Sitting of 11 March 1857

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Glasgow, Walter Buchanan, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Racehorse Duty Act Amendment; Pauper Maintenance; Cinque Ports Act Amendment.

ECCLESIASTICAL CORPORATIONS BILL.

  ORDER FOR SECOND READING DISCHARGED.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, that in moving that the order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged, he wished to say a few words with reference
  2182
  to the objects of the measure. His great aim in this and similar Bills which he had introduced to the House was to secure an adequate provision for the parochial wants of the country. Parliament had on various occasions directed its attention to the subject, and he could conceive none of more vital importance to the country. Without claiming anything exclusive for the Established Church, it was impossible not to recognize the fact that the Established Church was the great engine, the mechanism by which the vital truths of the Christian religion were propagated and supported in this country, and they could not, therefore, exaggerate the importance of making adequate provision for the maintenance of the parochial system. In order to make an adequate provision for that system endowments were required, and it was to promote that object that he had on various occasions introduced measures to that House. The common fund of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been created from time to time, by Acts passed for the purpose, from the property of ecclesiastical corporations aggregate and sole; and, following out that object, the present Bill, which had a double purpose, had been introduced. One of its objects was to transfer the property of ecclesiastical corporations to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the second was that when that property had been so transferred the Commissioners should have the power to make the ulterior arrangements to which it should be subjected. If those transfers could be facilitated means would be found for promoting a very large increase of funds for parochial purposes. He was aware that considerable objections were entertained to that part of the proposal which would leave the management of estates in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but provided the first important step of the transference to the Commissioners could be gained he would be willing, as far as possible, to meet the views of those who objected to leaving the management of the estates in their hands. If by any modification of that part of the Bill a satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at upon the question he would consider himself amply rewarded. He would not detain the House further, but conclude by moving that the Order for the second reading of the Bill be discharged.
  MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he would remind the noble Lord that a Committee sat last year to inquire into the

  2183
  system of management of the estates pursued by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and he believed that it would be necessary to introduce a Bill on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Commission. He put it to the noble Lord, therefore, whether it would not be necessary that that Bill should be carried before they could come to any satisfactory conclusion as to transferring further estates to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he would suggest to Her Majesty's Government the necessity of ascertaining to what extent they would be prepared to carry out those recommendations, and embodying them in a Bill concurrently with that now before the House. The Bill of his noble Friend embraced two points—one the transfer of the estates of ecclesiastical corporations to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and the other to vest those estates in the hands of the Commissioners without a re-transfer to episcopal and capitular bodies of those properties which Parliament had already sanctioned for their use. All the evidence taken before the Committee showed the disadvantage of a compulsory transfer, and the great superiority of a voluntary system of transfer. Five or six corporations, including Cork, Carlow, Gloucester, Chester, and Peterborough, had so acted; and he deprecated the too large and too sudden accumulation of property in the hands of the Commissioners before they had power to deal with it. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Blandford), no doubt, desired a more rapid enfranchisement of Church property. It appeared, however, by the Ninth General Report of the Church Commissioners that between 1851 (the time when the Church Commissioners were appointed) and 1856, the transactions approved of by them with respect to capitular property were no fewer than 827 in number, and the value in fee of the estates exceeded £3,300,000. In 1855 the terms agreed on and transactions arranged amounted to no less than 255, and the value of the fee of the estates amounted to £900,000. The aggregate of the cases dealt with voluntarily had been 10,082, representing property to the amount of £4,200,000. He hoped, therefore, that the voluntary plan would be continued as long as possible, on the further ground that what was done voluntarily was done better than by extraneous aid. With regard to vesting the estates of bishops and chapters in the Commissioners, without
  2184
  power of transfer, he had great objections, he thought they ought to be transferred to the bodies to which they belonged. The Committee, he thought, had justly recommended, that while estates were transferred there should be a power of inspection to secure good management, and an option given to the bishops and chapters to employ the Ecclesiastical Commissioners or their agents in the management of the purely secular business. Considering the connection between the Church of England and the property of this country, he thought it would be well to consider whether Church property could not be managed otherwise than by one metropolitan board. If transferred to such a board, he trusted there would be a power of re-transfer. The noble Lord, he knew, felt a deep interest in the matter, and he (Mr. Walpole) hoped he would forgive his suggestions.
  Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT, &c., BILL.

