think, on incomes made in each Colony. Now, my honourable Friend, in the interests of these Colonies,
    108
    makes a suggestion to this House that we should give up a portion of our taxation because the Colonies wish to appropriate it. I do not think he quite appreciates the magnitude of the sum which he proposes to deal with. He spoke of £180,000, but I believe that the annual income we should lose would certainly not be less than half a million. That is a very serious proposal, and one which should certainly not be accepted as a mere Amendment to a clause. But I would further point out to my honourable Friend that the matter cannot be confined to income tax alone. There may be—and I am pretty certain there are—taxes in the Colonies which are not levied as income tax, but which are just as much a tax on property as income tax itself; and, further, some of the Colonies which have taken to levying income tax of late years are the very Colonies which are imposing the heaviest burden on this country by their taxation of imports. I think I have said enough to show that it is impossible to deal with this matter as if it alluded to income tax alone; but, even if it did, I have something further to say. My honourable Friend referred to the matter as if the taxation raised by income tax in the Colonies and in this country were devoted to the same purposes. I am disposed to demur to that proposition. Our income tax was certainly in its origin rather, I think, in the nature of a war tax. If we are unfortunate enough to be engaged in war, it is certainly one of the taxes which would at once be raised, and the burden of war must, as we all admit, largely fall on the income tax payer. It is a part of our taxation, therefore, which is specially responsible for the defence of the country, and not only that, but the defence of the Empire at large. The income tax of the Colonies, and, indeed, their whole system of taxation, is certainly not Imperial. It is hardly even national; it is more municipal in its character. We bear a burden here for the defence of the Empire—a burden largely falling on income tax payers, and not borne to any appreciable extent by the inhabitants of our Colonies. That is a difference which I certainly think ought not to be neglected. But I am very far from saying that the matter is one not deserving of consideration; only I would suggest to my honourable Friend that it can only

    109
    be considered in dealing with the whole system of the financial relations between the Colonies and ourselves. If it should seem good to our Colonies to have regard —as the great Dominion of Canada recently had regard—to the advantage which might be conferred on this country by opening their ports more freely to our manufactures and products, then a case might arise in which we might consider any real fiscal grievance of which they may complain. At present, however, I do not think the matter is ripe for any action at all, and I hope my honourable Friend will be satisfied on this occasion with having called attention to it. I may point out that the proposal is quite different from what was done in 1894. The right honourable Gentleman opposite was then proposing an entirely new duty, and the question arose as to how property in the Colonies should be dealt with. The income tax was introduced years before any such taxation was dreamed of in our Colonies, and has gone on ever since, and certainly I cannot at the present time allow our Colonies to appropriate taxation which, in my humble opinion, belongs to ourselves.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: During the three years which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been in office he has made no attempt to reduce the burden upon the income tax payers of this country until he made his recent proposal with regard to certain incomes. It is a fact that he has made no attempt to reduce the general burden of the taxpayer; and this tax which we are row discussing apparently is likely to become a permanent item in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget. Now, I do wish to urge upon him the desirability of considering the possibility of making a general reduction upon the income tax payers of this country upon general grounds. In replying to the Amendment of my honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer described the income tax as being more of a war tax and more especially responsible for the defence of the country and of the Empire. Well,
    110
    that being so, Mr. Lowther, surely at the present time, if the right honourable Gentleman had the opportunity, or there was a possibility of making any reduction, the income tax was a tax which ought to have attracted his attention. Now, the ground on which he has maintained that he was justified in keeping this tax at its present figure being that he has had to provide for a very considerable amount of naval and military expenditure, and that there are rumours of war in the future, surely it is desirable, when the circumstances are such as I have described, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should take steps to reduce the income tax to its normal standard. In his speech of ten years ago, which I alluded to the other night, he objected to the tax being taken in a normal year at 8d. in the £, but he said he had inherited it from his predecessors, and it has stood at that figure during the three years he has been in office. Well, Sir, we should like some assurance from him that he does not now consider that 8d. in the £ is a normal figure at which it should stand in times of peace and prosperity which he has been enjoying, whatever the possibility of war may be in the future. Now, he has not given us any assurance of that sort. This year in his Budget speech he defended himself against making any attempt to reduce the income tax over the whole body of the taxpayers on two grounds. In the first place he said that he could not afford it, and in the second place he said that as between indirect and direct taxation there had been a very large increase in indirect taxation during the past three years, and therefore he thought that indirect taxation deserved some attention from him. Now, upon that last argument I should like to say this: it is perfectly true that during these past three years there has been a considerable increase of indirect taxation, but there has been an even greater increase in the revenue returns from direct taxation, and even from the income tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself published, a couple of years ago, an explanatory Paper showing for a series of years the proportion taxation got from direct and indirect sources, although it does not include the actual years which we are now dealing with; but upon his own

    111
    figures I think it is clear that direct taxation needs his attention rather more than indirect taxation. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer used a further argument. He said that a penny off the income tax meant a reduction of £2,100,000 of money, and as he had only £1,500,000 to dispose of, he therefore could not afford to take a penny off the income tax. Now there are two answers to that. It is possible to take off even a halfpenny, if you cannot take off a penny, and that has been done upon a previous occasion. In the second place it might have been possible to take off a penny, because the whole amount would not come in the course of the present year, and his Estimates were for rising revenues in all the departments, and in the course of the year he would have been able to recoup himself. But, however that may be, the time for doing anything of the kind this year is past and gone, for he has made his proposals, and the House must abide by them. I would put it to him with regard to the future, and upon the grounds of defence that he has given himself of the increase: is it not desirable that in time of anxiety, when emergency may arise in any part of the world, he should be prepared to get as much as possible from this income tax, which has served the Exchequer so well in the past, and is likely to serve it well in the future? I venture to think that anyone in this House will consider that 8d. is too high a figure at which the income tax should be kept; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to get the full benefit from that tax he should have taken an opportunity during his three years of prosperity of reducing it to 7d. or 6d. with a view to any future emergency. I think we should like some assurance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, at any rate in the future, if prosperity still visits him as it has done in the past, he will consider the expediency of reducing the tax on the general body of income tax payers, so that if any emergency should arise he will get the full benefit of it for the purposes for which it was originally intended, and which he himself recognises is of the first importance.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think that I need trouble the Committee at any length upon this point. If the honourable Member, who is so fond of referring to my previous speech, will be kind enough to refer to other portions of that speech he will see that my opinion was that when the revenue from customs and excise exceeded,£42,000,000 there ought to be a redaction in indirect taxation. Now, Sir, the revenue has reached£50,000,000; therefore I do not think that any apology is needed for my reducing indirect taxation under these circumstances. I do not know whether the honourable Gentleman means to suggest that I should have spent this surplus by devoting it to the reduction of the income tax by a halfpenny rather than reducing the duty on tobacco. I do not think that he has expressed any opinion in that direction hitherto. But if he holds that opinion I would venture to say that he ought to have raised the matter at an earlier period of the Budget. I can only say that I do not think that any reduction in the income tax would have been advisable under the circumstances, for a reduction of one penny would have cost the Treasury £1,750,000, and the resources at my disposal did not allow of my making such a change.
    MR. BUXTON: We were discussing just now the difference between the reduction in the tobacco duty and the reduction in the tea duty, but I think the House, and I am quite sure the country, holds the view that if a reduction is made it ought to be made in indirect taxation and in direct taxation. No doubt 8d. is a high figure, but it is not now such a heavy burden as the 7d. income tax of Sir Robert Peel, because under our present system the burden does not press so heavily upon the smaller incomes. The right honourable Gentleman this year, by a proposal with which I agree, has given still further relief to those on whom the income tax presses most heavily. The Chancellor of the Exchequer

    113
    said the income tax was practically a war tax, but it was not so originally, far it was imposed for general fiscal purposes, but in consequence of our great military and naval expenditure it has now become a war tax. But, Sir, I am afraid that so long as we have the present armed state of Europe, and the present relations between the different Continental countries, we must expect to have the war tax continued, because, practically, we have, as the honourable Member knows, every year, even in times of peace, to bear nearly the same burdens. Under these circumstances I for one do not think that the income tax is too high under present conditions, and I should vary strongly deprecate the reduction of the income tax if it had the effect of postponing a reduction in indirect taxation, for we have not yet reached an equality between direct and indirect taxation, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sufficient funds at his command I trust he will continue to apply them to the relief of indirect taxation.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I must dispute the assertion which has been made that the country is satisfied that no reduction in the in come tax is necessary. Those who take an interest in the taxation of the country know that the one thing which they expected was to see some reduction in the income tax, and the general hope was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to give a reduction of a penny. The figures show that the right honourable Gentleman was in a position to give a halfpenny, and it is a very great pity that he did not do it. The reduction on tobacco will appear in the form of less water and a little more tobacco, but there will be no diminution in the price. Had he made a reduction of a half-penny it would have been to his credit for ever. He has, however, made an unfortunate mistake, and he will have his reward in getting no gratitude for it from anybody at all.
    Question put—
    "That clause 6 stand part of the Bill.
    Agreed to without a Division.

