Lords Sitting of 27 July 1897

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON UNIVERSITY COMMISSION BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order): Then Standing Order No. 39 considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a: An amendment made; Bill passed and sent to Commons.
MERCHANT SHIPPING (EXEMPTIONS FROM PILOTAGE) BILL [H.L.]
Considered in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
POOR LAW BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
CONSTABULARY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Considered in Committee (according to Order): kill reported without amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
*On the Motion "That the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,
*LORD NORTONmoved to leave out "now," and add at the end of the Motion "this day three months." He deprecated the proposal of the Bill, which was to allow any three members of a School Board to hold conferences, the expenses of which would be put upon the rates. Not only that, but they might make an annual institution of these meetings He believed that the secret of the success of the country lay in its distribution of self administration, but unfortunately the tendency of the different boards and councils was not to attend to their business as executive bodies but to turn immediately to talking and discussing. Every body, it seemed, must make itself a little Parliament. That this tendency was growing was shown by many instances such its the school teachers forming themselves into a guild, told even the Inspectors of the Education Department debating within the walls of their office. What was almost new in this Bill was the proposal to charge the expenses of these conferences upon the public taxation. As it was the charges made by the School Boards on the rates were increasing with rapidity every year, and now they were to have power to make a new kind of charge for discussions of the business assigned them by Parliament. It might be asked why School. Boards only should have this privilege, and not managers of Voluntary Schools also. The School Boards had got a Government Bill which had slipped through without anyone knowing anything about it, and if similar bodies could get voting power enough to get themselves attended to by the Government they would take the hint given them by the Bill. The expense to the rates was not so mischievous as the principle. They did not know the liabilities they were incurring from day to day while secret official conferences were going on. It was detrimental to the public service that these bodies

1207
should be perpetually conferring secretly, "and sharing with the Department the responsible authority of Parliament. They did not know how far these administrative bodies warped the judgment of Government, and trenched on the functions of Legislatures. It was useless to hope to extinguish this Bill this year. But he was glad of the opportunity of calling attention to the Bill, for he was perfectly certain the secret of success of the Bill in having reached the present stage was that none of their Lordships and none in the other House knew anything about it.
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord JAMES of HEREFORD)said his noble Friend the Lord President had asked him to express the hope that the House would allow the Bill to proceed. The Bill had passed every stage in the other House and he was not aware that Government Bills slipped through as his noble Friend suggested without being subjected to criticism. The noble Lord had drawn an exaggerated picture of extravagance. The whole of the expenses that could be incurred under the Bill was probably not more than that of three persons attending a conference once a year. Similar power had not been conferred on Voluntary Schools because they had the power already. They could pay these expenses out of voluntary funds without any statutory enactment. But in the case of rates regulated by Parliament even a small sum could not be paid out of the rates without a Bill being introduced. In the opinion of the Education Department, these conferences were of great utility, and the expense was infinitesimal.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDsaid he was in favour of the Bill and of the conferences too. School Boards could not send more than three representatives to a conference, but in the Bill there appeared to be no limit of the number of conferences to which they could be sent in a year. It should be provided that no School Board should make any payment under the Act for more than one conference in a year. Unless there was some such limitation a School Board could send representatives to 10 or 15 conferences in a year.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORDsaid the point should be considered. Hitherto,
1208
he believed, there had been only one conference a year. The Education Department, however, had full control over the expenditure of School Boards.
EARL FORTESCUEhoped the House would bear in mind that this was not a desirable time to increase the burdens of the ratepayers, inasmuch as through a large part of the country the real property on which alone the rates were a burden had enormously depreciated in value. It was not undesirable that the House should interfere for the protection of the ratepayers who were also taxpayers from additional burdens—he did not say for purposes absolutely undesirable, far from it, but which did not seem so urgently required as to justify the imposition of additional burdens on the kind of property which had been particularly depreciated in value. How it should have passed the House of Representatives which was generally pretty vigilant in protecting the pockets of the people, or at least had the credit of being, he could hardly conceive. But as School Boards had now ever since 1870, somehow or other managed to get on more or less well, frugally or extravagantly as the case might be, it did not seem unreasonable that they should continue for one year longer to discharge their duties, without imposing this additional burden through a great part of the country on a deeply suffering interest. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid he felt some doubt whether the Education Department had power to limit the number of conferences for the reason that the enacting part of the Bill said "the reasonable expenses of the Members of the Board may be paid in attending any conferences." There should be power to limit the number of conferences, and so check any undue expense.
LORD NORTONsaid that as the matter was to be considered by the Report stage of the Bill he would withdraw his Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly; reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