  SECOND READING NEGATIVED.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. PELLATT MR. PELLATT moved that the Bill be now read 2°.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must express a hope that the hon. Member would not persevere with a measure of such importance, as there was not a chance of carrying it through Parliament.
  MR. PELLATTsaid, that, although he was aware that it was hopeless to proceed with his Bill, yet he wished to be allowed to explain his object, which was to abolish imprisonment for debt in all cases except those of fraud. By a Return which he had moved for last year, it appeared that there were then 1,098 prisoners for debt in England and Wales, of whom 250 were for sums under £6, and some of those persons had been in prison so long as forty years. That caused a great expense to the country. He believed that the metropolitan authorities were favourable to his Bill, and would gladly see it passed. He found that the commitments in London alone were, in 1852, 870; in 1853, 916; in 1854, 1,096; and in 1855, 1,234. Therefore, the commitments were yearly increasing. Then he found that some of the County Court Judges committed at the rate of 50 per cent, and some at 25, so that it apparently depended on the temper of the Judge. If a man, was fined £5 for an assault and he went to

  2185
  prison instead of paying, the imprisonment cancelled the debt; but that was not the case with regard to ordinary debts. After fifty years' experience in business, he could state that he had never received a dividend from the Insolvent Debtors Court, and he never knew anything got by sending a man to prison. The object of the Bill was, that a person who was embarrassed in circumstances should be enabled to go before a Judge, give in a list of his creditors and an inventory of his property, and that he should not be liable to imprisonment unless he had been guilty of fraud. He, therefore, begged to recommend his measure to the consideration of the House. The existing system was peculiarly English, and that of a barbarian and uncivilized nation, treating with so little respect the liberty of the subject. He hoped the matter would be better considered in another Parliament. His object was to prevent a debtor, not being a fraudulent one, from being treated worse than a criminal.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that after the hon. Member had begun by allowing that the Bill had no chance that Session, he hoped that he would not persevere in his Motion.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, he would advise the hon. Member to withdraw his Motion; but at the same time he thought that the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary ought to state the intentions of the Government with respect to the consolidation of the laws of bankruptcy and insolvency. For the purpose of calling attention to the subject he should vote for the second reading of the Bill if pressed to a division.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had said nothing against the principle of the Bill, but under the circumstances he thought that it should not be proceeded with.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he hoped that the law of England and Ireland on the subject would be assimilated.
  Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and negatived.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee of Supply, Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
  (1.) £21,049,700, to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills, agreed to.
  (2.) £1,553,200 Civil Services (on Account).
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Mr. Fitz-
  2186
  Roy, I am not quite clear whether I am right in apprehending that the Vote on account for education is included in this sum. If that is the case, I am desirous of making a few remarks in consequence of what fell, in my absence, from my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) in his address on the expenditure of the country last night. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman expressed very considerable dislike of the growing amount of these annual Votes for the purposes of education. Now, perhaps, it might be some surprise to that right hon. Gentleman if he were present, and it may be a surprise to many of those who hear me, when I say that I entirely concur in the opinion he expressed, and, if a discussion had taken place upon the Bill which I introduced, it was certainly my intention to state my very strong objection to the growing amount of these annual Votes for education, and more especially with respect to the manner in which they are applied. It was truly said last night that this is a very popular question, and it is considered a very popular thing for the House of Commons to vote large sums for education. In some respects, no doubt, that is a very desirable course. It is a course very acceptable to many hon. Gentlemen in this House, because it affords a very easy retreat from the difficulties surrounding the question of education, and it is very satisfactory to those—who I believe are more numerous than they profess to be—who do not wish to see any progress in the education of the people. But I hold that the House of Commons has a duty beyond that of voting large sums of money for any object, however desirable in itself. It is our duty to take care that when these sums are granted they are wisely and beneficially expended. I shall not, however, now detain the Committee by going further into the subject than simply to say that if I have the honour of a seat in the next Parliament, when these grants come under the consideration of the House, I think I shall be able to show that these annual and growing grants for education involve a wasteful and extravagant expenditure of public money, without any; adequate benefit to the country, I should, therefore, have been prepared, had I been in my place last night, to express, to that extent, my concurrence in the views of the