    CLAUSE 7.
    MR. G. BARTLEY: I think it would be better to have a fixed amount, because people would then have less temptation in making their returns to understate their incomes. It seems to me that the old system of having only one or two exemptions is better than this proposal, and I think it would be better to have one definite sum for all these various classes. I do not wish to move an Amendment, but they seem very complicating.
    MR. J. LEWIS: I am somewhat disappointed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not gone further and raised the graduation to incomes of £1,000. I think that if any additional amount is to be raised, it should be raised from the persons who enjoy incomes larger than £1,000. I am perfectly well aware that that can be done only by exemption, and it is impossible to impose a graduated tax upon incomes as upon estates, and it is only by exemptions that it can be worked at all. However, the right honourable Gentleman has gone a part of the way that I desire, and I hope that in future years he will be able to still further extend it.
    Question put—
    "That clause 7 stand part of the Bill."
    Agreed to without a Division.
    Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to without discussion.

    CLAUSE 10.
    MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE: I rise to move the following Amendment standing in my name—
    "Page 4, line 32, leave out 'together with the annual value of any other land belonging to the same owner in the land tax parish.'"
    I think that the relief which this clause professes to give is entirely fallacious, and that is why I wish to see these words struck out. Now, let us take the

    115
    logical consequences of the Amendment as it now stands. Suppose I possess a small field which is my only property in the parish, although it may not be a very large estate. Now, I am exempt under this Act if the value of the assessment is less than £5. But my neighbour, Who owns a cottage worth 2s. a week, is not exempt because his property is over £5 in value. That is the logical outcome of this proposal, and when you consider how many of the poor industrial class, such as the small tradesmen, invest their small savings in house property—
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think it is very desirable, if the honourable Member will allow me to interrupt him, to extend the operation of this clause. The Committee will remember that I introduced this clause in order to provide for a difficulty arising under new assessments to the land tax in consequence of the Act of 1896, by which small property was affected. I thought it was a hardship which could be remedied by an extension of the old clause in the original Land Tax Act, but I see that there appears to be a general desire to extend the operation of this clause. Now, it is extremely difficult to deal with the matter in the sense which my honourable Friend desires, and not at the same time bring within the scope of exemption cases of property to Which I am sure the Committee would not desire that exemption should apply, and with regard to which the honourable Member would not think of proposing exemption. I would, therefore, suggest to the Committee that this matter dealt with in this clause to some extent, and also the question dealt with in the Amendment of the honourable Member for the Ashford Division of Kent, would be better dealt with by the withdrawal of this clause and the substitution of a new clause, which I propose to bring up. The gist of the new clause will be that where owners of property liable to land tax are now exempt from the payment of income tax they should in future, on the production of a certificate of exemption, also be for that year exempt from land tax. It would be general in its application, and would meet what the honourable Member desires.
    MR. JOHNSTONE: After the right honourable Gentleman's promise, I do not think that I should be justified in taking up the time of the Committee any further upon a clause which I have not yet seen. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    MR. STEVENSON: I should like to know from the right honourable Gentleman whether it is intended that the new clause will be retrospective beyond March, 1896, or does it only apply to cases which have occurred since March, 1896?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It will include all land tax payable in the future.
    MR. J. G. TALBOT: Before the right honourable Gentleman withdraws the clause I would urge upon him carefully to consider whether these exemptions from land tax could not follow all the exemptions in the income tax. Surely it is reasonable that as you have wholly relieved incomes under £160, so you should partially relieve the higher incomes which are partially relieved from income tax.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think that that is hardly practicable, because my honourable Friend will remember that the land tax varies to an extraordinary degree. In some parishes the land tax might be considerable, and in other cases it might be infinitesimal, and, therefore, it cannot be graduated in the way the income tax is graduated.
    MR. HARDY: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his attention in bringing up this new clause to the matters raised in the Amendment which stands in my name, which is practically a repetition of an instruction which the right honourable Gentleman himself sent out to the Land Tax Commissioners. The reason I have put it on the Paper is that I find that in a great number of cases throughout the country, when an occasion has been taken by an appellant to appeal against the land tax,

    117
    and at the same time to bring forward this instruction as proof—and the authorities desire that some such scheme should be adopted short of actual proof —of redemption, they have been met by the answer from the clerk, and also on appeal from the Board of inland Revenue, that they are bound by the Land Tax Act, and those instructions give out merely directions to take great care in considering any appeal, and they have no further effect. The right honourable Gentleman should go further than that, and provide that in cases where there practically had been no payment of land tax during this century there was to be very great care exercised in putting on the land tax, and, if possible, it should be taken off rather than put on. I have a number of cases in my hand in which, this instruction was sent out by the clerk. The authorities make no exemption, and, practically, this question has been treated as a dead letter in many parts of this country. I think there is some reason why this instruction should take the more definite form of being included in some Act which deals with the land tax. In other cases it is very evident that the clerk to the commissioners has endeavoured to assess properties in order to fill up the deficiency occasioned by the reduction of the land tax from 4s. in the£ to 1s. There was a case of a parish where the tithe rent-charge had never been charged in this century, and suddenly it found itself charged with the full value. When the rector objected he was told that under the Finance Act of 1896 the revenue on the land tax had been reduced to 1s. Now, I do not think that that was the intention of the Legislature, and in taking off the land tax they did not want the deficiency to be made up by the people who had never paid it before. It is upon these grounds that I would venture to ask the right honourable Gentleman to give his very careful consideration to this question, and see whether he could not in this new clause put in some words which should to some extent protect these properties, of whatever value, which have been practically, at all events, in transcription from time immemorial relieved from payment of the land tax.
    MR. STEVENSON: It is obvious that this difficulty will be removed by the new clause. I should like to ask whether the total amount of the land tax remitted upon individuals in a parish will also be remitted from the total quota payable by that parish, because unless this is done it will be a great injustice.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have no intention whatever of placing the burden on the other land taxpayers.
    MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I notice that there is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of the honourable Member for Essex; therefore I desire to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether I am right in assuming that whatever relief is granted under this clause it is not granted to the clergy as a class, but they will have the benefit in common with other classes. If that is the intention I shall be happy to agree with him.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes, I entirely agree with that.
    MR. JOHNSTONE: If I understand this question rightly, now that I have withdrawn my Amendment, it cannot be discussed. I do not wish to raise the question now, but I think it does not prevent me raising it again if the new clause promised does not happen to satisfy my wishes.
    MR. LEWIS: There is another question. If the clause is to be brought up in Committee, it is quite evident that certain changes are in contemplation, and the right honourable Gentleman is about to accept, as I understand him, the principle of certain Amendments, but to what extent we are not aware at present, and it is desirable that the Committee should have an opportunity of seeing the clause and considering it carefully before they give assent to it.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think I had better read it to the Committee. Here it is—
    "Where the owner in possession of any land on which land tax is assessed before the amount so assessed, in any financial year, is paid, produces to the collector of land tax a certificate from the surveyor of taxes that such owner

    119
    has been allowed in that year a total exemption from income tax by reason of his income not exceeding a hundred and sixty pounds, the said amount of land tax shall not be collected, and shall be remitted from the unredeemed quota of the land tax for that year."
    MAJOR RASCH: I think that, under the circumstances, I shall not move my Amendment, and I beg to thank the right honourable Gentleman for the concession he has made. It is not very much, it is true, but still one has to take what one can get. I am sure the right honourable Gentleman will not get much credit from the clergy. I have been asked if, by moving this Amendment, the Church would be accepting a bribe from the thieves who had robbed her of every rag and garment, but that is not my view, and on behalf of the rural clergy of the eastern parts of England I beg to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he has made.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, and clause 10 withdrawn.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg to move the Second Reading of the new clause in substitution of clause 10.
    Clause read a second time, and added to the Bill without a Division.
    Clauses 11, 12, and 13 were added to the Bill without discussion.
    MR. PRETYMAN: I beg leave to move that section 5, sub-section 2, of the Finance Act, 1894, be read and have effect as if the following proviso had been inserted at the end thereof—
    "Provided that for the purpose of this subsection a person shall not be deemed to have been competent to dispose of property during such time as he shall not have been sui juris."
    This, I think, will remedy an admitted defect in the Act of 1894, for a legal interpretation has been given to the Act which was clearly not the intention of the framers of the Act, and which was certainly not the intention which this House had in passing this Act. I think it can be shown that (owing to the wording of the Act) in the actual working of
    120
    the Act of 1894 duties are claimed from the subject which it was never intended should be claimed. Now, I do not dispute the ruling of the courts in any degree, but if it can be absolutely shown that when the Finance Bill of 1894 was introduced into this House it was the intention of the Bill and the clear intention of this House, that duties in certain cases should not be payable, and that under the present wording of the Act they are now being claimed, I think we have made out a clear case to ask the Committee to amend the Act, and to insert a clause which will bring its legal interpretation into absolute accordance with the intention of the House. I therefore move the first Amendment. As bearing upon this question, I should like to ask the authors of that Act—perhaps the late Solicitor General will answer me— whether it was, or was not, the express intention of the authors of the Act of 1894, and of the House, in passing that Act, that estate duty should only be payable once during the duration of a settlement?
    SIR R. REID: Yes, that was the intention.
    MR. PRETYMAN: Then that will save me from quoting further. The right honourable Gentleman allows that it was clearly the expressed intention that the estate duty should only be paid once in a settlement. Now, how was that intention carried out? It was carried out in this way. Estate duty was to be paid by the man who made the settlement, and was not again to be payable until the death of another person taking under the settlement, who had the power of making a new disposition, and, on his death the duty would be payable again. Now that has been to some extent carried out, but certain cases appear to have been unforeseen. I have studied the cases in question, and the debates which took place in Committee on the Bill, and it does appear to have been actually unforeseen that in cases where the tenant in tail is non sui juris, this exemption is not carried out at all. I will take a plain, concrete case by way of illustration: A is the tenant for life; B, C, D are sons, minors,