NAVAL WORKS BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, to be printed, and to be read 2a on Thursday next—(The Lord Churchill).—(No. 182.)

FINANCE ACT (CHILDLESS WIDOWS).
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will return the duties levied on childless willows On their own moneys during 1894 and 1895, seeing that, by the Amendment in this respect enacted in 1896, the Government have admitted that the levying of these duties in 1894 and 1895 was due to an unjust misinterpretation of Sir William Harcourt's Act, and that, therefore, such return becomes obligatory on Her Majesty's Government, and would form no precedent in the case of future remission of taxation, which might be excessive without being unjust; and to move for a return of the amount paid by childless widows in 1894 and 1895, and previous to the passing of the Finance Act of 1896, which would not have been levied if the Act of 1896 had been retrospective. The noble Lord said the grievance which he wished to bring under the notice of Her Majesty's Government and of the House might be best set forth and explained stating the cases with the details of which he was acquainted, though he had no personal knowledge of either of the victims. The first of these cases was that of the widow of a village doctor married in 1887, who had money in securities, giving her £120 per annum. She had inherited this money from her father in 1882, and had then paid succession duty on it. It was settled at her marriage on her children, with life interest to her husband. Her husband died in 1894 leaving her only a bad debt, but as she was held to have benefited by her husband's death, because her money reverted to her absolute use she had to pay £72 settlement or estate duty in addition to probate and estate duty. He brought this case under the notice of the public, in a letter addressed to the Trading Journal in Feb. 1895, and at that time he exonerated Sir William Harcourt from the intentional injustice of making a widow pay duty twice upon her own money, since
1210
in that letter he said that the Finance Act of 1894 should have been called the Bungling Act rather than the Burgling Act, the name by which it was commonly spoken of at that time. He knew of his own knowledge that many officials at Somerset House declared their inability to give a decided opinion as to the sums that might have to he levied under that Act; so complicated it was. Until 1894 what was popularly called the Budget, used to be called the Appropriation Bill, but in 1894 it was termed a Finance Bill, either in imitation of French Parliamentary procedure, or because of its revolutionary nature and extensive innovations on the old succession duties. In France, however, where these duties were heavy, no duty would he levied upon widows in circumstances similar to those now brought before the House, as he had been informed lately by an official of the Ministère des Finances. The second case was that of a lady who became a widow in 1895. She had had to pay £1,836 estate duty, and £650 for aggregation on a sum of £30, 600, most of which was her own money in settlement and which reverted to her absolutely on her husband' s death. The greater part of this money came to her from her mother, who died in 1866, when £230 8s. 4d. was sold out to pay succession duty and costs There was a special hardship in this case, that the widow was 78 when her husband died, an age at which more rather than less comforts are required, and in the course of nature her money must soon pay duty, when it passed to her relatives, many of whom were needy, and would suffer much by this diminution of her capital by nearly £2,500. This widow's husband was 86 when he died, and his brother who succeeded him is now 86, so that at his death, which cannot be far distant, the estate also will suffer seriously. He represented this case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather more fully than he had done now, giving him names and particulars; and urged that as he ha d amended the Act of 1894 in 1896 with respect to this class of widows, the amending Act ought to have been retrospective, as was expected by the authorities of Somerset House—for he knew that Somerset House had suspended some claims under this head, pending the passing of the Act of 1896. In his reply the

