Sitting of 4 April 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Middlesex, v. Lord George Hamilton, Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee— Resolutions agreed to (The Financial Statement).
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—North Eastern Railway, 2°*.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Local Government Provisional Orders (Abingdon, &c.)*[142].
Second Reading—Public Works Loans [138], debate adjourned.
Committee—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [44]—R.P.

QUESTIONS.
  ASSURANCE ACT, 1870—ACCOUNTS OF INSURANCE COMPANIES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PEASEasked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the late trial of Blake v. The Albion Life Assurance Society, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a short amending Bill for the purpose of giving to the Board of Trade those further powers relating to the accounts of Insurance Companies which it has been shown the Board of
    520
    Trade wished to exercise, but which the Law Officers of the Crown informed them in 1873 were not conferred by the Life Assurance Companies Act of 1870; and, whether he has any objection to lay before Parliament from time to time, in the form of a special Report, any completed correspondence which the Board of Trade may hold with Insurance Companies on the subject of their accounts, where such accounts appear, in the judgment of the Board, not to be such as the Act of 1870 requires, instead of merely publishing such correspondence in the annual Blue Books, thus avoiding any delay in calling the attention of Parliament to such unsatisfactory statements of accounts, inasmuch as it appears that the attention of the Board of Trade was first directed to the accounts of the Albion Assurance Society as far back as 1873, and they were published then, and for four years afterwards, in the annual Blue Book without note or comment?
    SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the Government have no intention of introducing a Bill for the purpose of giving the further powers referred to in the Question. It appears to the Board of Trade to be more in accordance with the spirit of the Assurance Act of 1870, that correspondence with any companies which they determine to publish should be attached to the statements and accounts laid before Parliament annually, in accordance with the statute, rather than it should be specially laid before Parliament. It must be borne in mind that the Board of Trade have no information beyond the Returns prepared and deposited by the companies themselves, and no power whatever to call for any, and that the principle of the Assurance Act is simply to make the companies' own financial statements accessible to the public—the Board of Trade being merely responsible, as was fully explained in answer to the hon. Member's Question of the 19th of March last, for seeing that these statements are rendered as required by the Act.

  ARMY—THE ROYAL ARTILLERY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that of seven staff sergeants of the Royal Artillery, who have been commissioned

    521
    from the ranks since the 1st November, 1877, only one had seen any foreign service, or had any practical knowledge of the duties of an artilleryman; and, whether all the others had spent the entire or the greater part of their service at desk and office work; and, if so, whether it is the practice of the authorities in raising men from the ranks of the Royal Artillery to have regard rather to the civil capabilities than the professional and military qualifications of those promoted?
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: Sir, there have been only five non-commissioned officers of the Royal Artillery who have been commissioned from the ranks since the 1st of November last. Of these, three have served abroad and are practical artillerymen. The other two are men of great intelligence and have special claims to promotion, and if they have been employed at the desk, as I believe they have, hon. Members of this House will not think they are less deserving of promotion on that account. With reference to the apprehension expressed by the hon. Member for Meath that in making promotion in the Royal Artillery the military qualifications of the men are less considered than their civil capacity, I can assure him that such is not the case. The men are promoted on their merits, and, as far as possible, no class of good service is overlooked.
    MR. PARNELLasked, Whether any of the men referred to had seen foreign service?
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he had already stated that three had seen foreign service; they were proved artillerists.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CON GRESS.—QUESTIONS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in the communications with the Russian Government, which have lately been presented to Parliament (No. 24, 1878), it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reserve to themselves the liberty of withdrawal from the Congress upon the proposal, by way of amendment of the Treaty, or otherwise, to discuss any matter of which they might hold the discussion to be inadmissible, and without sharing in, or waiting for, the discussion itself?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I confess that when my right hon. Friend gave Notice of this Question the other day, I did not very clearly understand it; nor can I, indeed, now say, after having given to it considerable subsequent consideration, that its meaning is quite clear to me. It looks rather like an argumentative Question, and I should not be in Order by answering it with anything in the form of an argument. If it is merely a Question as to fact; as to any reservation on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in their communications with the Russian Government, as to their right of withdrawal from the Congress before discussing any matter of which they might hold the discussion to be inadmissible, I do not think there is anything in this Correspondence which touches upon such a question. The Correspondence between the Government and the Russian Government has reference solely to the desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to have a fair and distinct understanding, that if they entered the Congress every Article of the Treaty will be placed before the Congress.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to speak in order to explain the Question, I should be glad to do so. ["No, no!" and "Order!"] I say with the permission and indulgence of the House. [Cries of "Order!"] I shall not touch on any argumentative matter. This is a question to which I attach the greatest importance, and this is the reason that I ask that indulgence may be given me. [Loud cries of"Order!"] When hon. Gentlemen think I am trespassing, I have no doubt they will avail themselves of opportunities not unknown to them to signify their views. I may have misunderstood the effect of the Correspondence itself, and what I propose to say will, perhaps, enable the Government to set me right. The quarrel between the Russian Government—["Order!" and "Oh! "]—the difference between Russia and England upon which, for the present, the Congress has terminated, has arisen in this way. That the Russian Government—["Order, order!"]—that the Russian Government had admitted the right of every Power to raise whatever question they pleased; that that Power might please—["Order!"]—but

    523
    claimed for themselves, if I understand it aright—
    MR. ROEBUCK: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether for any single Gentleman, however powerful he may be, to bring on a discussion under the privilege of putting a Question, without some Motion or other before the House, and without any other Member being able to make any remark, is in Order?
    MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, I have to say that when the right hon. Gentleman, on rising, said he desired to give an explanation in order to make his Question clear, so far he was entirely in Order; but I am bound to add that some of the right hon. Gentleman's subsequent observations related to matters which were rather for debate.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I appealed to the indulgence of the House, and did not wish to make any claim at all of right when I asked to make an explanation. I knew I had no claim otherwise to trespass on its time. But as you, Sir, have ruled against me, perhaps I may be permitted to put the matter thus—Does Her Majesty's Government propose to leave to the Russian Government the same liberty of withdrawing from the Congress at such period as it may think proper in and during the discussion, as it claims and intends to do for itself?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I understand it to be a matter of course that any Power could have the right of withdrawing from the Congress, and therefore it was of importance that Her Majesty's Government should ascertain before going into the Congress, whether certain matters were or were not to be treated as inadmissible, and as necessarily leading to the withdrawal of the Powers. That was why Her Majesty's Government put the question, with the view of ascertaining whether the whole of the Treaty would be put before the Congress. But I am afraid it is impossible for me to give an answer to my right hon. Friend, without entering into an argument, which would not be convenient to the House, or perhaps altogether in Order.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will take the opportunity of considering whether I shall raise the question on going into
    524
    Committee of Supply to-morrow, with the view of defining the ground of discussion when we come to the general discussion. I now beg to ask the further Question of which I have given Notice—namely, To ask Her Majesty's Government, with respect to the proposal of Germany, made on the 15th of March, that a preliminary Conference should be held at Berlin to settle the course of procedure at the Congress, Whether the refusal of Her Majesty's Government, on the following day, to discuss that proposal so far as the point in dispute was concerned is to be considered as absolute; and, if so, whether they can conveniently state the reason for that refusal?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The despatch of Lord Derby dated the 16th of March (No. 13) seems, I think, to answer the Question. The proposal having been made by the German Ambassador, Lord Derby says—
    "I told his Excellency that so far as related to the question immediately before us—namely, the competence of the Congress to discuss any part that it might think fit of the Russo-Turkish Treaty, I saw no advantage in the preliminary Conference which was proposed. Her Majesty's Government had publicly and frequently expressed their determination not to go into Congress, unless this point were conceded; and I could not hold out the expectation that they would be induced by any amount of discussion to alter their decision. As regarded the question of a preliminary Conference generally, I was not in a position to express a positive opinion, though much inclined to doubt its probable usefulness. On that subject I should prefer to wait for further explanations as to what were the questions intended to be dealt with in this manner, and why it was thought better not to reserve them for the meeting of the Congress."
    The points which are put by my right hon. Friend are answered in that despatch.
    MR. FORSYTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether application has been made to the Governments of Germany, France, and Italy to permit the Correspondence with them relative to the meeting of the Congress to be made public; and, if so, whether those Governments, or any of them, have refused such permission?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend and the House would excuse him from answering that Question. It was scarcely consistent with the spirit

    525
    of the answer which had been given, that Her Majesty's Government did not feel at liberty to publish confidential Correspondence, for him to answer the Question.

    ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870— SCHOOL INSPECTION.—QUESTION.
    MR. O'REILLYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether (under 31 Vic., c. 25, s. 6), when satisfied by the report of the inspector that a school is fit for the reception of a certain number of children, he so certifies; and, if he limits the number of children for which he certifies the school in any other way; if so, under what section of the Act he does so?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, according to the interpretation of the Act, which I am advised is correct, and which has been acted upon by my Predecessors, the duty thrown upon the Chief Secretary is not to certify the number of children a school is fit to receive, but only to certify the number to be paid for by the Treasury. It is not within my province to limit in any other way the number of childen for which a school is certified.

  CHINA—OUTRAGE AT HONG KONG.

    QUESTION.
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been directed to a recent outrage committed under the regulations of the Chief Inspector of Police at Hong Kong, which is now forming the subject of inquiry by a Commission appointed by the Governor; and, if he will cause special investigation to be made as to the manner in which the Revenue derived from licensing houses of ill-fame is raised and expended for the service of the colony?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, my attention has been directed to reports of the occurrence alluded to in the first part of the hon. Member's Question, which are now being inquired into by a Commission appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong. I do not think any opinion can properly be expressed on the subject until that Commission has reported, and its Report has been received and considered. I think
    526
    the hon. Member is under some misapprehension as to the amount of the revenue mentioned; but the Commission will doubtless inquire into the point, and I will take measures to secure that they shall do so.

    THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CON GRESS.—QUESTIONS.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any Despatch has been received regarding the proposed Congress or Conference, or whether negotiations have been in any other manner continued or re-opened with that object in view since the receipt by Her Majesty's Government of the Despatch of Count Schouvaloff (No. 19 of Papers 24), dated 26th March?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir, there have been no further negotiations.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any answer, and what answer, was made by Her Majesty's Government to the Despatch from Vienna of March 14, rehearsed in Lord Derby's Despatch, No. 9 of Papers 24, especially as to the proposal that the majority of members of the Congress should determine ("Europe will decide") as to what stipulations in the Treaty affect European interests, and that the questions themselves should also be determined by the majority?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that no answer was made to the telegram referred to. He did not understand that the proposal of which the noble Lord spoke had ever been made; and such a principle had never been admitted, and never would be by any Government.

  THE RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.

    QUESTION.
    MR. M'LAGANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been called to an official statement recently made, to the effect that
    "it would not be easy to provide any substitute for the passenger duty as at present levied which would not operate unfairly and unequally upon the different Companies;"
    and, if so, whether this statement is to be taken as a correct expression of the

    527
    latest views of the Government with regard to any amendment of the provisions of the Law relating to that duty?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the observation referred to in the Question, recently made by Lord Henniker, was not to be regarded as a complete statement of the views of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject, but merely as an expression of opinion on one part of the case.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—RUSSIA— RETROCESSION OF BESSARABIA.

    QUESTION.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can make any further statement respecting the "trustworthy person" alluded to by Sir Henry Elliot in his Despatch of March 23rd, as having communicated to him the declaration made by Prince Gortchakoff respecting the retrocession of Bessarabia?
    MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, he had told the House yesterday that the trustworthy person alluded to was the Roumanian agent at Vienna. The right ton. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, and the right hon. Member for Greenwich, asked yesterday who was the intermediary—the agent at St. Petersburg or the agent at Vienna. As far as he (Mr. Bourke) could gather from the telegram, the transaction stood thus—Prince Gortchakoff made the statement to the Roumanian agent at St. Petersburg, who reported it to his Government, and the Roumanian Minister for Foreign Affairs reported it to the Roumanian agent at Vienna, who was the trustworthy person referred to. He trusted soon to be able to place a Despatch on the Table of the House which would place the matter in the clearest possible light.

  H.M.S. "BEAGLE"—JUDICIAL POWERS OF NAVAL COMMANDERS—EXECU TION OF A NATIVE OF TANNA.

    QUESTION.
    DR. KENEALYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any measures have been taken, or are contemplated by the Admiralty, to bring to trial Lieutenant Gaffin, of Her Majesty's ship "Beagle," and Lieutenant Pugh, of Her Majesty's schooner "Renard," for the
    528
    execution, under form of Law, of Nokwai, a native of Tanna, on the 25th of September last, on board the said ship "Beagle?"
    MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, it would be in the recollection of the House that the Admiralty had called for further information in reference to the matter, and they were informed that such information was on its way to this country. Until it was received, he did not think it right to make any further statement on the subject.
    DR. KENEALYgave Notice of his intention to draw the attention of the House to the matter on going into Committee of Supply. He wished before framing his Motion to ask, when the answer of Commodore Hoskyns might be expected?
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the document left the Australian Station on Monday last, and it might, therefore, be some five or six weeks before it reached this country. When received, the answer, together with the despatch to which it was an answer, would be laid on the Table of the House.

  THE SUGAR CONVENTION, 1877.

    QUESTION.
    MR. WAITasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Government of Holland have declared their inability to accept the provisions of the Draft Convention of March 1877 on the Sugar Question, and their regret that they can find no basis for an International arrangement?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, the Netherlands Government have declared their inability to carry out the draft Convention of last year, on the ground that they find it impossible to overcome the opposition of the Second Chamber of the Netherlands Legislature to refining in bond. Under the circumstances Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the Governments of France and Holland as to the course which it will be expedient to pursue.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1876— SCHOOL CERTIFICATES OF BIRTH.

    QUESTION.
    SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Vice President of the Council, If he can

    529
    now give the substance of the promised Minute with regard to the means of obtaining a certificate of birth for the child's school-book., as required by the Education Act of 1876; and, whether any arrangement is possible whereby a parent may obtain a duplicate certificate without extra charge?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I am glad to be able to give my hon. Friend a Minute which we have drawn up on this subject, and which will be laid on the Table of Parliament immediately. It is as follows, though perhaps some words may be altered. As we have inquiries from all quarters about it, I had, perhaps, better read it—
    "The usual form of the child's school-book will continue to be distributed by the Department; but in cases where the local authority think fit to dispense with the registrar's certificate of the date of a child's birth, it shall be lawful for the local authority, on the production of a baptismal certificate, an extract from the vaccination register, or such other evidence as they may consider sufficient, to direct an entry of the child's age to be made in the child's school-book, under the hand of their clerk, or other person specially deputed for the purpose, such as a school manager, teacher, or other responsible person resident in a school district. The entry when once made must not be altered. It shall not be competent for the local authority to insist upon the production of the registrar's certificate of birth when the managers of a school offer reasonable evidence of the age of the child, unless the local authority be prepared to pay the cost of procuring the registrar's certificate."
    As to the second part of the Question, it seems to me worthy of consideration whether a parent should not receive gratuitously, on the registration of the birth of his child, a copy of the register, something in the nature of a counterfoil. Any arrangement of this kind, however, would have to be made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board. I have no doubt that if my Successor in the Education Department thinks the plan worth suggesting, it will receive every consideration at the hands of my right hon. Friend.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS.—QUESTION.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYD (for Lord FRANCIS HERVEY)asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Education Department can make arrangements, in accordance with the usual practice in London, for the publication of the num-
    530
    ber of voters recording their votes, as well as of the number of votes polled, for each candidate at School Board elections?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, the question of the publication of the number of the voters recording their votes as well as the number of votes polled for each candidate during a school-board election is one well worthy of consideration, especially when it is brought forward by one who has such a thorough knowledge of educational subjects as my noble Friend the Member for Bury, and when the practice has been adopted with considerable advantage in London. The matter has been under the consideration of the Department. I cannot yet say what course they will feel themselves able to adopt about it, but I have no doubt that my Successor in the Office will give the subject his best consideration.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—RELI GIOUS INSTRUCTION.—QUESTION.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Education Department can arrange that religious instruction may be given in the class room of a public elementary school to separate classes or divisions of the school, either at the beginning or end of the meeting, even though the other classes of the school may be then receiving secular instruction?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, serious complaints have been made to us that the religious instruction of the schools has greatly suffered from the rule that the children of all ages should receive such teaching at the same time, and it has been felt a grievance that managers and others interested in the welfare of the children should be unable to give such teaching on any day when the school is open to any separate class of the school, at any of the various periods permitted by the Act of Parliament, without obliging the whole school to be under similar religious instruction. We have given our best consideration to the matter, and we hope to be able to arrange that, provided that at each meeting of the school secular instruction is continuously given for the prescribed number of hours, by or under the immediate superintendence of the head teacher, and that there is a class-room separate from the main school-room, the

    531
    hours of secular instruction need not be the same for the whole school, and that religious instruction may be given in the class-room to separate classes or divisions of the school, either at the beginning or the end of the meeting, according to the provisions of the Act. If we did not make some such arrangement as this, I believe that we should be going against the wish of Parliament that, while all the provisions of the Conscience Clause should be maintained in the strictest manner, no impediment should be raised by the regulations of the Education Department to the religious teaching of the children of the country, the paramount importance of which has been acknowledged by all parties in the State.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—GRANTS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PELLasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the loss of grants in the case of elementary schools compelled to engage an uncertificated teacher on the understanding that he or she obtained the certificate within 12 months; and, whether he can suggest any means of mitigating this grievance?
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, our attention has been called from several quarters to what certainly appears a real grievance, and we have endeavoured to meet the difficulty by a Minute, which I hope will shortly be laid upon the Table. Perhaps the simplest way in which I can explain the matter is by giving a sketch of the Minute, which will probably be to the following effect:—
    "If the Inspector reports favourably of a school and recommends the issue of a certificate to the teacher without examination, or that the teacher be admitted to examination, the grant may be made, subject to the fulfilment of the usual conditions, for the year then ending, but will not be renewed, unless in the meantime the teacher has passed the examination for a certificate, or has been replaced by a certificated successor."
    I trust this answer will be satisfactory to my hon. Friend.

    EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE LON DON SCHOOL BOARD—RELIGIOUS TEACHING—QUESTION.
    In reply to Mr. A. MILLS,
    VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I have seen with much pleasure the important cir-
    532
    cular to the teachers in the London Board schools respecting religious teaching which has been very recently issued by the London School Board. It is in complete agreement with their former action on the subject, and I believe represents the general feeling of the country. If my hon. Friend will move for the Paper, we will ask for a copy of it from the London Board, and we shall be happy to lay it on the Table.

    THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE CONGRESS.—NOTICE.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow evening, on going into Committee of Supply, I shall inquire, Whether Her Majesty's Government required of Russia that she should undertake, before the assembling of the Congress, not to withdraw therefrom before the discussion of any proposal which any Power may make at the Congress; and, whether they intend to place their own liberty of withdrawal under a similar limitation? If my right hon. Friend chooses to answer the Question now, it will save him and me trouble tomorrow.
  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. PAENELLsaid, he was most unwilling to intervene between the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the present time; but the House had always conceded precedence to questions of Privilege over other matters, in the interest of discussion and debate. He, therefore, ventured to hope that the House would concede to him the same privilege on the present occasion which it had always conceded to individual Members on former occasions. It was with very great regret that he was obliged to draw attention to articles in The Times of March 26, The Globe of the same day, and The Evening Standard of the 29th of March, in which were libels concerning hon. Members of that House in their capacity as Members; and he should move that the language in those articles was a breach of the privileges of this House. Sir Erskine May, in his valuable work on Parliamentary practice, told them that on several occasions libels upon Members of the House had been constantly punished,

    533
    and he (Mr. Parnell) thought he should be able to prove that these articles contained libels upon several Members of the House who were mentioned by name, and that they contained offensive imputations and misrepresentations which were also contrary to the privileges of the House of Commons. Sir Erskine May said, that in order to constitute a breach of Privilege any libel on a Member of the House must be said about that Member's character and conduct in his capacity as a Member; because the remedy for what was said about him as a magistrate, an officer in the Army or Navy, or in his private capacity, could be brought under the cognizance of the Courts of Law. Now, the libels of which he (Mr. Parnell) had to complain had been written about hon. Members in their capacity of Members of this House; and he contended, after certain portions of the articles had been read by the Clerk at the Table, the House ought to determine to punish the editors and publishers of the journals to which he referred. Sir Erskine May stated that on April 22, 1669, it was resolved that the publishing of the names of Members of this House, and reflecting upon them and misrepresenting their proceedings, was a breach of Privilege and destructive of the freedom of Parliament. Although that Resolution was of ancient date, he hoped, as they had a Conservative Government in power, with their respect for ancient institutions, they would be prepared to uphold that Resolution of 1669, and he hoped that the first and last part of the articles would be read by the Clerk at the Table. He would not inflict on the House the whole articles, and he merely asked that the first and the last line should be read, while the rest might be taken as read. He would point out to the House the precise portion of the articles of which he had to complain. It would be within their recollection that on the memorable occasion last Session when he was ordered to withdraw from the House, in order that his Parliamentary conduct might be considered, the Speaker had ruled that wilful obstruction of the Business of the House was contempt of the House. Now, he complained that some of the London newspapers had taken upon themselves to accuse certain Members of Parliamentary contempt, and had thus usurped functions which properly be-
    534
    longed to the Speaker and the House. He also complained, as an unprotected Member, and one who came from a country the Press of which was not represented in the House, that the London newspapers, who were given exceptional privileges, had abused those privileges to the prejudice of Members who came from Ireland. The London Press monopolized nearly all the seats that were set aside for the purpose of reporting the debates; consequently, the Irish Members were placed at a considerable disadvantage with regard to the utterances which they, from time to time, made. Where they were not left unreported, they were misrepresented, and it was impossible for them to set themselves right. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that the matter should be brought under the notice of the House. In The Times of March 26 some criticisms were published with reference to the conduct of certain Irish Members in Committee on the Mutiny Bill. He found it asserted that not only was there a prolonged discussion before the Speaker left the Chair, but in Committee the 1st clause was, with great ingenuity, made the vehicle of weary speeches with regard to the manner in which the country was governed, to the relations between England and India, the means which were taken to suppress the Indian Mutiny, the military arrangements of South Africa, the drift of public opinion in Sunderland, the extent to which individual Members of the Government, or the Government itself, could be made chargeable with breach of faith, and many other topics not having any very clear bearing on mutiny or desertion. He also found it asserted that during the debate, a persistent opposition was made by a small section, and obstruction was as rampant as on any occasion during the last two Sessions. He complained that that article, with that ingenuity for which The Times was remarkable when it was dealing with Irish subjects, had deliberately distorted and misrepresented the facts of the case. It put down to the credit of the Members who initiated the discussion on the particular Amendment in question the whole of what followed. He would first deal with the observations in The Times as to the extent to which individual Members of the Government, or the Government itself,

    535
    might be accused of a breach of faith. That discussion was not initiated by him, but by the the Secretary of State for War. They were then told that the subject of public opinion in Sunderland was brought into the debate, and it was left to be inferred that Irish Members were responsible for it; but it would be within the recollection of the House that the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy) and the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) originated the discussion. But it was to the concluding part of the article to which he wished to call particular attention.
    SIR GEORGE JENKINSONrose to Order, and inquired whether the hon. Member was in Order in bringing this subject under the notice of the House, before he had read the whole of the article alleged to be libellous, and specified the precise libel alleged—so that the House might judge whether any libel or breach of Privilege had really been committed or not—and whether he was entitled to enter into extraneous matters on a question of Privilege?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Meath is bound to confine himself strictly to the question of Privilege which he has brought before the House.
    MR. GORSTalso rose to Order, and asked, whether the hon. Member in bringing before the House a question of Privilege of that kind, was not bound to begin by having the passages of which he complained read by the Clerk at the Table? Should the House, on hearing the article complained of read, be of opinion that they did not constitute a breach of Privilege, they might be saved a long and, perhaps, useless discussion. For his part, he had been listening attentively, and, so far, was unable to say whether a breach of Privilege had been committed or not.
    MR. SPEAKER: The ordinary course under the circumstances is that the article complained of be read by the Clerk at the Table. The hon. Member is certainly exceeding the ordinary latitude allowed to hon. Members in bringing forward questions of Privilege, in making remarks which scarcely appear to be relevant to the matter before the House.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that his charge of breach of Privilege was founded on the decision of Sir Erskine May, who said that libels on Members had been constantly punished; and also on the
    536
    Resolution of April 22, 1669. He did not desire that the whole of the Articles complained of should be read, because they contained a good deal of matter which he did not object to. He had only proposed to read the passages which he maintained were libellous; but as it had been ruled that they must be read by the Clerk at the Table, he would bring them up for that purpose.
    The hon. Member accordingly did so.
    MR. SPEAKER: When an hon. Member complains of a breach of Privilege having been committed by the publication of what he regards as a libel on a Member of this House, he is bound to bring up the newspaper itself in which the article complained of appears. The hon. Member having failed to take that course, and having brought up cuttings from newspapers instead, the question of Privilege which he has brought forward cannot now be entered upon.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that he would bring the newspapers in question as soon as he could procure them, and that he would raise this question of Privilege on some subsequent day.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    WAYS AND MEANS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—COMMITTEE.
    WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, although I hope to be able to render the Statement which I have to make to the Committee as concise as possible, and not to trespass for any inordinate length of time upon their attention, yet as that Statement must necessarily be somewhat complicated, I must request the kind indulgence and forbearance of the Committee while I discharge the duty that has devolved upon me. What renders the Statement I have to make upon the present occasion complicated is, what hon. Members will at once observe for themselves—that is to say, that we have to deal, not only with the ordinary Revenue and Expenditure of the year just closed, and with the Estimates of the Revenue and Expenditure for the year we have just entered, but we also have to consider

    537
    an extraordinary Expenditure arising out of the extraordinary Supplies which were voted last year in the form of a Vote of Credit for £6,000,000, which Vote will affect both the Statement with regard to the finances of last year, and, of course, also the Estimates for the year upon which we are now entering.
    I will, in the first instance, review the finances of the last year, and also give an estimate of the finances of the year we have entered, without reference to this extraordinary Expenditure; and, therefore, I will begin in the ordinary way to which the House is accustomed by stating the Revenue and Expenditure of the year 1877–8. I promised last year, when I made my Financial Statement, that I would supply a printed statement of the items of the Budget. I find that there would be an inconvenience of a serious character if such a statement were printed and prepared for distribution before the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Statement in the House. But what I have done is to have prepared an account which, I think, will be found full enough, and in which the figures that I may have to propose will also be included, which will be moved for to-night, and will be in the hands of hon. Members I hope to-morrow morning, or, at all events, in the course of to-morrow. Of course, it is not to be of use for discussion tonight; but it will be of use in a future discussion.
    Well, now with regard to the Revenue of 1877–8. I am happy to be able to tell the Committee that which I have no doubt they have already gathered from the sources of public information, that the Revenue has turned out very satisfactorily, and that it has fully answered the expectations which I ventured to form of it at the beginning of the year. I was told at the time —though my Estimates appeared to myself and to my advisers to be of a very moderate and prudent character— that they were over sanguine; that we had probably a bad year before us; and that I should be disappointed in the Estimates that I had formed. Well, I certainly was told that with so much authority that I should have been alarmed, if it had not occurred to me that upon every occasion on which I have as yet had the honour of bringing forward a Financial Statement in
    538
    this House similar prophecies had been heard, and had been falsified by events. However, I find that the Customs, which I had estimated would produce £19,850,000, produced the actual sum of £19,969,000—an increase of more than £100,000. The Excise, which is the only item on which I have been disappointed, I estimated at £27,500,000; it has produced £27,464,000. Stamps, which had been estimated at £10,920,000, produced £10,956,000. The Land Tax and House Duty, which had been estimated at £2,560,000, produced £2,670,000. The Income Tax, which was estimated at £5,540,000, produced £5,820,000. The Post Office, which was estimated at £6,100,000, produced £6,150,000. The Telegraph Service, which was estimated at £1,300,000, produced £1,310,000. The Crown Lands, which were estimated at £410,000, produced exactly that amount. The Interest on Advances for Local Works, and on Purchase Money of Suez Canal Shares, which had been estimated at £949,000, produced £949,883. And the Miscellaneous, which had been estimated at £4,017,000, produced £4,064,415. Thus the total Revenue, which was estimated at £79,146,000, produced £79,763,298, being an excess of Revenue over the Estimates of £617,298.
    I should be uncandid if I did not admit that there are circumstances which, to some extent, explain that excess. Within the last week or 10 days an apprehension has prevailed among some classes that there might be an increase of taxation, and persons who were interested in articles upon which they conceived it was possible or probable that any increase of taxation might be made, entered those articles for consumption more largely than would otherwise have been the case. There has thus been a larger quantity than usual of certain commodities—such as tea and spirits—brought into the country within the last two or three weeks. I believe I am not far wrong in conjecturing that about £100,000 increase in the Customs, and that £200,000, or more than that, in the Excise, is due to this fact. It is rather difficult to be certain; but comparing particular weeks of one year with the other, it seems probable that something like £350,000 of increase may be due to that cause. However, it is evident from