  2187
  right hon. Member for the University of Oxford. But at the same time, if I am correctly informed with respect to what fell from my right hon. Friend, I understand that he went on to say that while he would check these annual grants by Parliament he would not provide any equivalent in any other way, but that he would trust the education of the people solely and exclusively to voluntary exertions. Now, Sir, to any such plan as that, from whatever quarter it might proceed, I should entertain the gravest objections, and I wish to take this opportunity of stating that I cannot protest in terms too strong or too emphatic against; a course which, in my humble judgment, would be an abandonment of one of the first duties of this House, and a neglect of the highest interests of the people. The House may depend upon it that what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly true—namely, that, as the Minutes of Council now exist, these grants, large as they are, will go on gradually increasing; and I believe the time is not very distant when they will amount to as much as £1,000,000 instead of £500,000 as at present. I trust I may succeed hereafter in convincing the House that if they are pledged to these great and growing grants they are no less pledged by public duty and prudence to take far greater securities than any we now possess to insure a wise, prudent, and beneficial expenditure of such considerable sums. I deeply regret that the course of public affairs has prevented me from raising the discussion I had hoped would have taken place upon the Bill which I had the honour to introduce. Under present circumstances it is impossible to proceed with that Bill; but I will express my earnest and sanguine; hope that the discussions which have taken place on this subject in the present Parliament will not be without their fruits, and that the Parliament about to assemble will be prepared to bestow that earnest and anxious attention upon this important question to which, from its bearing upon the interests and welfare of the people, it is eminently entitled.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I fully agree, Sir, with the right hon. Baronet that this subject is one which cannot be adequately and properly discussed at the present time; and I regret, therefore, that he has taken this opportunity of expressing so decided
  2188
  and so unfavourable an opinion with regard to that system which has hitherto received the sanction of Parliament, under which, from the grants placed at the disposal of the Executive Government, extensive and useful assistance is afforded to existing schools, without any interference in the management of such schools, or with the religious creeds taught in them. The real question at issue between the right hon. Gentleman, and I may almost say—judging from the expression of opinion last Session—the majority of this House, is whether the system of assisting existing schools by grants placed by Parliament at the disposal of the Executive Government should be continued, or whether those grants should be superseded by a general national system of education, supported by local taxation, or by other means. I have on former occasions expressed my sense of the valuable exertions of the right hon. Baronet in the cause of education; but I think, judging from the feelings expressed in the country and in this House, Her Majesty's Government would not have acted wisely or judiciously in proposing to Parliament, during the present Session, any Bill for the establishment of what is called a general system of national education, superseding the system now in force. In the Bill which the right hon. Baronet intimates his intention of proposing to the next Parliament—
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken; I did not express such an intention.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Well, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to bring the subject under the consideration of the House in the course of the next Session, and we shall then have to decide between the two systems. I differ entirely from the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the Parliamentary grants have been administered in a manner which has not tended to promote education. I believe they have given a great stimulus to education throughout the country, and that it can be demonstrated that very great advantage has resulted from the system at present in operation. I hope that in the next Parliament there will be a general desire to promote the extension of education, whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the means to be employed for that purpose.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he entirely concurred in the observations of the right

  2189
  hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State. At the same time, there was no doubt that persons were entitled to regard this increased Vote with suspicion; and, at all events, to use a common phrase, to see that the country got its sixpence-worth for its sixpence. As far as his information went he was led to believe that those grants had caused the greatest good; for undoubtedly, to a considerable degree, they had stimulated education. Nor could he agree with his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) that abuses had occurred in the distribution of the grants. No abuse, that he was aware of, could be brought forward that was worthy of mention. The real ground of difference between them was owing to the unhappy divisions that subsisted as to the mode in which they ought to treat the question of religion. The majority of that House and of the country were opposed to all the great schemes which had been brought forward, because they saw that they must ultimately resolve themselves into systems of purely secular instruction. On the other hand, however, if the present system had its faults, it had, likewise, secured this great advantage, that it enabled every one, according to his views, to have the truth inculcated upon his children. That was an advantage so great, so essential to every system of education, that he had always narrowly watched every scheme that had been proposed, lest it should endanger the principle. For, according to his belief, the question of religious instruction was infinitely beyond all others, and all others must be made subordinate to it. If he had a seat in the next Parliament, he should use his best endeavours in support of it.
  MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he fully concurred in the observation of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that one of the first duties of the new Parliament must be to direct its attention to this most interesting subject. He also concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that while their present differences existed, it was useless to introduce a comprehensive plan of general education. At the same time, it would be the duty of the Government on the assembling of the next Parliament, to take an early opportunity of stating to the House what their views were with respect to the improvement and extension of the existing system, for it was
  2190
  not possible to deny that it was capable of improvement in many respects.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that there would be early opportunities of discussing the subject, as the present Vote included only two-thirds of the Vote for Education, and one-third would yet remain to be voted.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he was quite of opinion with the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that the present system stimulated the cause of education; yet as a free trader he had doubts if any system of stimulant would last. They could only look upon it as a temporary expedient. He looked beyond this, and hoped that the system of the United States and of Scotland, which was a national system supported by voluntary rates, would be one day adopted by the people of this country. That day was far out of sight at present, but still he hoped that it would arrive at last. What they had to do was to aid such institutions as would enable the people to educate themselves. The opinion of the Government had been a judicious one on this important question. He wished them, however, to consider if, without interfering with existing schools, they could not establish some test of progress in education before a child was employed in any labour. A short Bill would be sufficient, insisting on the proof of some kind of instruction, before a child was allowed to labour before a certain age. That proceeding would involve no expense—it would be merely a symbol. If the Government would not undertake it, he himself should propose it if he had a seat in the next Parliament.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I have heard, Sir, with great satisfaction what fell from the hon. Members for Malton (Mr. E. Denison), and Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart), upon this subject. I wish, however, to refer to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State (Sir G. Grey). I did not intend, in any thing I said just now, to imply for a moment that these annual grants have not done a great deal to promote the cause of education; it would be most unreasonable had I advanced any such idea. Neither did I mean to say, alluding to what fell from my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Henley), that there was anything which I could conceive to be an abuse in the present mode of expending the Vote. What I intended to say was, that when we have these grants growing year after