1211
Chancellor of the Exchequer informed him that the question of making the Amendment retrospective was fully considered, but that he could not find any precedent, and that he could not make one for the reason that although in this particular matter the amounts paid or due might not be large, and therefore the sum to be remitted under retrospective legislation would not be great, yet in most remissions of taxation the contrary would be the case, and a single precedent would be quoted so as to hamper any Chancellor of the Exchequer in any desire to relieve the taxpayer. He submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he submitted to Her Majesty's Government, that this argument confused and confounded excessive taxation with unjust taxation; or, as he preferred to describe it, an unjust levying of a tax through misinterpretation of the Act of 1894. It was due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that a few days ago he told him that his concession to ship-owners of a drawback on coffee taken on board for the consumption of the crew, was an instance of claims that might be made upon him if he admitted the precedent of a return of the widows' money. He submitted that this concession could not give any claim to a drawback on past shipping of coffee not intended for exportation. The cases were in no way similar. Shippers might have bought coffee in all the ports of Great Britain; the widows were few in number, and their payments easily ascertained in Somerset House; and they had a moral claim, which the shippers had not got. This concession of drawback might lead to a trade in coffee before a ship left port, entailing more trouble on the coastguard. The view that the levying of duty on widows was due to misinterpretation was borne out by the fact that Sir William Harcourt did not oppose the amending Act of his successor in 1896. If he was wrong in denying that Sir William Harcourt had foreseen and did not intend this injustice, he could be contradicted by any of the noble Lords, his former colleagues. He maintained that Sir W. Harcourt was up to the last moment unconscious of the effects of his Act, for when the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved his Amendment in regard to this matter, Sir W. Harcourt asked for an explanation of the clause; and
1212
Mr. Gibson Bowles replied that the object of it was the reparation of an oversight in the right hon. Gentleman's own Act. Sir W. Harcourt followed Mr. Bowles, and he did not contradict him, neither did he oppose the amending clause, but he said that Mr. Bowles could not understand the difference between Succession Duty on what a man got, and Estate Duty on what a man left. This is the Radical view of the Finance Act of 1894, of punishing a man after his death for being rich. If Sir W. Harcourt's political friends wished to exonerate him completely, they ought to support his request to Her Majesty's Government, for Sir W. Harcourt had passed away into political purgatory, and it was for them to take him out of it. It made little difference to the widows who had suffered or to the public at large whether they suffered through the injustice of the Act of 1894, or through its misinterpretation. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the action of the law in 1894 and 1893 was unjust, and he had proved this belief by his amending Act. Those Members of Her Majesty's Government who held the doctrine of continuity of government, were thereby bound to admit the solidarity of their Government with that of their predecessors, and whilst maintaining· an Act of their predecessors, were bound to repair the damages mid pay for the breakage occasioned by it; especially so when the Act was only passed two years before, CP d the amount to be remitted was admitted to be small. At any rate the Government was responsible for the acts of the permanent officials. The recent language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Mansion House favoured this view. He there stated that,—
"generally speaking, our revenue was easily raised, because our system was based on sound economical principles. The credit of this, if it were due to anyone, was due to a long succession of distinguished predecessors of his, who had pursued a consistent financial policy."
This statement of his obligation to his predecessor for filling his coffers, was not quite in accordance with his statement to him that the widows of 1894 and 1895 must blame his predecessor. His predecessor could not rectify the error or the oversight in the Act of 1894, or the misinterpretation of that Act; the power to