    539
    the statement which I have made, that although we have certainly had a very bad year—although I regret to say there has been no rebound from the commercial depression and general uneasiness which prevailed at the beginning of the year—the Revenue has kept itself up in a remarkable manner.
    I will turn from that to the Expenditure. And with regard to the Expenditure, I may state, first of all, that the permanent charge of the Debt was £28,000,000. The Interest on the Temporary Loans for Local purposes was £212, 827; the Interest on some Exchequer Bonds that were raised in order to pay for the Suez Canal Shares was £199, 923, and the other Consolidated Fund Charges were —1,641,585. These items connected with the Debt and the Consolidated Fund Charges amounted to £30,054,335. The Army Charge was £14,607,445; the Home Charges of Forces in India, £1,000,000; Army Purchase Commission, £504,720; the Navy, £10,978,592—making a total of Military Charges of £27,090,757. The Miscellaneous Expenditure was £13,982,553; the Expenditure in the Customs and Inland Revenue Department, £2,688,267; in the Post Office, £3,185,346; for the Telegraph Service, £1,139,237; for the Packet Service, £763,000—making a total charge for the Revenue Department of £7,775,850. Therefore, there was a total Expenditure of £78,903,495, showing a surplus of income over ordinary expenditure of £859,803. The total Expenditure of the year was, as I stated, £78,903,495; the Expenditure of the year before was £78,125,227, and the increase upon the Expenditure of the year before was £778,268. The increase is chiefly due to this cause—the permanent charge of the Debt was £300,000 more than in the preceding year; it has now reached the normal amount of £28,000,000. The Army Charge was £186,000 more; and the Miscellaneous Civil Services were £648,000 more. On the other hand, there was a decrease of £385,000 in the Navy, and of £170,000 in the Revenue Departments. I may say that in comparing the Expenditure last year with the Estimate, it is necessary to decide what Estimates you should compare it with. There are three different periods at which the Estimates are made—the time that the Budget is brought in; the close of the Session,
    540
    when the Appropriation Act is passed; and the time when the last Supplementary Estimates are brought forward at the close of the financial year. When you take into account the total Expenditure as compared with the Budget Estimate, the excess of actual Expenditure over the Estimate is £109,000. But considerable Votes were passed last Session before the Appropriation Act, and the Estimate was £241,000 more than the Expenditure turned out to be. As compared with the total appropriation of the year, the Expenditure was below those total grants to the amount of £765,479. It is always desirable to remind the Committee and the public of that, which, though frequently reminded, they always seem to forget—that there are every year considerable savings upon the Vote of Parliament under the different Heads of Expenditure. It is not, therefore, always wise to take, as some do, the Estimate of Expenditure at the time of the Budget, and then, by adding the Supplementary Votes taken in the course of a year, and deducting the Estimate of Revenue at the beginning of the year, to thus show that there must be a deficit. You must always take into account that which cannot be ascertained until the close of a year—namely, the savings of the year. So much, then, as regards the ordinary Income and the ordinary Expenditure of the past year. But in order to make the Statement complete, it is necessary that I should now mention what is the sum that has been expended out of the Vote of Credit.
    The Vote of Credit, as the Committee will remember, was for £6,000,000. Of that £6,000,000, £3,500,000 has been actually expended. Some further amount has been incurred which I will mention by-and-by; but the total amount actually expended is £3,500,000. The total Expenditure, exclusive of the Vote of Credit, would have left a surplus roundly of £860,000; the Expenditure, inclusive of the Vote of Credit, leaves a deficit of £2,640,000. To meet that Expenditure, the Government have issued Exchequer Bonds, under the authority of the Act recently passed, for £2,750,000, and they have applied out of the surplus Revenue £750,000; so that the £3,500,000 which has been expended on account of the Services for which the Vote of Credit was

    541
    given has been defrayed, partly by the application of £750,000 out of Revenue, and partly by the issue of Exchequer Bonds to the amount of £2,750,000. The Exchequer Bonds have been issued for one year only, so that they will fall due at the end of this financial year in the month of March; and, therefore, it will be entirely with the House to decide in what way these Bonds shall be hereafter dealt with. We thus commence the year 1878–9 with a debt of a temporary character of the amount of £2,750,000. There will be some other expenditure which will be required for the Services for which the Vote of Credit was given. The circumstances which led to our asking for the Vote of Credit at the time were circumstances of urgency, and it would have been inconvenient, for various reasons, to have taken in detail the Votes for the application of the money to the different Services for which the Vote was required; but with regard to the completion of the Services which have already been entered upon, there will be no such reason, and it will be decidedly more proper and convenient that whatever is to be provided in that way should be provided by Supplementary Estimates, which, therefore, will be presented.
    I will now state the Estimates of Expenditure for the year which we are now entering upon. The charge for the permanent Debt will be the fixed one of £28,000,000; the charge for Interest on Local Loans, £425,000; the charge for the Suez Canal Annuity will be £200,000. There will be a sum of £94,000 for the interest on the Bonds for £2,750,000 which have been issued, and a sum of £1,760,000 for the other Consolidated Fund Charges. This will bring these Heads of Expenditure for the Debt and Consolidated Fund Charges to £30,479,000; the issues of last year for that class amounted to £30,054,335. It is more convenient to make these comparisons by classes, instead of by individual items, with which we can deal afterwards. The estimated Expenditure this year is:—For the Army, £15,595,800; for the Home Charges of the Forces in India, £1,080,000; and for the Navy, £11,054,000; making the total of Military and Naval Expenditure, £27,729,800, as against £27,090,757 last year. The Estimate for the Civil Services is £14,816,475, as against
    542
    £13,982,553 last year; for the Customs and Inland Revenue, £2,793,068; for the Post Office, £3,313,215; for the Telegraph Service, £1,114,972; for the Packet Service, £773,245; making the total for these Services £7,994,500, against £7,775,850 last year. That makes the total Expenditure £81,019,775, or £81,020,000, against £78,903,495 last year. The Expenditure is £81,020,000, without making any provision for the redemption of the Bonds that have been issued for the Vote of Credit, or for the Supplementary Services to which I have referred.
    I will proceed now to state the Estimate of the Revenue. Customs last year produced £19,969,000. I estimate that this year they will produce £19,750,000; this is making allowance, of course, for the circumstance to which I adverted last year, when a considerable sum was brought in at the close of the year unnaturally, and of course we lose that sum, which disturbs the comparison of the two years. The Excise, which produced last year £27,464,000, we take at £27,500,000—that is, the full amount it produced last year, with some allowance for increase. Stamps produced last year £10,956,000, and I take them at £10,930,000. Land Tax and House Duty produced £2,670,000, and I take them at £2,660,000. Income Tax produced £5,820,000, and I take it at £5,620,000; the reason for taking it a little lower is, that there was a late collection in the year before last, and it was a comparatively early one last year, so that a larger amount came in within the year than would have been due upon an average of years. The Post Office we take at £6,200,000; the Telegraph Service at £1,315,000; the interest on Advances for Local Works, and on Purchase Money of Suez Canal Shares, which was £949,884, I take at £1,075,000; and Miscellaneous sources at £4,000,000. The whole Revenue, which last year was £79,763,299, we estimate at £79,460,000. Therefore, I am sorry to say I have brought out an anticipated deficiency of £1,560,000, without having made any provision for the extraordinary Expenditure.
    I will not detain the Committee at present by going at great length into the question of the increase of Expenditure. There is no doubt that the increases are considerable; but the

    543
    Committee must bear in mind that, to some extent, these increases are not so serious in reality as they appear to be. In some cases there is an increase on both sides of the account—as, for instance, is especially the case with the charge on Debt—where we borrow money with one hand in order to lend it with the other. Again, it must be borne in mind that some of the increases are increases in charges which have been taken upon the country by the legislation of recent years, and which are in the nature of relief to ratepayers, while involving some addition to the burdens of the taxpayers. Speaking generally, the increase of Expenditure this year upon last year is about £2,100,000; and it is made up in this way—The increase upon the charge for the Debt is about £425,000; the increase upon the Military and Naval Services is £639,000; the increase upon the Civil Expenditure is £834,000; and the increase upon the Revenue Department, £220,000. With regard to the Debt, there is one thing I may point out. The amount to be applied to the charge of the Debt is £28,000,000 every year, and that is provided on this principle—In the first place, all the charges for the interest and management of the Debt shall be defrayed and the balance shall be applied to the reduction of the Debt, and as the Debt is gradually redeemed by the application of these surpluses, of course, the charge for interest becomes less, and, all other things remaining equal, there ought to be a greater amount from year to year applied for the extinction of the Debt. It is, of course, subject to this possibility—that there may be certain increases within the class of Debt which is charged upon the £28,000,000, and any increase of that kind will diminish the portion of the £28,000,000, which will be applicable to the new Sinking Fund. It is always a matter of interest to look to the amount that is paid to the new Sinking Fund; last year it was £764,825; and in the year to come the amount so applicable will be only £684,747. The original Estimate I made was, that this year there would be applicable an amount sufficient to redeem £603,000 of Stock; instead of that we find we shall have £684,000 of cash with which to purchase Stock; that, of course, produces a larger quantity; therefore, so far as the operation of the
    544
    new Sinking Fund is concerned, comparing it with the original Estimate, it is distinctly satisfactory, and has produced a greater effect than was anticipated. But when we come to inquire why there is less applicable this year than last year, we find that it arises in this way—that a larger amount has had to be borrowed in Terminable Annuities. Of course, a larger amount being borrowed in Terminable Annuities reduces the proportion of the £28,000,000 that can be applied under the new Sinking Fund. The new Annuities which have thus been created are as follows:—It has been necessary to provide, first of all, for a half-year's payment on a new Annuity to repay the £l00,000 advanced for fortifications last July; and a small sum has also to be provided for a further Annuity of £35,000, which will probably be required in the coming year. I am happy to say that this balance will complete the amount of the Fortification Grant. But then there is another charge that we have taken on ourselves, and which we also have to meet by Terminable Annuities, and that is for the payment of local barracks. That is a charge which we found existing when we came into Office, and it is one for which provision has to be made. Therefore, that amount of fresh Terminable Annuities has been created. £300,000 was advanced on the 1st of March, 1878, and it is estimated that about £700,000 more will be required in the year 1878–9. Taking these two sums, which involve a charge of £100,000 between them, and adding that which is required for Fortifications and for the Annuities I have referred to, we find that £118,000 will this year be applied to Terminable Annuities more than last year; and that accounts for the diminution of the proportion of the £28,000,000 which can be applied to the new Sinking Fund. I think it is well that we should bear this in mind; because there is sometimes a disposition in some quarters to doubt the operation of the new Sinking Fund. The new Sinking Fund is itself operating perfectly, and with a greater amount of effect than we might have ventured to anticipate. The new charges which are created, and for which we are not responsible, affect the amount so applicable; but they will not disturb the amount of £28,000,000 for the public Debt.