    121
    and successively tenants in tail. A dies, and duty is paid, or is not paid, as the case may be. B succeeds at 10 years of age to the property, biddies a year later, and is succeeded by C, the second son, who is eight years old, and dies four years later. D follows him, and survives to attain majority, and, obviously, duty must be payable on his death, and also on the deaths of both B and C, although their successors take, under the existing settlement, which neither B nor C has the power to alter. This Amendment provides that no new duty would be payable until the death of a person who really can bring the settlement to an end—that is, either B, C, or D on the attainment of their majority. That duty should be claimed on all these deaths cannot possibly be in accordance with the principle laid down by the right honourable Gentleman that duty should be only payable once upon a settlement, and that is the 'hardship with which my Amendment proposes to deal. It proposes to enact that in cases of that description the duty should only be payable on the death of the person who actually is competent to dispose of it. That is to say, if B, one of the persons referred to, survived and became of age and actually competent to dispose, the duty would then be payable whether he actually dealt with it or not. But if B dies a minor, and is accordingly not capable of disposing of the property, then no duty will be payable, because C comes in under the settlement. I think it is clearly proved that in this particular case a duty has not been imposed by this House—that is to say, has not been knowingly imposed, but yet, under the wording of this clause, duty is being actually and is legally claimed by the Crown. The Amendment does not infringe upon, but only carries out, the existing principle of the clause to which it refers. The injustice is a self-evident one, and I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I believe to be desirous of remedying real hardship, will sec his way to accept it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to deal with this matter. We think that the honourable and gallant Member for Woodbridge has pointed out a flaw
    122
    which may have to be dealt with, namely, the possibility of there being paid, under one settlement, a number of estate duties, although the person has never, in fact, been competent to dispose. We accepted the principle, which is, I believe, the principle of the Act of 1894, that duty should be paid once under a settlement, and we can, therefore, accept the Amendment of my honourable and gallant Friend. There is, however, one matter which we shall be obliged to consider. As the Amendment stands it is possible it may apply to the last person in the claim altogether, and I do not suppose my honourable and gallant Friend contemplates that in the case of the last person, even though he were a lunatic or an infant, his heirs should not bear the estate duty.
    MR. PRETYMAN: That is not contemplated.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: We shall consider between now and the Report stage what words will be necessary to avoid that possibility, but, subject to that reservation, we accept the Amendment.
    SIR R. REID: I do not quite know what is proposed in this matter. It seems to me that this is unquestionably giving a greater advantage to settled property as against unsettled property. In my opinion settled property has already a greater advantage than unsettled property under the Act as it stands. If what the honourable and gallant Member opposite is now doing is trying to extend, in certain cases, the duration of the settlement according to the terms of the Act itself— in other words, he is trying to extend the advantage, which I think is already excessive, which is enjoyed by settled property as compared with free property under the Act—I do not know what use there is in making any objection, seeing that the Attorney General has intimated his acceptance of the principle of the Amendment: but for my part, if a Division is taken, I shall certainly vote against the Amendment of the honourable and gallant Member; because I do not think it is a legitimate or wise thing to whittle down the effect of this Act piece by piece, as I am afraid some

    123
    honourable Gentlemen opposite are disposed to do, and one of the most ready ways of doing that is to alter the nature and duration of what I may call the statutory settlement which is provided by the Act.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think my honourable and learned Friend opposite has for once allowed the feeling he has in regard to this Act to slightly outrun his judgment. I can assure him that, whatever view we may ultimately take with regard to the Amendment, there is nothing in it, so far as I can understand, in the nature of whittling away the Act; nor is there even the slightest intention of adding to any favour which is supposed to be given to settled property. I must say myself that I do not see any undue advantage to settled property. The case which we desire to meet is a simple one. It is the case of where, while precisely the same settlement is running, owing to the fact that one of the persons who otherwise would be competent to dispose, being an infant, died in that condition, two duties are under the terms of this Act claimed. I am sure that upon consideration my honourable and learned Friend will see that that is not what is intended.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not desire to prolong the discussion now. I only desire to say that, as far as I understand the purport of the Amendment, I entirely agree with my honourable and learned Friend that it is a proposal for giving an advantage to settled property which is not held by free property under the Act.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I confess that, while I approve of the Amendment of my honourable and gallant Friend, it appears to me that the matter he has complained of is absolutely prohibited by the Act. As I understand the intention, it is that, as soon as the property comes into the possession of a person competent to dispose of it, the benefit of the settlement as regards duty ends. I shall support the Amendment, because any limitation of the duty should be supported; but I must entirely
    124
    corroborate what' the right honourable Gentleman has said as to this being an alleviation of one part of property, and not also of another. There I think it is unfortunate. I should have thought the proper means of amendment would have been found in the interpretation clause. Unless you have an interpretation clause, what will happen will be this: an infant, we will say, comes into possession of two estates of £10,000. One is under a settlement, of which he is competent to dispose, and the other under a will. Duty will be paid on the one, but not on the other. I think that is an unfortunate case. But, Sir, the readiness of the right honourable Gentleman to accept the Amendment makes me suppose that there has been some understanding arrived at previously to this; so, thankful for small mercies, I will support the Amendment, though I am naturally sorry it has not been made more extensive.
    SIR R. REID: Parallel cases of hardship can be given in relation to free property, and I do not see why such cases of hardship should not be relieved equally with cases of settled property.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that that point had been fully examined by the Inland Revenue and the law officers. His honourable Friend had suggested a case where duty would become payable twice, but the Finance Act of 1894 laid down that duty should be paid only once on the settlement, and the Amendment was to meet exceptional cases where the demand might arise twice.
    MR. HALDANE: I have listened attentively to this discussion, and I must say I do not share the apprehensions of my right honourable Friend. The Amendment, as I understand it, is to give effect to the arrangement regarding settlements embodied in the Bill. I am a great admirer of the Act of my right honourable Friend, and I want to see it maintained. But you cannot maintain it if you allow little injustices to creep in. To my mind, there is such an

    125
    injustice in this case. Take the ordinary case of a man leaving £2,000 to his wife, and at her death to his children and in a case of that sort it is unfair to charge two duties, because only the yearly interest passes. Take this case: a man leaves his estate to his son for life, and on his son's death it is to go to his son's eldest son, and in the event of his eldest son dying without issue, it goes to his second son's son—really, it is a case of the second grandson taking it. It was not the intention of those who framed the clause that that should be so. Just make your Act of Parliament clear, and make the Act what you intended it to be. My honourable Friend opposite, the Member for King's Lynn said that ought to be done by a definition clause; it would have been better to have done it in that way, but I do not know that it could. The honourable Member was understood to conclude by saying that it seemed to him that they should be just, if not generous, in dealing with the point.
    THE CHAIRMANput the Motion that the clause be read a second time, which was agreed to.
    The clause was then added to the Bill.
    The Committee adjourned.
    After the return of the CHAIRMAN,
    MR. PRETYMANmoved his second Amendment as follows—
    "Where property in respect of which estate duty is payable is liable to become settled on the happening of some contingency, settlement estate duty shall not become payable in respect thereof unless and until the event happens upon which such property becomes settled, and if when, the contingency has been determined the property shall not be settled and settlement estate duty shall have been previously paid to the commissioners in respect thereof, such duty shall be repaid."—(Mr. Pretyman.)
    He said: In regard to the second Amendment standing in my name, the same general considerations apply as were referred to in the case of the former Amendment.
    DR. TANNER: I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members in the House.
    The House was counted, and 40 Members being present,
    MR. PRETYMANresumed: Having regard to the particular bargain already referred to, that property which went into settlement should only pay one duty during the continuance of that settlement. My first Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted dealt with part of the bargain and required the duty only to be paid once during the settlement. The second part of the bargain—namely, that the settlement estate duty was accepted as an equivalent for the escape of the payment of estate duty more than once in the settlement—is also not adhered to by the present wording of the Act. Instead of submitting an A B C case I think it would be convenient that I should read an extract from a letter written by a firm of solicitors describing an actual case. They say—
    "A testator left property worth £74,000, and after giving certain legacies and directing his widow should have the use of his house and certain lands and furniture and an annuity, he gave all his estate (subject as aforesaid) amongst his children, sons who shall attain 21 years or leave lawful issue,, daughters who shall attain 21 or marry, the daughters' shares, however, being settled. Of course it is possible all the sons may die under age without leaving issue, and in that case all the estate would go to the daughters and would be settled estate. Having regard to 'Re Fairley,' which was a case nearly on all fours with ours, settlement estate duty is claimed on the whole of the estate of the testator. The operation of the decision in all cases where there are sons must be felt to be a hardship. In our case there are four sons and three daughters, the sons taking double shares, so that if all survive the sons will take roughly £54,000 and the daughters £20,000. As a matter of fact, the sons, with one exception, are the older children, and one is almost of age. Nevertheless the £54,000 must pay £1 per cent, extra duty, that is £540, because there is a possibility that all the sons may die before attaining 21 years of age, and the daughters, or one of them, survive."
    No doubt there is the contingent possibility that all the sons may die, and that all their property may go to the daughters, and go into settlements; but in a case such as I have referred to there is only a contingent escape of duty, and it is for such a case that I wish to provide.