1213
do so was in the hands of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; and his praise of the consistent financial policy on sound economical principles of his predecessor should bind him to rectify a departure by his predecessor from sound economical principles which must include just ice. It was due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mention that he told him that when speaking at the Mansion House he was not thinking of Sir William Harcourt's Death Duties, but of the Free Trade policy of the country; hut his spoken words at the Mansion House covered both sources of revenue, and Sir William Harcourt's Act had had the greater effect in filling the coffers of the Exchequer. Whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer was heedless of the fearful denunciations in Exodus of those who harassed and oppressed widows, he was equally indifferent to the effect which his refusal to do justice must have upon the elections. It was not his particular business to think of them, that was the gene-nil concern of Her Majesty's Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's words at the Mansion House showed how little he was acquainted with public feeling—for he said there that there was no grudging of sums spent on education. Since that the Budget of the London School Board had been presented, and nothing but grudging was to be found in the Press, from the leading journal to the halfpenny papers. A few weeks ago the noble Earl who moved a Resolution with respect to duties on works of Art, called the Chancellor of the Exchequer a grasping Chancellor. From this speech at the Mansion House he should call him a spendthrift Chancellor. The Latin grammar showed that the two characters might be united in the same person, and the sentence in the grammar might be translated: "Greedy of Death Duties—lavish of Education Grants." The Chancellor of the Exchequer lend given him a good reason for not, pressing for the Return mentioned in the Notice. He wrote to him that all the accounts between 1894 and 1896 would have to be examined, probably 60,000 in all. This number of total accounts would cause no difficulty if Her Majesty's Government consented to indemnify the widows, who could then put in their claims. The Chancellor went on to say, "You may safely infer that the duty in question
1214
would amount only to a small sum, but it is the principle and not the cost to which I object." Principle was a word which had lately been rather discredited. It could hardly apply to a refund of money levied on widows, whilst the whole. of the clause was not made retrospective, and nothing was done for widowers, whilst the Income Tax Department was continually returning taxes levied under Schedules B and D. This principle of not refunding seemed to have had its origin in the popular saying "that it was easier to get butter out a dog's mouth than money out of the Treasury "—from which Chancellors of the Exchequer had arrived at an elementary belief that their first duty was never to let go any money that had once entered their coffers. He concluded by asking Her Majesty's Government whether they were determined to retain money levied in 1894 and 1895, the levying of which they declared to be unjust in 18961 It was his private belief that Sir Michael Hicks Beach would be glad if the Government were to put pressure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)observed that he could not give an answer beyond this—that any application of the sort would, no doubt, be generously attended to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being. In that House it would be inappropriate to say anything on the subject further than that the Treasury were always extremely generous anal considerate in every application that was made to them. ["Hear, hear!"]

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA.
LORD LOCHasked whether Her Majesty's Government were yet in a position, upwards of 18 months having elapsed since the invasion of the Transvaal by the forces of the South African Chartered Company, to inform the House if it was the intention of the Government to introduce any alteration in the administrative system of the countries, both south and north of the Zambesi, within the area of the South Africa Company's charter; and, to enable the House to have a full knowledge of the position, whether the Government would lay on tine Table of the House any Reports that