    545
    But, passing from that—which does not really affect the finance of the year, but which is yet interesting as showing the progress of our Debt—I must call attention to a very serious increase which has arisen in the interest on money borrowed for Local Loans. Last year, for monies to be borrowed to meet the loans of local authorities, we issued £212,000, or nearly £213,000. This year we estimate these issues at probably £425,000, showing an increase of £213,000. No doubt, there will be a corresponding increase in the Estimates from the interest of the money that we lend to the various bodies which are entitled to borrow these sums. But the increase is now so rapid, and the amount of the Debt which is coming into existence for this purpose is so very considerable, that I think I ought now, before it is too late, to call the serious attention of the Committee to what is going on. The Committee will, of course, bear in mind that this question of advances to local authorities has nothing to do with the policy that we adopted two or three years ago and that we have carried on since, of placing certain charges which were formerly thrown on the rates upon the Consolidated Fund. That is quite a separate matter, and it has nothing to do with the present question. The subject of Local Loans is one which has been growing in importance for a considerable time; but it has been growing very rapidly, indeed, within the last two or three years. I need not go back to any great antiquity with respect to the Exchequer Loan Fund and so forth; but what I may almost call the origin of the present system of lending was when, some years ago, the Government of the day—I think it was the Government of Lord Palmerston—finding that a considerable pressure was put upon them to expend money in forming harbours of refuge, thought it was the wiser plan to meet the claim that was made by proposing to authorize the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend money to harbour authorities for the purpose of improving their own harbours, and to lend it at a very low rate of interest. I think 3¼ per cent was stated to be the rate of interest at which these loans should be made. That policy was adopted, and it has led, I think, to an advance of something like £900,000 to local authorities for harbours. That is a small matter
    546
    in itself; but the precedent which was then set has been followed in other cases. It was followed in the case of the Education Act of 1870. At that time, in order to facilitate the introduction of the new and very costly system of education which was to be established under that Act, power was given, to school boards to borrow at a comparatively low rate of interest—3½ per cent—from the Public Works Loan Commissioners; and at that time an estimate was formed of the amount which would probably be required. It was, of course, difficult for the Education Department of that day to make any correct estimate of what the total amount might be; but I believe that the sum which the Education Department spoke of, and which the Treasury conceived to be the probable sum, was something like £4,000,000 for England, and another £1,000,000 for Scotland. Well, at the present moment the sum which has been spent by the Education Department amounts, on the whole, to no less than £9,348,000 for England, and £2,221,000 for Scotland, and we are far yet from having an assurance that we have arrived at the end of it. Well, the same principle was carried into effect in the case of the new sanitary legislation. There was a very natural and very proper desire that the sanitary arrangements of the country should be improved, and that costly works should be undertaken for that purpose. But how was the money to be provided? The suggestion was made—and it was embodied in an Act of Parliament—that there, too, the Public Works Loan Commissioners should be called upon to advance money at a moderate rate of interest for the execution of works which had to be undertaken. In that case I think a saving clause was inserted in the Act, and although 3½ per cent was named as the rate of interest, yet words were introduced at the suggestion of the Treasury—who were now beginning to get a little uneasy—to the effect that 3½ per cent interest should be charged, or such other rate as would secure the Treasury from the risk of loss. But in that case, also, there has been a very spirited advance on the part of the local authorities in making demands for sanitary loans. And, again, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he introduced his Artizans

    547
    Dwellings Act, followed suit. The Treasury became more and more paralyzed in this matter, was unable to resist the precedents which had been set, and here, again, we have a large door open for these borrowing powers. To give one instance of the great demands which are made under these Acts, I may observe that last year one town alone— namely, Birmingham, one of whose Members I see opposite, and who, I hope, enforces the necessary economy on his fellow-townsmen—Birmingham, I say, borrowed the best part of £1,000,000 in 1877, and it is asking for something like another £1,000,000 in 1878. I do not for a moment blame Birmingham. I have no doubt that an excellent use will be made of these monies. I have no doubt whatever that the security which is offered is a good security; and I have no doubt that it will be very much for the advantage of Birmingham that that expenditure should be incurred. But, of course, such examples are catching, and we shall very soon find that these demands will go on increasing and increasing with fresh rapidity. And several curious effects will be produced by this. In the first place, the facility of borrowing at so moderate a rate of interest has naturally a tendency to render municipalities more free to borrow and increase their indebtedness. But what is more to be remarked is this—that by encouraging them thus to borrow from the State we are substituting the State as the creditor in the place of the private creditor. Now, of course, there can be no question that these loans are contracted with the most thorough bona fides, and there is no doubt whatever that the State, in advancing them, has a very good security. But if these advances are made for 30, 40, and 50 years, and if they are made—as, possibly, they may be made in some cases—for purposes which should prove to be unremunerative, and should entail a heavy burden on the localities for which the loans are contracted, it is quite conceivable that a time of difficulty may arise, and that pressure may be put on the Imperial Exchequer to consider the position of some of these debts. It will, of course, be understood that I am not for a moment suggesting that anything of that sort is now even dreamt of. I am only looking forward to a danger that may possibly arise.
    548
    But then I may be told that, after all, this business on which the Treasury has entered is a very fair and remunerative one; for although they are bound to lend at 3½ per cent, yet the credit of the country is so good that we are able to borrow at a somewhat lower rate, and we can put the difference into our own pockets; and I think sometimes those who come to us for loans suppose not only that they are borrowing at a low rate of interest, but that they are helping the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a handsome profit over and above; but I am afraid that will not stand the test of experience. There are some remarks which I may venture to quote to the Committee from a paper that has been drawn up on the subject. It answers the suggestion that the interest paid on loans would be covered by the interest received.
    "The Public Works Loan Commissioners only charge interest yearly. They therefore receive no interest within the financial year on the advances they make after the 1st April. But the State has to pay interest half-yearly or quarterly, and in the case of Treasury Bills the interest is paid in advance. Thus the charge on the State has a tendency to increase faster than the interest it actually receives. In 1876–7 the Public Works Loan Commissioners earned by way of interest £542,000, and in 1877–8 £612,000, being an increase of £70,000. The interest paid by the State increased by about the same amount. In 1878–9 the Public Works Loans Commissioners estimate that they will receive £725,000 to £730,000, an increase of about £118,000."
    I have shown that our Estimate on this point is for a possible increase of as much as £200,000, certainly not much less than £150,000. That is an illustration of the difficulties which may stand in our way with regard to these loans for local purposes. Of course, in regard to the interest standing over for a whole year, we propose to get rid of that; but that is only one of those points which will require attention. I wish to point out to the Committee that although our present system is all very well when the rate of money is low, it would not be equally so when the rate of money is high. I have found it desirable to raise a good deal by short loans or Exchequer Bills and Treasury Bills for short periods. But then these loans are made for long periods—40 or 50 years—and, although they may be profitable at first, when the rate of

    549
    money is low, they may be very much the reverse if we have to renew our short bills when money is at a higher rate. There is one remedy—to borrow not by the issue of Treasury Bills, but on Consols at 3 per cent. That is a step to which I see some objection, and I should be sorry to be obliged to take it. I mention these things to the Committee, not because I have any proposal to make at the present moment, but because I wish to draw attention to the subject as one which forces itself seriously on our attention, and from which, if we do not make some provision to secure the public, serious mischief may arise. I should be most unwilling to charge a higher rate than could be avoided for loans to make sanitary improvements, loans connected with education, improved labourers' dwellings, the creation of harbours, and other purposes of that kind; but a hard-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer may find it his duty to take steps to secure that the Exchequer, at all events, shall not suffer. Though I have thus made a little digression on this subject, I do not think the time has been altogether thrown away.
    I will not now go at any great length into the various increases that have taken place in the other Heads of Expenditure. The Military and Naval increases have been explained and voted by the House when the Army and Navy Estimates were before them. With regard to the Civil Expenditure, the increase amounts to £834,000. That increase is due to two causes. It is accounted for partly by the transfer of prisons, and partly by the growth of grants for Public Education. The addition for prisons comes to nearly £600,000. The grants for Public Education are £250,000 more than last year. These are the two great increases. I am not going to discuss their propriety. I have only to tender my account and to meet the charges on me as well as I can. I believe the policy adopted in taking these charges on the State is a sound and correct policy. If they entail an additional burden on the taxpayer, they, on the other hand, contain a relief to the ratepayer of charges which ought not to fall exclusively on him. And it must be borne in mind that, coincidently with relief given to the ratepayers, we are laying new and heavy
    550
    burdens by legislation upon the taxpayers in respect of sanitary and other matters.
    Now, I go back to what I had almost forgotten for the moment, but which must be my leading feature to-night—I go back to the expenditure of the Vote of Credit. What has actually been spent is £3,500,000, and it has been spent in this way—The Army has spent £1,543,000. Out of that about £240,000 has been spent on horses; £1,100,000 on various stores, mining, laboratory, clothing, &c.; £76,000on guns; £48,000 on ammunition; £38,000 on iron shields, &c. The Navy Service has actually spent £1,916,000. Of that, by much the largest part—£1,445,000— has been spent in purchasing ships of war, sometimes with the armament and stores; £144,000 upon means of transport, and £249,000 upon provisions, leaving £40,000 for torpedoes. £38,000 has also been expended in laying down special telegraph cables to keep up our communication with the Fleet. No doubt, hon. Gentlemen will remember that at the time the Vote of Credit was taken considerable uneasiness was felt owing to the interruption of telegraphic communication; and therefore we thought it desirable that steps should be taken to improve and make independent the telegraphic communication between this country and the East, utilizing for this purpose the lines of the Eastern Telegraph Company. Besides these sums the Army has, I understand, committed itself to a further expenditure of something like £500,000, and the Navy to a further expenditure of £200,000. These sums are for services analogous to those which would have been defrayed out of the Vote of Credit if they could have been completed and paid for during the year. They will be made the subject of Supplementary Estimates, and be laid before the Committee.
    Then we have a further question, which is one of greater uncertainty, and that is as to what the expense may be of the step which has just been taken of calling out the Reserves. It is very difficult for me to form any real estimate on this matter at the present moment; because everything depends on the number of the men that may come up, and the length of time they may be kept under arms. But supposing they