    127
    The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech of 1894, said—
    "In the case of settlement when property is now settled by will probate is charged once on the corpus of the property, and this payment covers all the limitations of the settlement. We now therefore propose to assimilate the treatment of property under all kinds of settlements to that now in force respecting settlements made by will. But as the single payment in respect of the whole settlement may result in a total diminished produce of the tax, we propose to levy an additional 1 per cent, on all property under settlement to recoup this loss."
    And that, Sir, is all that I require.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I think the honourable and gallant Member has called attention to a defect in the working of the Act which will require same remedy. While, therefore, we are prepared to accept the principle of his Amendment, yet we cannot quite accept it in the form he has proposed. It is Absolutely necessary, as I think my honourable and gallant Friend will admit, that the duty should be paid in the first instance, because otherwise we might not have the means of knowing what the total amount would be. What my honourable and gallant Friend desires is that if the whole of the property does not come into settlement there should be repayment, and I will suggest as an alternative to his proposal these words—
    "Where in the case of the death occurring after the commencement of this Act settlement estate duty is paid in respect of any property contingently settled, and it is thereafter shown that the contingency has not arisen and cannot arise, the duty paid in respect of such property shall be repaid."
    I believe those words will carry out the object of the honourable and gallant Member, and if he will withdraw hi words I will venture to move these words as an Amendment.
    SIR ROBERT T. REIDthought that in the circumstances contemplated by the Attorney General, the Crown would not have been entitled, under the existing law, to settlement estate duty. If, however, the Revenue Department had any
    128
    doubt on the matter, it would be better to make the matter clear.
    Captain Pretyman's clause was, by leave, withdrawn, and the new clause of the Attorney General was read a second time and added to the Bill.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEmoved to insert the following clause—
    "Section fifty-seven, sub-section nine, of the Taxes Management Act, 1880, is hereby repealed, and it shall be lawful for the General Commissioners to permit any barrister or solicitor to plead before them on any appeal for the appellant or officers either viva voce or by writing."
    He said he hoped to be able to persuade the Committee to add the new clause in some shape to the Bill, as it was a clause which sought to remedy an injustice which arose owing to the Taxes Management Act of 1880 prohibiting solicitors and barristers from practising before the General Commissioners. The Committee would be entitled to ask what was the reason, or rather what was alleged to be the reason of this prohibition. So far as the pages of "Hansard" were their guide he could not find that, when the Act of 1880 was passed through Parliament, there was any discussion of the question at all, but perhaps that was not remarkable, because the Act of 1880 was a consolidation Act, and it was difficult to trace the record of the earlier Debates on this question. What he understood to be the reason of the prohibition was that it was thought that proceedings would be simplified and shortened, and perhaps made cheaper, by the absolute prohibition of the appearance of solicitors and barristers before the General Commissioners of Income Tax. As a matter of fact, experience did not confirm that view, and there was a great deal of discontent in the country, not merely amongst members of the legal profession, who not unnaturally resented being barred in this way, but amongst the general public, many members of whom found themselves engaged in cases where they required legal assistance, and where this strange and unusual prohibition debarred them from the benefit of legal representation. This prohibition ought to be removed, because it has not been shown to work in the

    129
    direction which, so tar as can be ascertained, was the direction in which it was imagined and desired it would work, namely, that of simplicity and the shortening and cheapening of proceedings. As a result, in many parts of England the practice had grown up of allowing solicitors and barristers to appear before the General Commissioners unless objection were taken. The Committee would see that this state of things was very objectionable. Barristers and solicitors should be permitted to appear. As he understood he would not be met with any opposition, he did not wish to take up time by quoting numerous instances from different parts of the country of the great hardships that have arisen, especially in the case of women, who, even more than men, were sufferers by this arrangement. He begged to move his Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to, and clause added to the Bill.
    LORD ALWYNE COMPTONmoved the following clause—
    "Where estate duty shall have become payable on any death by or on behalf of any person in respect of property to which he shall have become entitled on such death, and such person shall die within the space of eight and a-half years from the date of the death on which the duty shall have become payable, such duty (in this section referred to as 'the first charge of duty') shall for the purposes of this section be taken to have become payable by such instalments as are mentioned in section six, sub-section eight, of The Finance Act, 1894, and if the estate duty payable in respect of any property passing on the death of such person (in this section referred to as 'the second charge of duty') shall be a sum equal to or less than the total amount of the instalments then to become due or which by virtue of this section are to be taken as then to become due of the first charge of duty (thereinafter referred to as 'the future instalments'), the second charge of duty shall be wholly remitted; but if the amount of such second charge of duty shall exceed the amount of the future instalments, then the amount which but for this section would have become payable in respect of such second charge of duty shall be reduced by the amount of the future instalments.
    "That the proviso at the end of section four of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and construed as if there were omitted therefrom the following words, that is to say, the word 'immediately,' the words 'to some person other than the wife or husband or a
    130
    lineal ancestor or lineal descendant of the deceased,' and also the words at the end of the proviso commencing' but if any benefit under a disposition not made by the deceased,' down to the end of the section."
    The noble Lord said he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would accept this proposal, which would be a reasonable relief, without loss to the Exchequer.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The proposal raises a very complicated matter, and I aim sure my noble Friend has dealt with it in a very fair way. The whole theory of death duties—and I refer to the death duties existing long before the passing of the Act of the right honourable Gentleman opposite—is based upon averages, but I am afraid that the doctrine of averages does not commend itself to anyone who suffers. I have looked into this matter already myself, as some of my honourable Friends are aware, and I do not yet despair of finding some proposals which may obviate the hardship where it particularly occurs, if there are such cases, without undue loss to the revenue. But I am afraid the proposal which my noble Friend has placed before the Committee would not be workable. I will endeavour to deal with a concrete case. Suppose a person called A dies, leaving £5,000 by will to a person called B. The death duty is, of course, paid on the £5,000. B takes the £5,000 and gives it away to somebody, or spends it in some way or other, or loses it in speculation; at all events, it disappears. But B is a man possessing other property besides. Suppose he dies within eight years of paying the duty, under my noble Friend's proposal it would be permissible to deduct from the death duties on B's own property, with which it has nothing to do, the duty which has been paid upon A's estate. Well, I think that cannot be the intention of my noble Friend. I think the Committee will see that it would be obviously unfair. I am sorry for that reason that I cannot accept my noble Friend's Amendment, but I will undertake to consider the matter further.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Undoubtedly, in some cases, the hardship is extremely great, inasmuch as you have a number of successions—four, five, and, perhaps,

    131
    six—during the time that one property has only one succession. I think that is a conclusive reason why death duties should be moderate, in their amount. Now, Sir, with regard to the objection of the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this particular clause. He has put a hard case, and I admit the arguments of the right honourable Gentleman if the estate duties are moderate, but as they have been so enormous under the Act of 1894 it is perfectly allowable to take certain cases, as my noble Friend has done, and to endeavour to relieve them of excessive charges. Therefore, Sir, I remain entirely unconvinced by the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
    SIR M. STEWART: I desire to make one remark with reference to the great hardship which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised to consider. It has been before the House on many different occasions. It has been traversed in the country many thousands of times and during many contests, and after the electioneering speeches which honourable Members have had to make, not only on this side of the House, but also on the other side, it is really time now that some definite action were taken to relieve those great hardships. I hope that before another Session is passed the present state of things will pe remedied. It can be remedied—many honourable Members are pledged up to the hilt to try and effect a remedy—and I am satisfied that, if my right honourable Friend will really put his shoulder to the wheel, the matter is not too difficult to be properly settled. He will certainly be well supported in the House in his attempt.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: In order to show the possibility of hardship in the present law I desire to put a concrete case to the right honourable Gentleman. I know an ancient estate—not a very large estate—in which the owner left five brothers, only the youngest of whom has children. The third brother has now succeeded, and, in the course of nature, the others will suc-
    132
    ceed in turn, and it is possible there may be five successions in 10 years.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Is it settled property?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I do not know whether it is or not.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Settled property only pays once.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: But supposing, it is not settled property, is it desirable that any estate should be fined thus heavily five times in about 10 years. That is a possibility of the law. Surely it amounts to confiscation, and not to taxation.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am almost certain I know the case to which my right honourable Friend has referred, and if I do I also know that it was met by an alteration in the law in 1896.
    MR. BUTCHER: The real hardship under quick succession only arises when the same property is taxed several times in the course of a few years. As the clause is drawn it does not exactly provide for such a case, although the hardship is admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The difficulty in the way of granting relief is to identify a particular property, and to be able to say that the property on which A paid duty one year is the same to which B succeeds a few years later. I would suggest that the difficulty might be met in this way. Leave it to the commissioners to decide whether the property on which a second duty is claimed is the same or substantially the same as the one which paid duty a few years previously. I think that might fairly be left to the opinion of the commissioners; and if, in the opinion of the commissioners, it is the same property on which duty is demanded a second time, then there should be an amending clause enabling the commissioners to give relief in such cases. In other words, when the commissioners have decided that the same property is to be taxed twice, let the law provide it shall be exempted. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted the hardship, I