  2191
  year, we are bound to take all reasonable securities that the public shall derive the utmost degree of benefit from so large an expenditure. My idea is, that you cannot ensure the proper expenditure of so large an amount at the hands of a central department without more securities than we now possess, and without something in the shape of local assistance. I also wish to explain that the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong in supposing that I had intimated an intention of re-introducing my Bill in the next Session of Parliament. I think it would be the height of indiscretion for any one to presume so far upon the chances of his reelection to advance such a declaration. At the same time, should I have the honour of a seat in the new Parliament, I shall certainly be prepared to show, as I have said, that the public do not derive an amount of benefit commensurate with the magnitude of this Vote.
  MR. PELLATTsaid, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart), that a voluntary measure was the best that could be proposed, and if what he meant to propose was that the rate should be really voluntary, he should be very apt to fall into the views of the hon. Gentleman. But if it was to be like a poor-rate, which a man must pay whether he could or not, that was not what he understood by a voluntary rate, and he could not fall in with those views. He was sorry to say that he saw no other way of doing it in the poorer districts where people were not themselves able to pay the cost of education; but he could not approve of its being generally carried out. Such measures had the effect of discouraging the national schools, by which a great deal of good was effected; still he could not deny that they had the effect of promoting education. He certainly thought there ought to be a test to which all children under a certain age should be subjected before they were allowed to be employed in any kind of labour, in order to ensure that their education had not been neglected, though he should be very sorry to see such a state of things in force here as in Prussia, where the children were driven to school by the police. But in England the chief difficulty was not that there were not schools enough, the difficulty was to get the children away from their employments in the field and in the factory, the parents being anxious to get all the profit they
  2192
  could out of them. He objected to the present plan, because the aid of the Government had a tendency to be given, not where it should be, to the poorer districts, but to the richer. In his own neighbourhood they had adopted the British system, and it was found to act very well; but the moment these public grants became obtainable, the Churchmen determined on separating, and setting up a national school. Still he would much rather see an annual Parliamentary grant of £500,000, though it might increase at the rate of, say £10,000 a year, than a system of rating which would involve taxation to the amount of probably 5,000,000 per annum. If the people must be compelled to educate themselves, the plan suggested by the hon. Member (Mr. W. Ewart) was by far the best that could be devised. He thought, on the whole, that what was wanted was rather an extension of the existing system than the adoption of any new and general measure.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) would have to weigh well two points before he expected his scheme of education to become law. First, he must consider the amount of the burden which he would impose upon the local rates of counties; and, secondly, the mode in which the fund was to be distributed. He believed those were two considerations that would offer great difficulties to the right hon. Gentleman. He wished to know from the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the Treasury, whether there were not some charges on account of the civil service omitted from the Vote, and if so, upon what principle those omissions were made. For example, he could not discover any charge on account of the Poor Law Commission.
  MR. WILSONsaid, the Vote was intended to include every service for which money would be required during the next three months. If the Poor Law Board was not provided for, it must be that provision had been already made for its requirements. However, he should inquire into the matter. The same rule was followed now as in 1841.
  MR. SPOONER: Does this Vote include any expenditure on account of the Kensington Gore estate?
  MR. WILSON: No.
  Vote agreed to.
  (3.) £1,510,000 Revenue Departments, (on account).
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) was not in his place. That gentleman had spoken on the previous evening of the advantage of that House exercising a control over the expenditure. That he (Sir H. Willoughby) considered cut both ways. Hitherto the departments were entrusted with the responsibility of keeping the expenditure within the capability of the revenue, and now that responsibility was suddenly transferred to the House itself. That was a very heavy responsibility, and he did not think the arrangement so wholly beneficial to the country as the hon. Member for Lambeth appeared to consider. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury, how it was that there was an increase of nearly £15,000 in those Estimates? He observed that of late there had been a silent and very gradual addition to the salaries in the Customs Department. That was a very invidious mode of increasing the Estimates, and the Committee, as far as he could see, had no means of judging of the propriety of these augmentations of salaries.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that the Votes would be laid before the new Parliament in the fullest detail. With regard to the increase in the Customs Department, the Committee must make up its mind to an annual increase in the expenditure of that department. When it was remembered that within the last ten years the quantity of shipping that had entered and left the ports of this country had doubled, the Committee would understand that many more officers were now required for the services of the department than formerly. The expense, therefore, ought not to be grudged by the Committee. At the same time it should be borne in mind that although there might be no increase in the salaries, properly so called, every year the scale was kept revising, as gentlemen ascended in the service, and that of itself was the cause of a slight increase in the expenditure. The great increase in salaries, however, occurred in the department of the Post Office; but then, again, the Committee must make up its mind not to regard the Post Office as a department of revenue. Within the last three years no less than 1,700 district post offices had been established, which would convince the public how great was the expenditure thrown upon that department. The fact was, the public must be content if in future
  2194
  years the Post Office was enabled to pay its expenses.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed; Reoslutions to be reported To-morrow.