    551
    are kept under arms for three months, I take the expense at the approximate sum of £400,000. I also take the extra labour required in the Dockyards during the first part of the year at the sum of £400,000. I have put these sums down rather in order to make a round balance than to give any very correct information. In the present state of affairs, it is impossible to get accurate information. Of this amount £3,500,000 has been already paid, leaving certainly £700,000, and, it may be, some further sum which may, perhaps, bring the total to £1,500,000, to be paid. But of the amount paid £2,750,000 has been borrowed, and must be taken into account in the coming year.
    Well, then, these are the figures which I stand face to face with. There is an estimated deficiency of Revenue to meet the ordinary Expenditure of the year of £1,560,000. There are the Exchequer Bonds which are outstanding, and which amount to £2,750,000, and the Supplementary Estimates, which may be £1,000,000 or £1,500,000. That leaves me to meet a sum of £5,300,000, or of £5,800,000; and now we are to consider how we are to meet it. It was quite understood when the Vote of Credit was proposed and Exchequer Bonds issued for the purpose of the Vote that they should not be raised by one loan. At the same time, we have done all that we could to pay out of the surplus of last year a not inconsiderable portion of what has been spent, and I think we ought to make an effort to cancel that debt, not in the present year, but in the year after—that is, in 1879–80. I think we ought this year to meet the regular deficiency of £1,560,000; we ought, also, to meet the Supplementary Estimate of £1,000,000 or £1,500,000; and we ought, also, to meet some portion of the outstanding debt. I am uncertain what the Supplementary Estimates may be; but I hope, if the Committee will give me the Ways and Means I am about to ask for, I shall be able to extinguish the regular deficit, and to pay whatever the Supplementary Estimates may amount to, leaving a reasonable portion over to be applied towards the reduction of the £2,750,000.
    With regard to the Ways and Means, I will not keep the Committee long in suspense. But there are one or two minor matters which I must first mention. One
    552
    of them relates to the mode of dealing with the House Tax. The question as to the mode in which professional offices are charged to the House Tax is one which my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard), my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), and others are well acquainted with. In certain cases persons who are using their houses for the purpose of carrying on a trade and not as dwelling-houses are allowed to leave caretakers in them without bringing them within the higher rate of inhabited house duty, 9d. That indulgence is not extended to professional offices, and therefore very curious discussions are sometimes raised as to those who may be entitled to caretakers and those who may not, and the difficulty is increased by the circumstance that a house is treated as a whole. Supposing that a house is divided into chambers in which 20 persons may live, it may happen that 19 of those persons are carrying on trades, while one may be a professional person; but the professional person vitiates the whole house, and it has all to be subjected to the higher rate. I hope to be able to meet these two serious inconveniences. I hope I shall be able to introduce into the Bill which is to give effect to the Budget provisions for the purpose of placing professional offices on the same footing with regard to caretakers as trade offices, and thereby to relieve the hon. Member for Peterborough of a difficulty which he feels and passes on to me—namely, to know what is a trader and what a professional person, and also provisions by which separate tenements will be charged as separate houses. With regard to the Income Tax, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) and others have pressed on me to make allowance for the wear-and-tear of machinery. That is a very difficult question, and I will not now enter into it; but it is one which will have to be considered when we have the Bill before us. Considering the way in which ships and railways are treated, and the various matters which are more or less distinctly recognized as subject to depreciation, I think it is fairer and better, and will be more satisfactory, that proper provision should be made for recognizing depreciation in the case of machinery. These two changes will, of

    553
    course, to some extent, though not to a very large extent, affect the proceeds of the House Tax and the Income Tax; but, on the other hand, I have a small addition to propose to another tax, which I think will about balance the remissions on those two taxes—I allude to the tax upon dogs. I will not attempt to go into this very interesting subject; certainly I will not weary the Committee with any great number of the letters I have received on the matter. One writer suggests that a special tax should be laid upon pugs because they are ugly. I beg to say that I do not share that opinion. But what I propose to do is this—in the first place, with regard to the duty, I think it may be fairly raised from 5s. to 7s. 6d. Then there are some other changes which might be made. It has been impressed upon me that the exemption of dogs under six months leads to a great deal of evasion. I am told of persons who keep dogs, and when someone says to them—"That is the same dog I have seen last year," the answer is—"Oh no, my dogs are never more than six months old." I propose, therefore, that the limit of exemption should be reduced from six months to two months. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh; but it is much easier to know a puppy under two months than under six. It is also proposed to introduce the principle that, in the event of any doubt arising, the burden of proof will lie upon the owner of the dog. I have been in communication with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as to the mode in which the tax is to be levied, and I hope that we may be able to make some further use of the police, and also to take precautions which the Inland Revenue thinks ought to be taken to bring a larger number of dogs under the tax. I have not the slightest doubt that the step I am taking would meet with a great deal of remonstrance from the people of Scotland, if I were not able to add that I propose to take the opportunity of dealing with the case of the shepherds' dogs. No doubt there are certain cases in which shepherds' dogs ought not to be taxed. The way in which I propose to deal with shepherds' dogs is that there shall be a certain form of declaration provided upon making which a shepherd or the owner of sheep shall have the right to a licence for one
    554
    dog, and in some cases for two dogs, free of charge. I think the increase of Revenue from the Dog Tax will rather more than compensate for the loss I shall have sustained from the remissions in the case of the House Tax and Income Tax which I have mentioned. The one I put down at £100,000, the other at £80,000.
    And now I must call the attention of the Committee to the position in which we stand, and to the provision which we are to make for the large deficit which I have brought under its notice. I put aside at once—and I think the Committee will agree with me in putting aside—all idea of meeting that charge in any other way than by fair taxation. It would be quite out of the question to attempt to tamper with the arrangement for the reduction of the National Debt. Then, if we are to meet it by taxation, by what kinds? Everyone, I am sure, will naturally think of the Income Tax; and, at the same time, there will be, I believe, a general agreement that we ought not to throw ourselves upon the Income Tax alone. In any circumstances, I think that would be so. But, certainly, the changes we have made within the last year or two in the incidence of the Income Tax with a view to giving relief to a considerable number of persons in the case of that burden must render it more and more objectionable to rely upon the Income Tax as our sole resource. It is, however, one of such immense value that we cannot help taking it into our consideration, and making what I am afraid will be regarded as a very important addition to it. The Income Tax is now estimated to produce for each penny the sum of about £1,800,000, of which about £1,500,000 would come into the year in which it was imposed. Therefore, if we raise the Income Tax by 2d., we shall get from that source an addition of £3,000,000 in the present year; and to this we propose to add an additional duty of 4d. per 1b. on tobacco. I am afraid that it is impossible to select any taxes that shall be altogether unexceptionable; but I think it is better that we should endeavour to meet such a call as is now made upon us by broad and simple proposals which will be efficacious for that purpose, and which, I hope, will not involve any lengthened strain upon the country. At all events, that is the proposal of Her

    555
    Majesty's Government, and they have selected the article of tobacco for the subject of additional taxation; because it is one the produce of which has been steadily rising year by year, and which, in the present year, has produced a very considerable amount more than was anticipated. The present duty on the great bulk of tobacco, unmanufactured and containing 10 per cent of moisture, is as nearly as possible 3s. 2d. per 1b.—3s. 1¾d. I think. It is estimated that the duty on tobacco, raised to the extent I propose, will produce £8,723,000. The gross Revenue from this source in 1876–7 was £7,864,000, and probably the gross increase will be £859,000; but after deducting an estimated drawback, it will be brought down to £759,000. There are various rates, which were settled with considerable care in order to make a just proportion between manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco. We get rid of the fraction. [Mr. GLADSTONE: So that the increase is more than 4d.] It is 4d. and a trifle. That will give £750,000, and in that way we propose to increase the Ways and Means of the year to £3,750,000. I had estimated—and I think probably it was as safe an estimate as I could make—the sum we had to meet at £5,300,000. It might be £5,800,000; but I will take it at the lower sum. Taking £3,750,000 from the sum of £5,300,000, it leaves a remanet of £1,550,000 to be met next year. It may be more. If the expenditure on the Supplementary Estimates should be £500,000 more, it will be £2,000,000 next year, but then we shall have next year a remanet on the additional Income Tax of £600,000; and I think we shall find ourselves in a position which will enable us with very great ease either to meet any debt which might be incurred or to meet any call which might possibly be made upon the Exchequer. I venture to hope that no such call will be necessary. I venture to hope that the country has been wise in time; and that, although the Budget which I have now had the honour to submit to the Committee has been by no means a pleasant one either to frame or to expound, yet it will be received by this House and by the country in the same spirit of patriotism in which they have already voted Supplies, and in which we have endeavoured to make our financial proposals.
    556
    I will now state over again, as is usually done, the balance-sheet of the year—

    ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE, 1878–9.

    Permanent Charge of Debt

    £28,000,000

    Interest on Local Loans

    425,000

    Interest on Supply Exchequer Bonds

    94,000

    Charge of Suez Loan

    200,000

    Other Consolidated Fund Charges

    1,760,000

    £30,479,000

    Army

    £15,595,800

    Home Charges of Forces in India

    1,080,000

    Navy

    11,053,901

    Civil Services

    14,816,475

    Customs and Inland Revenue

    2,793,068

    Post Office

    3,313,215

    Telegraph Service

    1,114,972

    Packet Service

    773,245

    £81,019,676

    ESTIMATED REVENUE,1878–9.

    Customs

    £20,500,000

    Excise

    27,600,000

    Stamps

    10,930,000

    Land Tax and House Duty

    2,630,000

    Property and Income Tax

    8,570,000

    Post Office

    6,200,000

    Telegraph Service

    1,315,000

    Crown Lands

    410,000

    Interest on Advances for Local Works, and on Purchase Money of Suez Canal Shares

    1,075,000

    Miscellaneous

    4,000,000

    TOTAL REVENUE

    £83,230,000

    — leaving a surplus available for meeting deficiency caused by Vote of Credit and Supplementary Expenditure, £2,210,324. The first Resolution which I shall submit to the Committee will be the usual formal Resolution for renewing the tea duty, and then I propose to submit the Resolution for the addition to the tobacco duty. I hope the Committee will be willing to pass the latter Resolution to-night; because if the announcement of that addition were made to the country without steps being taken which will enable the officers of the Customs to charge the increased duty, great loss to the Revenue would ensue.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight,

    557
    until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

    s.

    d.