    133
    venture to suggest that, if not this year in some year not far distant, he may see his way to remove a serious hardship in such a way as I have suggested.
    LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: In view of the sympathetic attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD ALWYNE COMPTON: The second new clause which stands in my name is a different question altogether. It is, proposed, with a view to extending to a lineal descendant, or wife, or husband, the same favour that is given under the Finance Act of 1894 to a collateral successor. The provision referred to was inserted by the late Government, but, practically, it seems to me a matter of the grossest injustice that the same favour should not be extended to a lineal descendant as is given in some cases even to a stranger. Take this case: a settlement is made by a father on his daughter for life, with remainder to her issue, and, in default of issue, to the next of kin. If the daughter dies and leaves issue, the duty is paid in full, but if there is no issue, and a stranger, perhaps, succeeds, the property is not charged in the same way. May I take another case? A father has two sons, and on his death the property passes, by special settlement, to them. In that case it has to pay the full rate, whatever it may be. I have a case in my mind, of which I have personal knowledge, in which the second and third sons of a millionaire had to pay duty at the rate of eight per cent, on the property. Possibly, that may not have the sympathy of right honourable Gentlemen opposite. I am fully aware that there is not much sympathy for millionaires, or for their sons, who take any property at all, but my point is that if the second and third sons in the case I mention had died, and if that same property had passed to a collateral issue, or even to an absolute stranger, it would not be aggregated to pay eight per cent. That seems to me contrary to the principle of the legacy and succession duty that special favour should be extended
    134
    to collaterals and strangers, and not to younger sons. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to accept my Amendment, but I should like to ask on what principle of justice, or right, or of common sense, the present law, by which property which passes to a collateral issue or to a stranger is not aggregated to pay as much as when it passes to a lineal descendant, can be defended? I beg to move—
    "That the proviso at the end of section four of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and construed as if there were omitted therefrom the following words, that is to say, the word 'immediately,' the words 'to some person other than the wife or husband or a lineal ancestor or lineal descendant of the deceased,' and also the words at the end of the proviso commencing 'but if any benefit under a disposition not made by the deceased,' down to the end of the section."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXQUER: This clause will prevent that. I certainly could not accept the noble Lord's proposal, because it would disturb the whole system of aggregation, and would affect the revenue very considerably. The exemption for which section 4 of the Finance Act provided was only intended to operate in cases where there was no connection between the deceased and the person to whom the property passed.
    SIR R. REID: I think the honourable Gentleman has not considered the genesis of this clause. The principle of the Act is that whatever passes or changes at death will all form one property, and shall be allocated to ascertain the total amount of property, and thereby fix the higher or lower scale of taxation. Suppose that on the death of person there are two estates of £100,000 each. In the ordinary course these two estates would go together, and taxation would be paid upon the £200,000. But this case may possibly occur. A man, by no settlement of his own, but by the settlement of his ancestors, might be enjoying two estates, each £100,000, and those two estates nay go, one of them by the settlement to his son, and the other to a distant relative. Now, it would be very hard for

    135
    his son that he should have to pay a larger amount of duty on the one estate he got by reason of someone else who is not a member of his own family at all, who derives also a benefit by reason of the death of his father. It might seem to be a hard thing, but if these two estates go to the lineal descendants of the man, and not to a stranger, this hardship does not exist. The principle is that an exception is made which operates in favour of the family of the deceased. By this Amendment it is provided that they shall not be taxed more heavily by reason of some other property which is not the family estate. Now, that is the purpose and the working of the Act, and that is the intention of the clause. That is just what I would venture to remind the Committee is the danger of an Act like this. You make an exception which is in the nature of a concession—I do not say an unreasonable concession—and then that is inverted and turned upside down, and is made the basis of a demand for further concessions, and the result of this is that if each supposed hardship, or any apparent ostensible anomaly, not a real anomaly, is made the foundation for indulgences here and exemptions there, you will very soon have very little left of the Act. But that good time will not last for ever; and I am quite certain you will find, if I may say so, a great deal more unpopularity in proposing other Acts to supplement the revenue than in maintaining this Act as it is.
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: If the Committee will allow me two or three minutes, I should like to describe a case which occurred in my own family in 1895, which I consider discloses a very great hardship, which would be removed by the adoption of this clause. I am afraid the argument may be a little wide of the clause, but I should like to state this case. A man died, leaving £20,000 to his wife for her life, with the remainder over to her brothers. The woman married again, and married a very rich man; that man died and left her all his property, real and personal. The woman died intestate in
    136
    respect of that property, and it went to her heirs-at-law. Now, the £20,000 left by her first husband for life followed the settlement and went to the brothers. The Treasury successfully contended, however, that the property which she inherited from, her second husband must be aggregated, although the moneys thus aggregated came from different sources and passed into different channels, and although the inheritors of the £20,000 had no benefit from or connection with the second husband's property. Now I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this point. Does he not regard this as most inequitable? I believe that it was not the intention of the framers of the Finance Act that this result should be produced, and such injustice ought to arouse the tender sympathy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is not an imaginary mischief, such as the honourable and learned Member referred to, but it is an actual case arising out of the Act. Let me put it in another way which will bring it home to the Committee. Supposing that A leaves to B £1,000 with the remainder over to C. Then supposing that D, another man, leaves £1,000,000 to B. Is it not monstrous that the sum coming to C from A should be heavily charged because somebody else, who never knew of their existence, had given somebody else some money? That is the position as the Act stands, and I ask anybody whether that is not a preposterous condition of things. But whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the clause of my noble Friend or not, he ought to introduce some clause which will prevent such a gross injustice as this, whether it affects the Treasury or not. I think it should not exist, and I appeal to him to consider its removal.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I have endeavoured to follow the honourable Member, but certainly this Amendment has no application in the case cited. Certainly the intention and the spirit of the Act was to meet any case such as this of money not belonging to the family. The intention of the Act was to prevent an injustice arising where the property passed away altogether from, the family.
    MR. BANBURY: I am the owner of property, say £500,000. I also have an interest in other property worth, say, £50,000. I have two sons and at my death £500,000 goes to the eldest son. The £50,000, in which I have a life interest, goes to the second son. The second son, who only receives £50,000, in which I have a life interest, has that aggregated to the £500,000, and he has to pay duty on the whole. Now, if the £50,000 went to a stranger, that stranger would not have to pay. I must say that it seems to me very hard that a son should be put in a worse position than a stranger, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the case and endeavour to alleviate this evil.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I do not know whether honourable Gentlemen are aware that this is only a proposal to aggregate certain kinds of property by themselves, and charge it with the proper rate of duty. It is not a proposal to exempt them from estate duty. Now, what is the proposal? It is substantially the same as that to which I have put down an Amendment. Sir, in a few words the noble Lord's proposal is this, that you shall only aggregate with the main estate property which the deceased had been competent to dispose of. I do not know whether all the members of this Committee realise that that also is charged by this nefarious Act. This Amendment practically provides that the only property that shall be aggregated into the main lump of this property, if I may use the term, shall be property which he had power to dispose of, and which he had in fact disposed of. I make out that you may have 18 or 19 different properties, subject to a different set of duties and conditions. This Amendment, I do think, is one of the most reasonable and necessary character that can possibly be proposed into this Act. It does not touch the principle of the Act in any way. The principle of the Act we must not, of course, touch, but it could never have been contemplated to impose duty on such property—that is, property which has been settled by some body whom they never heard of.
    138
    I do think, Sir, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any bowels of compassion at all—and I confess I sometimes doubt it, for he is always going to do something, and he has had the last Amendment before him for three years, and he is still considering it—the moment has arrived to make up his mind about this particular Amendment moved by my noble Friend. I am bound to say that in the whole list of Amendments, including those I have moved myself, there is not one more desirable than this. I hope my noble Friend will not be put off, but will go to a Division, and then the country will know the names of those who resist this Amendment, and will remember it at the next election.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to observe that what I said just now on the last Amendment was said in perfect good faith, and I confess that I have not been able to deal with this matter to my own satisfaction. What I mean with regard to this Amendment is this—that it goes very much further than, as I endeavoured to explain to the Committee, I think my honourable Friend desires. I will take the case of a man settling certain property on his son, with the remainder to his grandson. The son dies, having inherited, the property, and on the son's death the property goes to the grandson. Of course, the death duty has to be paid on the property settled, and on any free property which goes to the grandson under the son's will. Now, that is property which goes to the same person, only that it is settled by the grandfather instead of going directly from the son. Surely it ought to be aggregated for the purpose of the death duty in that case. But, if the Amendment is passed, that property settled by the grandfather would not be aggregated at all. That is quite a different thing from property settled by some complete stranger, passing away from the lineal descendants. It may be that the provision of the Finance Act of 1894, far exemption from aggregation, in these circumstances, does not go far enough, but that is no reason why we should accept the clause which carries the exemption in that direction much too far. I do not know whether, after