1215
might have been received from Colonel Sir Richard Martin with respect to the present and past manner in which the South Africa Chartered Company had conducted the government of those countries, and also any remarks Earl Grey might have made on any such Reports. The noble Lord said he did not expect nor desire that any answer that might be given him should enter into details with regard to what the future administration should be, but what he was anxious to obtain was an assurance that it was the intention to amend the administration of these countries so that Imperial control should be able to be exercised more strictly than it had been in the past. He had no desire whatever to attack the Chartered Company. They had, he considered, done great service in the past for this country in the manner in which they had extended and added great provinces to the Empire. He thought, however, it was desirable, and it was expected both amongst the English and the Dutch in South Africa, that a greater control should in future be exercised by the Imperial power over the management and administrative authority of the company. It was neither his desire, nor was it in the public interest, that any interference should take place with regard to the commercial and other interests of the company, but they should extend those interests under proper supervision, and he trusted that in the consideration the Government might give to this question, the interests of the company might be preserved by having the power of representation upon the council or legislative body which, he presumed, would be continued in those countries. At the same time the Government should appoint an administrator entirely independent of all local influence and control, so that they might be safeguarded in future, and provided the company was given a proper and sufficiently large voice in the administration of the country through having nominees on the council, he thought such a proposal as he suggested would meet with general approval, not only throughout the South African colonies, but in Mashonaland and Matabeleland themselves. He believed there was a general desire for this representation, the Crown having power to put nominees on the council. It was understood that Mr. Rhodes would
1216
be deprived of all authority and power when he was removed from the directorate of the company, but it would be noticed he had recently been holding meetings with the great chiefs at Bulawayo, and discussing very important questions, as, for instance, that of forced labour. There was considerable difference of opinion as to what forced labour was. It was held by some that labour was only forced when men were compelled at the point of the bayonet to work for wages; and when an agreement was entered into with the chief to supply men and payment was made, that was not forced labour. The distinction was a very narrow one, and within his own experience of South Africa he had had to check the sysem of applying to a chief for the supply of labour, because upon the chief hesitating to do this, action was taken to compel the chief to supply the labour required. That, he considered, was as much forced labour as if men were forced at bayonet point to work. Here was an additional reason why the administrator of this great country should be entirely independent of all control that might be exercised upon him if connected with the company. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would be able to give an assurance that this question would receive their early attention, and that the administration of these vast territories would be brought under the more direct control of the Imperial power, acting, whoever might be the administrator appointed for the purpose, under the High Commissioner.
THE PRIME MINISTER (the Marquess of SALISBURY): My noble Friend who represents the Colonial Office is not in his place, and I can give to the noble Lord only a very summary answer, I am afraid, to the questions he has addressed to us. He will have observed that it was stated last night by the Colonial Secretary that there is no intention of withdrawing the charter of the South Africa Company, but that there were certain modifications it would be necessary to introduce into its substance and working. So far as that we can safely go, and that is about as much as I think it would be possible under the circumstances in either House to state. Clearly the measures to be taken cannot, I think, with any propriety or expediency be explained in either House before they are

1217
actually taken. Therefore I am not able to go into any of the details into which the noble Lord invites me. I am aware of the extreme difficulty of the particular question he has specially dwelt upon; it is a Question which is always the difficulty with all who have to deal with semi-civilised or uncivilised, and especially African tribes. But I cannot do more than give an undertaking, which the noble Lord invites me to give, and naturally expects me to give, that in dealing with the question we shall have the greatest possible regard to the interests of the inhabitants and the principles upon which it has been the habit of the British Government to administer territories of this kind. The question presents difficulties and diversities in every part of Africa, and any hope we have of solving it with Measures which will not produce disturbances and arrest of the progress of civilisation must depend on the care, judgment, and circumspection exercised, and I do not think their effective consummation would be assisted by discussing beforehand the details of measures that are to be adopted. There are, as we well know, very constant, though not easily intelligible channels of communication between this country and even the least cultivated of the chiefs with whom we have to deal; therefore, I am afraid we are obliged to preserve a certain amount of reticence which at another period of our history it was not thought necessary to adopt. I can only assure the noble Lord that the subject to which he has alluded engages the anxious attention of the Colonial Office, and that part of Africa in which he is interested does not yield to other parts of Africa in the enormous increase of the solicitude the difficulties of the problem have imposed on all European Governments, and especially of the Government of this country, in South Africa.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid the noble Lord had not answered the Question in reference to Papers. He believed they had been laid on the Table in the other House.
THE PRIME MINISTER: Of course, they will he laid on the Table of this House, and any Papers we can produce, but I cannot say beforehand what Papers we shall be able to present.

OUTDOOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be Bead 2a on Thursday next.—(The Earl of Denbigh.)—(No. 183.)
House Adjourned at Twenty-five Minutes past Five o'Clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.