    Tea

    the lb.

    0

    6."

    MR. GLADSTONE: Of course, I do not rise to make any remarks upon the more substantial and essential parts of the painful Budget which it has been the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring before us, and I am extremely sorry he has been obliged to make his very clear statement under circumstances of great inconvenience, I am afraid, to himself. My right hon. Friend did not mention to us the day upon which he proposes to take the substantial discussion on his plan, but that omission, I have no doubt, he will take care to supply before the House breaks up; and, in the meantime, nothing can be more proper than his demand that we should pass the Resolution to-night about the tobacco duty. There are many Members of this House, who are less accustomed to these matters than myself, who may not be aware that they are not understood to commit themselves upon the merits of the plan by assenting to the Resolution. It is purely a fiscal necessity to prevent loss to the Revenue without any corresponding gain. I rise for the purpose only of making one or two incidental remarks, and some remarks having special reference to that important part of his speech which related to the matter of local loans. But, first, there have been two deviations in the speech from the usual practice which, though they are not of very great importance, I wish to notice. The right hon. Gentleman set out by drawing distinctions in presenting the public account between the ordinary and the extraordinary Expenditure; and from that measure he derives the momentary convenience of being able to speak to us in language always agreeable to hear in this House, that he had a surplus of £600,000 or £700,000. But, immediately afterwards, he was obliged to show us the real state of the accounts for the year, where there is a deficiency, in round numbers, of £2,500,000. I never knew that distinction of ordinary and extraordinary Expenditure introduced before in a statement of public account in reference to charges which are charges of the year; and I doubt very much whether it is altogether convenient. There may be cases in
    558
    which Expenditure is extraordinary; but I do not think that ought to be allowed to come into a statement of public accounts when what is most desirable is to impress upon the minds of the House a leading fact, and that leading fact is that we have a deficiency, in round numbers, of £2,500,000. It is perfectly fair, in comparing Expenditure, that his own expenditure should be carefully separated from the original Estimate; and my objection applies to the introduction of this distinction in the original statement. In speaking of the comparative Expenditure with Estimate, this is a point which I always laid stress upon—the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Expenditure had fallen within the Estimate of account, or gone beyond it, according to the Estimate with which you compare it. I lay great stress on this—that we can only make a comparison with the original Estimate presented, and it is utterly idle for a Finance Minister to tell the House of Commons—"I presented to you certain Estimates in April; but these Estimates were increased in May, June, or July, and it all depends upon which of these standards you take to determine the manner in which the matter should be estimated." Now, the House of Commons, considered as the stewards of the public purse, must reckon with the Finance Minister once a year; and it is totally impossible for this House to exercise any effective control upon any other basis or principle whatever. It is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain all details he thinks fit; but if Finance Ministers are not to compare their Expenditure with the original Estimate, you lose every check over the formation of that original Estimate. He must make the original Estimate, which is to cover every probable expense, the security the House has for making it on a sound and large principle, and that the basis shall be sufficiently broad that he shall present it once, and that one Estimate shall be the standard by which shall be ultimately tried the relation between Estimate and Expenditure. I will now pass from these merely critical remarks to a question which was dealt with in some detail by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I allude to the question of local loans. I was very glad, indeed, to hear what was said by him upon this subject; but I am bound to express my hope that

    559
    in order that we may gain some proof of that portion of his speech, some measure will be introduced by the Government to meet this growing danger. It is, of course, a great benefit to have our attention drawn to a question of this kind at any time; but we can only hope to secure benefit from having our attention so called by my right hon. Friend making some proposal on the subject, based on the responsibility of the Government, and intended as a safeguard against the danger which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out. I can say for myself—and if I know anything of the financial mind of those who sit on this side of the House, I would almost venture to say for them—that any precautionary measures which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may submit in the way of some augmentation of the rate of interest on prospective loans, or in whatever way he may deem it best to deal with the question, will meet with a fair and favourable consideration on this side of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an account, however, of the way in which this danger, first of all, crept in, and it is to that account I wish to address myself. He says it was under the Government of Lord Palmerston that this practice was commenced. That I admit—as I am bound to do— was the first example of a practice which has since become dangerous, and the introducer of such a practice is naturally held responsible for it. I was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Harbours Act was passed, and when, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, it was permitted to local bodies to make applications for loans of public money at the extremely low rate of interest of £3 5s. per cent. I am fully responsible for that Act, and never was I concerned in an Act of Parliament by which was effected so great a public economy. Now, I will show the difference which has come into play. We have learned in these later years to use this business of local loans as a mode of gratifying local communities, of oiling the wheels of the State, and facilitating the passing of measures through Parliament by making further additions to the boons which, at the expense of the taxes, are given to the ratepayers. But that was not the view with which this step was first taken. What were the circumstances? A movement was got up chiefly in the
    560
    Eastern, but also in other, parts of an extremely popular character for laying out very large sums of money in what were called Harbours of Refuge. I do not hesitate to say that if that plan had been carried into effect it would have cost the Exchequer not less than £12,000,000, and more probably, £20,000,000. Lord Palmerston's Government set themselves against the adoption of that plan. It was suggested by the bulk of the Conservative Opposition, and, I must honestly confess, by a fraction of the Liberal Party, which converted that Conservative Opposition into a majority. An Address to the Crown was moved, which, if it had been acted upon, would—as I am firmly of opinion—have involved an expenditure to the amount I have mentioned. The Government of Lord Palmerston resisted that Address. We were beaten on a division, and I rather think by a somewhat considerable, at any rate not by a very small, majority. We refused to act on the Address of the House of Commons, and I think we were perfectly right in so doing; because, in my opinion, the House of Commons was going beyond, and, in point of fact, abusing, its powers in endeavouring to compel the Government to make that expenditure of money. Since then we have had attempts to revive that plan when Liberal Governments were in power—of course, when Conservative Governments are in power there can be no need for Harbours of Refuge. [Murmurs.] Well, at any rate, let me say that for four years a Conservative Government has seen no such necessity; and in referring to the matter I shall proceed upon the principle on which we acted in the Government of Lord Palmerston. My right hon. Friend will see that by resisting the voice of a considerable majority in the House of Commons who supported a proposal which, undoubtedly, had many plausible arguments to recommend it, we placed ourselves in a very peculiar position. We were compelled, in the stead of an enormous expenditure—and which, in fact, it would have been very difficult to place any limit at all—propose a very moderate expenditure, and on terms which, I admit, were better than would have been justified on any ordinary principles. Those, then, were the circumstances under which this plan of borrowing was introduced under the

    561
    Government of Lord Palmerston; and I wish to observe that I do not recollect that my right hon. Friend, when on former occasions he has introduced this plan of lending money to local bodies as a matter of great convenience and advantage to those bodies, was at all careful to father the device upon the Government of Lord Palmerston. But now he points out his danger.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I had no intention to throw any blame whatever upon the Government of Lord Palmerston.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I did not think my right hon. Friend had any such intention, nor have I any intention to cast any blame on him; but what has been done is this—the Government of Lord Palmerston have been set up as the authors of a practice which has become dangerous, and my object is not merely to make a polemical reply to my right hon. Friend, but to point out the principle upon which it was then done, not as a financial measure, good in itself, but taking its terms and conditions into view, as a means of avoiding an infinitely greater evil which it was necessary to avoid. Therefore, the moral of my remarks is that this is the proper basis for a system of local loans which ought not to be made upon light or secondary considerations of policy, but only for great objects and purposes which cannot otherwise be attained. I do not want to dwell further upon the critical part of what I have said; but I am glad the question has been raised, because it has given me the opportunity to point out the principle of action on which we went. I think that principle was sound, and I wish we could bring back the system as nearly as may be to that principle. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that it is said by some people that they confer a sort of favour on the public by taking these loans, because the public nominally receives a higher rate of interest than it pays for the money that it borrows. If it were so it is not the business of the public to become—unless it happens accidentally in a particular case—a trader in money or to enter into jobbing transactions of that kind. The Government ought to charge a rate of interest on these loan which not only has reference to the actual state of the money market, but which, viewing the rate at which the
    562
    public can borrow over a long series of years, affords a sufficient margin to cover all danger. I hope this important question may be submitted to us in a practical form; and I would again remind my right hon. Friend of the question I put to him as to the day on which the matter will be brought before the House.
    MR. PEASEsaid, he wished to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having at length yielded to the strong representations that had been made to turn from year to year on the subject of remitting the tax on shepherds' dogs. With regard to the tax on dogs generally, he should not have objected to the tax being raised to 10s. per dog. He could not agree with the proposal as to the age at which dogs should be liable to taxation. Two months was, he thought, too young an age at which to charge the impost, for it happened, as a rule, that it was not until dogs were over that age that their owner could tell which to keep of a litter of puppies and which to destroy. With regard to the harbour loans, he thought some alteration was necessary. Many of the harbours, which had become national rather than local institutions, had their debt divided under two heads—one comprising the money borrowed before the passing of the Act, which enabled them to borrow from the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and the other the money so borrowed. He saw no reason why the debts of harbours, which had become national harbours and were, in every sense of the word, harbours of refuge, should be so divided; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could devise a means of altering the present state of things, he would give great satisfaction to the persons interested in harbours—particularly those on the North and North-East coast. There were, he thought, ways in which, in view of the fluctuating value of property on which public money was lent, the present modes of granting loans could be made more secure for the Government and more satisfactory, on the whole, to everyone concerned.
    MR. WHITWELLexpressed his thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having conferred a great boon upon the shepherds by removing the tax upon their dogs. If dogs generally had a 10 s. tax imposed upon them, he hoped there would be no limitation of any kind