    139
    what the honourable Member for King's Lynn has said, the promise to consider anything will be acceptable to the honourable Member; but I will endeavour to go into this subject also. Exemption must, however, clearly have reference to property passing to somebody else, rather than to the question of the person from, whom the property is derived, and I think we must maintain the principle that where there is a real interest in property inherited the property ought to be aggregated.
    CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: I fully endorse the statement that this clause was introduced into the Bill with the intention of reducing the hardships which that Bill imposes. I quite recognise that, but it appears to me, from what has been said here now, that the real meaning of the clause is hardly appreciated. As I understand honourable Gentlemen on both sides of the House, I think they agree that the object of this clause is, as it stands, that where property both came in from different directions and went in different directions it should not be aggregated. I maintain that the clause does not do that at all. What it says is this— if property passes under two different dispositions on the same death to strangers, Or even if it all goes to the same stranger, the two properties would not be aggregated, but would be treated as two separate estates. But if the two properties, either together or separate, go to two different lineal descendants of the deceased, then they are aggregated together. The words of the Act are plain, viz., that if the property passes to any other person but a lineal it shall not be aggregated, but if it passes to a lineal it is aggregated. All may go together to a non-lineal and escape aggregation, but this privilege is in all cases denied to lineals. Take a very ordinary case, that of a man who inherits two properties, one from his mother and the other from his father. The one he inherits from his father passes to his eldest son, the one from his mother passes to his second son, and, if he has none, to his brother. That is a case which might commonly occur. Under this clause as it stands the eldest son takes the grandfather's property in any case, but the grandmother's property, if it goes to
    140
    the second son, is aggregated, and if it goes to the brother it is not aggregated. That is the actual position, and as a layman I should be very sorry to argue the point for one moment as to whether these words do actually carry out the intention of this Amendment. But I do know what the intention of the Amendment is, and it is this: that the same exemption, and no more than is actually extended by the clause to non-lineals in the Act, should be extended to lineals. By the Amendment we ask for no fresh exemption whatever, beyond that which is already included in the Act, and if this proviso which is now asked for is carried it will only give to lineals the same privilege as non-lineals already enjoy. There are certain words in that clause in the Act which convey a particular exemption to non-lineals, and all that this Amendment proposes to do is to leave out those particular words. By this Amendment we ask for no exemption or fresh concession, but merely that the existing position in the right honourable Gentleman's Act should be given to lineals. It is an established principle that for payment of death duties lineals should receive more favourable treatment than strangers. I think that in this particular case exactly the opposite principle has been followed, for the exemption has been withheld from lineals. I wish to dissociate myself from the remarks of the honourable Member for King's Lynn as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think we have to thank him for very great concessions with regard to Amendments moved by myself and by others, and for a promise which I, for one, most thoroughly rely upon, and I feel sure that he will consider carefully the Amendment moved by my noble Friend the Member for Bedfordshire.
    SIR ROBERT REID: It is really a very difficult thing for anybody who has studied the Act, or tried to take part in the discussion, to satisfy a Committee, consisting mostly of laymen, as to the real meaning and effect of this clause, I believe there is no court in the kingdom which would venture lightly to express an opinion without grave misgivings as to the meaning of this Act. Necessarily,

    141
    only those who have tried know what an extraordinary and difficult thing it is to deal with this question. Having said that, I may take the case of the honourable and gallant Gentleman opposite. It is a case, perhaps, in which I myself think that he has fallen into a grave error. The honourable and gallant Gentleman does not appreciate that the benefit which is conferred by this section is conferred upon lineals. He does not seem to appreciate that when one estate goes to a stranger it is withdrawn from aggregation, and the benefit conferred is quite as much on lineals as it is upon those who are not lineals. The honourable Gentleman seems to imagine that the benefit of this clause is confined to those who are not lineals, and is not extended to those who are lineals. Well, I do not agree with him, and I think everybody will see that the benefit is shared by both. The honourable and gallant Gentleman says if two properties go from different sources to the same person that they are aggregated if that person is a lineal, but they are not aggregated if that person is not a lineal. Now, it will take considerable argument to deal with that, and I do not agree with it. But if that be the case, permit me to point out that it is not in the least degree raised by the Amendment which is before the consideration of the House. The honourable Member for King's Lynn said that what was wanted was that there should be no aggregation in cases in which the deceased had no interest in the property which was passed. He forgot that in the very first words of the clause it was provided that any property so passing in which the deceased never had an interest should be aggregated with other property. Therefore, the honourable Gentleman, though usually so accurate, I may say almost learned, must in his own candour confess that he did not look at the very first words of the clause.
    MR. GEDGE: I agree with the honourable Member in one thing—that no court of justice would easily come to a decision on any part of this Bill. No doubt it is an old sound constitutional maxim that when the pockets of the taxpayers are concerned the Act ought to be so clearly worded that he who runs may read. The existing Act is so
    142
    obscurely worded from beginning to end that it is almost impossible to give a legal decision on it; and if a court would hesitate, how much more would individuals! I was not in the House when this Act came into force, but I studied the Debates at the time with the keenest interest. I observed that many of its provisions were strongly and ably opposed by my right honourable Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Gentlemen who sit around him, and there were many Amendments from the Conservative and Unionist side which were lost by small majorities. I hoped that when we had a large majority he would introduce into the Measure—without touching the main principle which I admit we cannot go back from—that which would alter it and do away with its inequalities and hardships. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at the matter with a more liberal view, and that before this Bill becomes law some of the hardships will be alleviated.
    MR. BUTCHER: I am free to admit that the Amendment in its present form goes a little bit too far. For my own part I think that aggregation is the deepest blot upon an Act which has upon it a good many blots. I think this Amendment goes further than is necessary for removing the particular grievance of which my honourable Friend complained. The Amendment, as it stands, would really abolish aggregation in every case where property is not settled by the deceased. I think that principle would be a right one; but the Amendment goes beyond the grievance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits.
    LORD COMPTON: I shall be perfectly frank with the Committee. I have full reliance on any assurance the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives us. I have had personal experience of his courtesy and kindness in these matters of form, and if he has said that he will give attention to the matter, I will not be dissatisfied.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    "Section two, sub-section one (b) of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and have effect as if after the words property in which the deceased' the words at the time of his death' were inserted, and as if after the words 'any other person' the words 'at the time of such death' were inserted."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This clause is identical with that which, was moved in 1896, and which I moved last year. I propose this in order to make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a further explanation. This clause was withdrawn in 1896, on the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a concrete case decided by the courts. A case was decided the other day by the Court of Appeal, and it is impossible to read the judgment of Mr. Justice Smith, Mr. Justice Chitty, and Mr. Justice Collins without feeling that that judgment was unanswerable. I think there never was a case so clearly put and so clearly decided. I therefore say, without opening the question of what the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertakes as the course, that I wish to make an appeal to him to-night not to carry the case any further. It does seem to me that if he does so he is simply wasting, not only time, but public money, which will be expended, in the shape of costs. That is the first reason why I have put down this Amendment, in order to make to him that appeal, that he will not prosecute an appeal to the House of Lords. Of course, I am aware that the decision of the Court of Appeal, if maintained, will be said to have another effect; or, rather, that it has been the cause of another discovery upon the part of the Attorney General. Section 2, sub-section 1 (c) does not altogether apply to cases of this kind; in other words, a man may make away with his life interest upon his death-bed. It is not necessary for him to live a year and a few days to make his bequest effective; and I quite admit that that does leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer in rather an awkward predicament. But I cannot refuse the result, if it be the result of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, that section 2, sub-section 1 (c), is a section which, by inference, presumes to lay down that a man shall be considered, for the purposes of revenue, dead 12 months previous to his decease. I protested against this clause upon a former occasion, and I appealed in vain to the Government to put in plain language what they really meant to convey, but without success. Now it turns out that the section is inoperative, and I cannot say I
    144
    am sorry for it; in fact, I am extremely glad. But I do realise that it leaves the revenue and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an extremely awkward position. Now, Sir, I have made an appeal, and that was the first object I had in moving this Amendment, that the case of the Attorney General versus Beach should not be taken to the House of Lords. I would now only further ask the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some explanations. It has been rumoured that the right honourable Gentleman proposes to shut the door which the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Mon-mouth left open, and that he intends to ask the House of Commons to render illegal and unlawful, and chargeable with, duty, that which at present is legal, lawful, and not chargeable with duty. That is a thing we should not extend, and I move the Amendment formally, partly in order to give the right honourable Gentleman an opportunity of explaining the intentions which rumour has attributed, to him. Whether the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Monmouth intended to open this door I am not now concerned to inquire, but I believe he did intend that when a man parted with his life interest it should not become chargeable for revenue. But, whether he intended to leave it open or not, it was left open, according to the recent decision in the Court of Appeal. I therefore move this, pro formâ, as I have said, first, for the purpose of making the appeal that he will not carry this case any further; and, secondly, in the hope that he may explain, as I hope he will, that it is not his intention to propose a new clause which will shut this door which was left open by the right honourable Gentleman who framed, the Act.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not now propose to discuss the intentions of my predecessor, but, in answer to the question of the honourable Gentleman, I may say this: that, as two courts have differed upon the subject of the definition of the law in this matter, I shall certainly sanction the proposals of the Inland Revenue to appeal to the House of Lords. It is an action which, I think, it is necessary and right to take. So far as any rumour which the honourable Gentleman may