INCOME TAX BILL—

  AS AMENDED CONSIDERED.
  On the Order of the Day for the consideration of this Bill being read,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would take that opportunity of giving an explanation as to what passed on the preceding evening with respect to the supposed inadvertent omission of the word "property" in the income tax Bill. He stated at the time his opinion that the Bill as drawn was sufficient, but he did not object to the introduction of the word, and, accordingly, the Bill was recommitted, and the word "property" introduced. He had since referred to the Chairman of Inland Revenue, Mr. Pressly, and the solicitor of that department, and they assured him that the Bill was drawn with perfect correctness; that the income tax was not charged on property, but on rents derivable from property; that in the language of the law rents were called "profits," and, therefore, that the words "profits and gains" as in the Act of 1853 were amply sufficient. He thought it right to give the explanation in order to satisfy the House that there had been no want of care in the drawing of the Bill. The word "property" was, however, quite innocuous, and it did not in any way alter the sense, therefore there was no objection to it, and the Bill would stand as amended. There was another point which he wished to explain. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) made some remarks last night with reference to the succession duty, stating there was difficulty in collecting it in consequence of the want of adequate strength in the department. He was aware at the time that measures had been taken to remedy the evil of which the right hon. Gentleman complained, but he did not like to give an answer without reference to documents, lest his explanation should be imperfect. He could now state exactly what had taken place. A short time ago Mr. Pressly, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, complained of want of strength in the legacy branch of his office, and he told that gentleman he would receive authority to increase the staff on application to the Treasury if such an increase were shown.

  2195
  to be necessary. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the 28th of February made a Report, setting forth the circumstances of the case, and recommending certain additions. They said—
  "Having conferred with the Controller of Legacy Duties on the whole subject, we have satisfied ourselves that, for the combined objects referred to in this Report it will be necessary to increase the Succession and Legacy Duty Department, and this increase is not more than the circumstances fully justify."
  They recommended the addition of one examiner, with a salary of £320, rising by £10 a year to £370; three assistant examiners, with salaries of £250 a year, rising to £300; one clerk, with a salary of £150 a year, rising to £200; and four clerks with salaries of £90 a year, rising to £140. The Report was received on the 2nd of March, and on the 4th of March the Treasury authorized the additions to be made. Most of the appointments had already been sanctioned, and Mr. Pressly informed him that two rooms had been prepared at the Inland Revenue Office for the accommodation of those additional examiners and clerks. He believed he might also add that any application made by the department for additional strength in the Legacy Duty branch had always been attended to by the Treasury. He trusted that statement would satisfy the House there had been no remissness on the part of the Government in giving the department what was necessary for the collection of the succession duty. He might also add that there were certain questions now pending before the Courts on which the collection of that duty to a certain extent depended, and until those questions received judicial decision the collection of the duty must, to a certain extent, be impeded.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he did not think the introduction of the word "property" was of such insignificance as the right hon. Gentleman imagined. Supposing, for instance, a man to derive £150 a year from the "short annuities," surely that was neither "profit nor gain," though it might be "property." Many kinds of property were not included under the title "profits or gains."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Those were the words in the original Act, and no inconvenience has been found to result.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it was rather dangerous to be introducing new terms. It was difficult to say what was
  2196
  "innocuous" until the question was raised. He thought it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether it would not be better to confine the wording of the Bill to the phraseology of the existing law.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he might observe that the term "innocuous" was not his, it was what was used by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue Department.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.
  The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.