    145
    have heard is concerned, I can only say I have formed no intentions upon the subject.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I quite recognise, while I regret, that the right honourable Gentleman finds himself bound to carry this case to the House of Lords. So far as the intentions are concerned which rumour attributed to him, I am glad that he has formed none, and I now beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    "To move the following clause—
    "'In lieu of the duty of Customs now payable under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, on rum of and from any foreign country being the country of its production, there shall be charged and paid the duty of Customs following (that is to say) for every gallon of rum of and from any foreign country being the country of its production, 10s."' —(Mr. Price.)
    MR. PRICE: The subject I wish to bring before the notice of the Committee is a distinctly cheerful subject, following the rather gloomy subject which we have been discussing this evening. I feel as if I am going to take part in the wake which follows the funeral. I propose to move a new clause—
    "The duties of Customs payable upon rum imported from the British Crown Colonies shall be reduced from 10s. 10d. to 10s. 6d. per gallon."
    It will be seen that I have restricted in a great measure the clause which stands in my name, as, chiefly, I wish to narrow the subject in dispute. The Crown Colonies occupy a very different position from foreign and our great self-governing Colonies in connection with this surtax. When it was first imposed it was imposed because there were said to be taxes connected with the taxation of this country which would not apply in the case of Crown Colonies. But, whatever the facts of the case may have been then, the facts as regards the case of the Crown Colonies are not so now. At the present time there are in the Crown Colonies distinct Excise regulations which, I am informed, and believe have increased considerably the expenses of the rum trade and distillery, quite as much as is experienced over here by the distillers by the Excise regulations en-
    146
    forced in this country. It is true the new Excise regulations come into existence and increase the expenditure over here; but it is equally true that over there new ordinances come into force which also increase the expenditure; and, in addition to that, the argument is used by the distillers over here that there are trade circumstances which also affect the business, in addition to the Excise regulations. But there are trade circumstances, certainly, which also affect the trade of rum in the West Indies, and they consist of a freight which they have to pay, and the very large evaporation which takes place in the spirit while on its way here. I believe, however, in point of fact, the inequality which is supposed to exist, and which is supposed to remedy, by this extra surtax, this extra 4d. on the gallon, is no longer in existence; and it does seem an extraordinary thing that when we are giving money to the West Indian Government, in order to relieve their poverty, during the present Session, we should be charging a surtax on the main element of produce which they possess, and which must certainly takeaway a large portion of the dole which we give to them. And the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the view that any relief which can be given should be done by way of drawback. But the West Indian Government is not sufficiently well off to make any drawback, or make any arrangement for taxation, and I feel that the time has come when this surtax of the Crown Colonies, at all events, should be considered by the right honourable Gentleman. I do not extend the clause of the surcharge to the self-governing Colonies of this Empire, and to foreign countries, because we are not to know what the Excise regulations are which prevail in those parts, or how they affect them; but we are in a position to know what Excise regulations are in the Crown Colonies, because there are ordinances which emanate from here, and it may be that, as we have placed countervailing disadvantages on the Colonies from time, to time, and although we have done that, we have not reduced the surtax of 4d. on the gallon, which is felt to be such a grievance over there. Fourpence does not at the first sight seem to be a very heavy matter, but the right

    147
    honourable Gentleman is not, perhaps, aware of the cost price of rum before it has paid duty. I am informed that the price of rum, before it has paid duty, is from 9d. to 1s. a gallon; if that is the case, if 9d. is the ordinary price for rum, the surtax of 4d. is an extremely high rate of duty to pay for that article, so much so that I am informed, under the present conditions, it cannot be used for the purposes of methylation. This tax is felt to be a very hard tax by the Crown Colonies, and they firmly believe that the removal of it will only mean a very small sum; and I think the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he accepts my clause, will confer a very great benefit upon the Crown Colonies, and one which will be greatly appreciated.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: When the honourable Member placed his clause upon this subject upon the Paper I was very much surprised at it. The clause proposes, as it stands upon the Paper, that the duty upon rum, which is now 10s. 10d., should be reduced to 10s. a gallon upon rum exported by foreign countries, and I concluded that he must be interested in some way or other in the manufacture of that spirit. The honourable Member, however, has found out his mistake, and in place of that proposal he now proposes to upset all the fixed rules by which we have for years past regulated our customs, and institute a preferential duty in favour, not of all our Colonies, but of the Grown Colonies alone. It would be a remarkable change for the sake of a surtax upon rum. I confess I cannot attach the importance the honourable Gentleman does to this matter, from the point of view of the West Indian Colonies. This matter was alluded to in the Report of the Commission which inquired into the state of the West Indies. They adduced some arguments in favour of it which appeared to me to be utterly baseless, and they recommended that this surtax should be remitted, but in making the recommendation they attach no importance to the matter, and they did not believe it would make any appreci-
    148
    able difference to the sugar industry. Upon the recommendation being made public the distillers of the United Kingdom took alarm, and waited on me in deputation, and they established the fact that this surtax of 4d. which had been in existence was a reasonable difference between the Customs and Excise duties in this country, and that to get rid of it would inflict upon them considerable harm. That is one side of the matter. It is treated as a small matter by the West Indian Commission upon the other. And the fact also remains that at least one of the Colonies asking for the reduction of this surtax imposes an export duty upon rum. I cannot agree that this surtax can be regarded as excessive, and I think we should be treating the case of the West Indies better if we adopted some other way. Any injury to our own distillers ought to be discouraged, and the proposal of the honourable Member, raising as it does the whole question of differential duties in favour of the Colonies, is not one which the Government can accept.
    MR. W. F. LAWRENCEsaid the right honourable Gentleman who had just spoken had followed very much the same line of argument as that which he adopted when the distillers came before him a short time ago. He pointed out in his speech that the arguments of the West Indian Commission were obviously bad, but he [Mr. Lawrence] thought it would have been far better had the right honourable Gentleman shown in what way they were faulty. It was much regretted by those interested in the West Indian Colonies that more attention was not paid to the arguments adduced by the Commission in support of the proposition then before the House. Long before it had been mentioned by the Commissioners in their Report it was a matter very much complained of by those who were interested in the West Indian Colonies. He assured the House that the Colonies would view with great disappointment the way this proposition was disposed of The right honourable Gentleman had made a statement to the effect that the West Indian Colonies

    149
    already paid export duties upon rum. There was, as a matter of fact, only one instance which supported that statement, and that was the island of Trinidad. That export duty was specially levied to meet the expense of coolie immigration. That is the only incident upon which the right honourable Gentleman could rely. He further said this was a small matter and not of consequence in the cultivation of sugar. He had had some experience of Jamaica, and he knew something of the working of the estates in that country. He could instance two estates where the 4d. surcharge represented in the one case 10 per cent, and in the other 7 per cent, of the gross profits. He submitted that no farmer in England would consider the reduction by excise to the extent of 7 per cent, or 10 per cent, of his profits a matter of no consideration, and he thought if he appealed to the right honourable Gentleman that he would appreciate such an undertaking if it were brought before him in that way. The land was worked under difficulties, and the right honourable Gentleman would admit that a farmer had a right to complain. The surcharge, as a matter of fact, was based upon a condition of things which existed no longer, and he considered there was a strong primâ facie. case for the consideration of this matter.
    The clause was negatived.
    Amendment proposed—
    "Add the following clause—
    "Section nineteen of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and have effect as if the words 'derived from personal property such sum as the commissioners, in accordance with regulations made by the Treasury under those Acts, may determine to be an amount equal to one and a half per cent, on the net value of such of the property in respect of which estate duty is leviable, as would, if this Act had not been passed, have been chargeable with the duty imposed by section twenty-seven of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881 (44 and 45 Vic, c. 12), on Inland Revenue affidavits, were omitted, and the words 'the sum of three million pounds' were inserted in lieu thereof, and as if the words 'sum so determined' were omitted, and the words 'the said sum' inserted in lieu thereof."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to move the clause which stands in my name
    150
    which proposes to establish a fixed annual grant in place of the grant that is now given. The Committee will see that this clause makes payable to the local taxation account by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue a sum not named, but a sum which the Treasury has determined to be equal to 1½per cent.—not a known sum, but a constructional sum which in their opinion shall represent the old probate duty. That is a very complicated method of arriving at the charge upon the revenue. It is a charge, or rather an interception of revenue, and if it were not an interception I doubt whether I should have been in order in moving this clause. But its being an interception, I can do so. My objection to this clause is, first of all, that some of the charges to be paid to the local taxation account are entirely constructional. It has to be arrived at by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and I am not quite sure whether if they were asked to explain they could thoroughly answer the question as to how it was arrived at. I imagine there must be a certain amount of guesswork in arriving at the estimate that would probably have been paid in probate duty if the Finance Act of 1894 had not been passed. Now this is, as I have said, an instance of interception, and up to the present time something like four figures have been paid over to the local taxation account. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accepting the principle that the charge shall be a fixed one instead of an entirely uncertain and varying one, Under the Act of 1894 local authorities are never quite certain what amounts they are going to receive, and this, of course, introduces great uncertainty into their budget, I think the clause I now move would be fraught with a great many advantages. It would enable the local authorities to know exactly what they are going to get, and the Inland Authorities to know exactly what they are going to pay: and, above all, it would enable the Inland Revenue authorities to get rid of an enormous amount of difficulty in connection with their accounts. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has inquired how, in practice, the amount payable under section 19 of the Act of

    151
    1894 is arrived at, but I am certain that it must involve a very large amount of calculation, and I think the substitution of a fixed amount would indirectly effect a very considerable saving, or, at any rate, avoid a considerable leakage.
    Question proposed—
    "That the new clause stand part of the Bill."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Under the Act of 1888 it was arranged that a certain proportion of the probate duty should be given every year as a contribution to the expenses of local administration, varying in amount with the yield of the probate duty. That was simply confirmed by the Act of 1894, and, of course, it follows, as the honourable Gentleman says, that the amount appropriated has been varying from year to year. It varied from £2,264,000 in 1889, the first year after it was enacted, to about £2,600,000 in the year just concluded. It may be a subject for consideration whether this system or the system of a fixed grant is better. I am inclined to think that, if you are to have a contribution, from personal property to the rates, the amount should be fixed according to the yield of each particular year. But, however that may be, as the whole question of contributions to local taxation is now under the consideration of a Royal Commission, I think the matter should be left over for the present. If we had been making any alteration at all, there are some reasons in favour of the proposal of the honourable Member; but I think the present Bill does not afford a convenient opportunity of dealing with the matter.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The explanation of the right honourable Gentleman that the whole subject of local taxation is now under the consideration of a Royal Commission, is sufficient ground for my not pressing this clause, but I trust the Royal Commission will not overlook the matter to which I have called attention.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    New clause proposed—
    "Section two, sub-section three, of the Finance Act, 1894, is hereby amended as fol-
    152
    lows: the description of property in subsection three shall be construed as if the words more than twelve months before his death' were omitted therefrom."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
    Question proposed—
    "That the new clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: This clause, and the two following clauses standing on the Paper in my name, deal with the same subject; and to avoid making a speech on each, I will at once explain the object of all three. The two other clauses are as follows:—
    "Section two, sub-section one, clause (c), of the Finance Act, 1894, is hereby amended as follows: the description of property marked (c) shall be construed as if the words in section eleven, sub-section one, of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, be read as if the word 'twelve' were substituted for the word 'three' therein, and 'the said description of property shall' were omitted therefrom."
    "Section thirty-eight, sub-section two, clause (a), of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, is hereby amended as follows: the description of property marked (a) shall be construed as if all the words in clause (a) after the words 'one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one' were omitted therefrom."
    This is not the first time that I have moved the abolition of the time limit within which property passing in various ways shall be subject to a charge to the revenue. The whole principle of such a limitation is to my mind obnoxious, and based on a false assumption. It seems to me that the true principle to apply is analogous to that on which questions of domicile are determined. When a man dies you do not assume that his domicile was English; it is a matter of evidence; and if the revenue claim that the domicile of the deceased was English, and his executors claim that it was foreign, the matter has to be determined in the courts. That principle applied all round until, I am sorry to say, Mr. Gladstone, and after him the present First Lord of the Admiralty, introduced this assumption in favour of the revenue. There is no assumption in favour of the revenue in the matter of domicile, and there should be none on the question whether a man determined to evade the revenue in contemplation of his death, or in the belief that he would live. I will not labour the point. It is a question of the policy of assuming on behalf of

    153
    the revenue, as is now assumed by these clauses in the Finance Act, that every gift a man makes within twelve months of his death is made in contemplation of his death, and fraudulently with the desire to evade the revenue. I protest against the principle of such an assumption.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry to say that I am unable to give the honourable Member any satisfaction in regard to this matter. I can only repeat what I have said in reply to him on former occasions; I cannot agree to these three new clauses. It appears to me that they are merely proposals which would result in the evasion of the Act, and I cannot accept them.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I feel that the right honourable Gentleman is the master of more votes than I am, and that being the distressing state of the case, I do not purpose to take a division on these clauses.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    New clause proposed—
    "Section nine, sub-section two, of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and have effect as if the words 'grant a certificate' were omitted, and the words 'from time to time deliver to any person interested in any property affected by such duty on applying for the same for any reasonable purpose approved by the commissioners, a certificate in such form as they may think fit' were inserted in lieu thereof."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Under the Act as it at present stands, a certificate of payment of duties is only given to the person who accounts for or pays the duties; but in many instances, especially with regard to real property, there are persons other than those who pay the duties who may be interested. Persons may become interested in the property by purchase and in various other ways. I have never been able to understand why precedent was not followed in this matter, and why the commissioners should not be directed to give a certificate to any person interested in the property. That is the principle I lay down in the clause I now move, and I cannot see any possible objection to it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I quite agree with the honourable Member that if the framers of the Finance Act had adopted the scheme of former Acts, it
    154
    would have been much simpler, but this Amendment I cannot accept, because I am confident that it would be found to be impracticable. The applications already made to the Department are very numerous indeed, and it would not be practicable to make it obligatory on them to meet every demand made by persons claiming to have some interest in the property. At any rate, it would require a considerable re-casting of the Bill, and that is a matter that we cannot enter upon at this late stage.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    New clause proposed—
    "Section 6, sub-section 2, of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and have effect as if at the end of the sub-section, after the words 'such payment' there were inserted the words 'and an amount equal to the proper rateable part of any estate duty paid by an executor may be recovered by such executor from each legatee or beneficiary, according to the proportionate share of the whole property passing to such legatee or beneficiary by the death in respect of or with reference to which such duty has become payable.'"—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
    Question proposed—
    "That this clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: At present the whole of the estate duty in ordinary cases falls upon the estate as a deduction, so that, in effect and in practice, it is paid by the residuary legatee. But there are certain instances in which the estate duty is not paid by the residuary legatee. It is paid, as I submit it should be, by the beneficiary. For instance: in the case of a donation, the duty is paid, not out of the estate, but by the donee himself. Therefore, the Act does, in certain cases, recognise that the beneficiary should pay, as I think he should in all cases, the duty on the benefit he receives. In the case of real estate, the duty is a charge on the property itself, so that there also it affects the beneficiary. It does seem to me that in the case of ordinary personal property the beneficiary also should pay. The greatest hardships arise from the present system. In one case within my knowledge, a man had left what he thought reasonable legacies, and the residue to his widow or child. In consequence of the depreciation of the property, the legacies which he thought, and which were, of proper value at the time he made his will, had at his death

    155
    become so swollen in proportion to the rest of the estate that, after payment the legacies as directed, only enough was left to pay the duties, and the residuary gift to the widow was, in effect, nil. I am perfectly well aware that hard cases seldom make bad law, but I contend that here the principle is altogether indefensible. The clause I now propose would in no way interfere with the yield of the duties, or with the principle of any par of the Act. It merely gives the executor a power, which he may exercise or no as he pleases, to recover a rateable proportion, of the duty from, each beneficiary under a will or an intestacy. First of all, he would pay the whole duty out of the estate, so that the revenue could not possibly suffer, and then he would be able to recover it pro rata from, the beneficiaries. That seems to me a perfectly reasonable proposition. It was part of the original scheme of the Act, and I could never understand exactly why it was withdrawn. No doubt, in certain cases, it would have rendered it necessary for the revenue authorities to have levied the proportion of duty in each particular case; but the difficulty there principally arises in the case of annuitants; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself provided last year, or the year before, that in the case of annuities there should be a proportionate collection of the duties, because he provided that the annuities should be paid by instalments; so that this proposal of mine would impose no additional burden on the authorities. I hold that the true principle is that the beneficiaries themselves should bear the burden of the duties. For these reasons I beg to move the clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: It fell to me last year to reply to the proposer of this clause, and I need not now take up much time in explaining why it is not possible for us to accept it. First of all, as a private individual, and not for the moment representing the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I may express sympathy with what I may call the main argument of the honourable Member for King's Lynn. I agree that, from many points of view, it might have been much better if the Finance Act had provided that the tax should be levied on the devisee—the beneficiary himself. But it is quite impossible for us now to adopt
    156
    that fundamental alteration without an amending Bill, and anything in that direction must be very carefully scrutinised. I am sure my honourable Friend will agree that if we were now, after three or four years' work, under the system at present existing, to alter the practical incidence; of taxation—I do not mean the theoretical incidence, but the practical incidence, of taxation—by a clause of this kind, it would undoubtedly involve the absolute redrafting of the Bill. It would be applying a new state of things to wills which have been drawn in reference to the old state of things. I think the honourable Member has under-rated the difficulties of dealing with the matter in the way he proposes. Personally, I admit at once that any difficulty of that kind could have been avoided if a different scheme had been adopted; but, taking the Act as it stands, a provision; of this kind, merely giving an executor a right to recover rateable proportions of the duty, would be an unworkable system; and it would not be possible for us, without due consideration, and practically a Second Reading discussion, to assent to such a complete departure from the principles of the Act of 1894.
    MR. CRILLY: I have no intention of taking part in a discussion, of the merits of this clause. The Attorney General may, or may not, be right; I am not a lawyer, and I should not care to discuss what seems to be a legal technical matter. I rise simply to protest against the endeavour which is evidently being made to rush this Bill through just on the stroke of 12 o'clock. I do not think any important Measure should be rushed through in this way. I will not detain the Committee longer, but you will notice, Mr. Lowther, that it is now midnight.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The honourable Member is under a misapprehension. The progress of this Bill is not interfered with by the 12 o'clock Rule.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Bill ordered to be reported, with the Amendments, to the House.
    House adjourned at 12.10.