    563
    with regard to shepherds' dogs. With regard to local loans, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might remember that on one occasion a loan was granted to the local government of Ceylon; but the granting of the loan was made contingent upon the local authorities making a proportionate advance. He thought this principle might with advantage be applied to all loans of the kind; and as the Exchequer made these advances at a low rate, the Government ought to have priority of repayment over other creditors.
    MR. MUNDELLAcongratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the way in which his Estimates for the last year had come out. With regard to the Income Tax, the figures could not fail to be satisfactory, in that they showed a great advance in the wealth of the country, notwithstanding the fact that the receipts from earnings in trade had not been above the average. Indeed, it was to be feared that there would be some diminution in this respect. With regard to the in habited house duty, he was much pleased by the course that had been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it would remove a real grievance, which was now felt by professional men and traders, many of whom had to pay a whole year's duty, though their inhabitation might not be worth more than £5 or £6. He should have been better pleased if, in making provision for next year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, instead of laying a great additional weight upon the payers of Income Tax, put an additional 1s. per gallon on spirits, which had not, up to the present time, borne a fair share of the taxation of the country. He did not mean to say that he should have opposed any addition to the Income Tax; but he certainly thought that tax was called upon to bear an unfair share of the burden. Further, he thought that an increase in the spirit duty would, while increasing the Revenue, have proved serviceable to public morality. He felt sure that if hon. Members turned to the pages of Hansard, they would find an abundant armoury of arguments against increasing the Income Tax in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKwished to know whether, under the heading of
    564
    dog tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to make any allowance in the case of packs of hounds which were kept for the purpose of affording healthy exercise and amusement for the people, and were therefore, in his view, entitled to some consideration? The tax upon Marine Insurance, too, was one which ought to be considered, because, by the inequality of its incidence, it was an impost which caused considerable inconvenience, and was calculated to drive trade from this country. The amount was not large, but it was charged in the same ratio upon large and small insurances—a policy involving a premium of £5,000 had to pay no more than an insurance upon a small coasting trader. It was with satisfaction that he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer announce his intention to keep the account of interest paid upon Exchequer Bonds and the floating debt generally separate from that of the funded debt. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would speedily put before the House in a practical form his proposals in regard to local loans. The great cities of the country could borrow money from other sources for the making of public works at an interest of a trifle over 4 per cent; and he therefore agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) as to the undesirability of a Government becoming a dealer in money. There were some localities which could not give so good a security as was possible in the case of great cities and the large towns; and it was surely not unreasonable that they should pay interest at the rate of something more than 3½ per cent. On the whole, however, the Department had been very well managed, although, mainly on public and national considerations, which could not well be resisted, loans had occasionally been granted which had resulted in the loss not only of the principal, but of the interest. As much of the money borrowed had been spent on purposes connected with education, he did not think anybody would grudge the small amount added to the national expenditure. In making up the deficiency for the year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in his opinion, added too much to the direct taxation of the country, and would have acted wisely if, instead of doing that, he had placed an additional sum upon

    565
    the spirit duties. Not with standing the additions that had been made, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would still have to face the year with a deficiency of about £2,000,000, and, considering the existing state of affairs, he did not think that a wise course to take. They knew that Her Majesty's Government, when they came down and asked that House to vote £6,000,000 the other day, said that they did so in order that they might assume a bold front and show very considerable strength. If they had come that day and proposed that the whole of that amount should be included in this year, they would have taken a wise and prudent course. The right hon. Gentleman told them it was desirable that the Sinking Fund should be kept up, and that no inroad should be made on the £28,000,000 which, by the National Debt Bill, he set aside for the service of the year. The cheers with which that was received showed that the House sympathized with his opinion. Were they really carrying out that policy? It seemed to him that by this proposal, while, on the one hand, they would be paying off £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 of debt by Terminable Annuities, on the other hand they would be adding another £1,000,000 to the National Debt. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly take credit to himself for carrying out his own policy; for while he was borrowing money with one hand, he was paying it away with the other. He thought, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would have acted wisely if he had put a duty on spirits, or in some other way had tried to raise the whole £5,500,000.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, there was one point to which he trusted the Government would give attention, and that was the question of how to construct harbours. The late Government proposed to lay out a large sum on Dover on the plea that it was one of the military or refuge harbours which the country required. The Conservative Government had the good sense to submit the project to an examination by a Select Committee. On their Report, which practically condemned the plans proposed, the present Government abandoned the defective project; and for this, it seemed to him, the Conservative Government was en-
    566
    titled to credit. But the rejection of a defective project was no sufficient reason for abstaining altogether from trying to provide harbours so much needed for our trade and fisheries. At the same time, he thought that great caution was needed in investing money in further attempts to provide harbours which proved failures. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), that in 1861 there was a proposal to spend £12,000,000 on harbours of refuge, and that it was wise, on the part of the Government, to avoid all that expenditure until such time as the Government knew how to invest money with far better chances of success than hitherto. Since that time, millions had been laid out on harbours, some of which had been entire failures. A Return which he had obtained showed that since the beginning of this century, nearly £10,000,000 had been spent on harbours, nearly the whole of which had proved worthless. These £10,000,000 were taken from the Exchequer. It was a knowledge of these remarkable failures which led to the Government of Lord Palmerston passing the Act known as the Passing Tolls Act, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich referred. No doubt, this Harbour Act of 1861 did substitute for Government money the payment by localities, conditional, however, on loans being made in aid of local funds for the construction of these harbours. These loans were to be made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners out of funds provided by Parliament, and at low rates of interest; but he submitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly well aware that these advances had not been made with judgment, and that from a number of these harbours not one penny of the money advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners could possibly be recovered. This was entirely traceable to the defect in the plans, and to other avoidable blunders. That was no reason why money should not be advanced on account of harbours; but it was a reason why the Government should see that the transactions were done in a proper manner, and that competent engineers should plan the works. Local authorities should not be allowed to borrow money to spend in any manner a local engineer might advise; and, in

    567
    permitting that, he must say the several Governments in power since the Act was passed in 1861 had not acted with caution. Therefore, before they granted any more money, they should see that it would be expended in a proper manner. But here, again, there was a defective exercise of judgment on the part of the Loan Commissioners in not aiding those projects which proved a success. In the Tyne, where nearly £3,000,000 had been spent, additional expenditure was required to complete the work there, and they had found great difficulty in getting the money. This was a work of great national importance. It had already provided a refuge for vessels of the largest size; it had greatly extended the trade and benefited the people. In spite of all these results, the work was not aided as it deserved. One of the greatest safeguards against the improper expenditure of money was publicity. Encouragement ought to be given, in every way, to the proper publication of loans by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and for what purposes the money so lent had been applied, and with what result. He had been told that that would involve expense; but it seemed to him that very little money would be required to show what loans were made and what interest was paid, and for what purposes expended. In that way, thousands and thousands of pounds might be saved—because, with the natural habit of our people, the defects and shortcomings in respect to the employment of the funds, would inevitably be exposed by the many public-spirited people who are, happily, to be found in all parts of the Kingdom. He was persuaded that if this information were given, and people of different localities could see what loans were advanced for different purposes, simply at a cost of £200 or £300, much waste would be prevented. Would the Wigan church rate case, have taken place if proper publication had been given to the loan? That loss alone would pay for 30 or 40 years for the whole of the publication of accounts.
    MR. BOORDagreed with the hon. Members for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) and Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that intoxicating liquors were a fit subject for taxation, and that it might be desirable on occasion to increase the duties on them, but not in the manner that had been
    568
    recommended. He observed, from a Return recently laid on the Table, that duty to the amount of £7,939,099 had been paid on 58,543,252 bushels of malt during the year 1877. Now, assuming that the whole of that quantity had been converted into beer, and that it yielded in that form at least one and a-half proof gallons of proof spirit per bushel—a very moderate calculation—it followed that 87,814,878 gallons of spirit had paid duty at the rate of little more than 1s. 9½d. per gallon, whilst other spirit paid more than five times as much—British spirit being charged at 10 s., foreign at 10 s. 5d., and that from British Colonies at 10 s. 2d. If, therefore, the spirit duties were equalized, by raising the amount charged on that contained in beer, there would be a gain to the Revenue amounting to more than £36,000,000 per annum. He was aware the Government might say that if they interfered with the poor man's beer they would never hear the last of it; but the same argument applied, certainly in a less degree, to the rich man's wine. Wine paying the 1s. duty contained, on an average, 18 per cent of proof spirit, so that 100 gallons, at the rate for other spirits, should pay at least £9, whereas it only paid £5; similarly, wine at the 2s. 6d. duty, which contained about 35 per cent of proof spirit, should pay £17 10 s. per 100 gallons, whereas it only paid £12 10 s., showing a total loss on the quantity cleared of about £1,000,000 per annum. He did not wish to urge that the duties on either wine or beer should be raised to the full extent at once, but merely to point out the existence of a vast source of Revenue that his right hon. Friend might well deal with in the event of need arising for increased taxation in future.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENmerely wished to call attention to the proposal to put 4d. per lb on manufactured tobacco, and 4d. per lb on un manufactured tobacco. If the Government found it necessary to increase the duty on tobacco for the purposes of Revenue, it should have been 8d. per lb on the manufactured article; because he could understand that in that way the Revenue would derive the benefit. But, as it stood, the increase of 4d. per lb on manufactured tobacco would have this effect—the poor man would pay 4d. an ounce. The tobacconist would put on

    569
    halfpenny an ounce, and in that way he would derive a farthing advantage from the poor consumer. On consideration, he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see whether he could not derive a larger sum for the Revenue by putting 8d. per lb on manufactured tobacco.
    MR. DODSONsaid, there was no occasion to go into a discussion that night on the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been able to produce this year such a prodigy as was produced last year—namely, a Budget of equilibrium, where there was no excess either the one way or the other. That occurred only once in a generation. The last time was more than 30 years ago. He could congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the actual Revenue of 1877–8 having exceeded the estimated Revenue by £617,000. He could also congratulate him on the Revenue of 1877–8 having exceeded that of 1876–7 by a considerable amount. The growth of the Revenue in the year was £1,198,000, instead of £455,000, as the right hon. Gentleman estimated. But if he looked to the cause of the growth, it was not altogether so satisfactory. The Excise loss was greater than was estimated, notwithstanding that a general apprehension of increased taxation had drawn into the year just closed much Excise and Custom Revenue that properly would have stood over to next year. It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman would tell them on what class of Stamps the increase had taken place. The right hon. Gentleman knew very well that Stamps embraced a very miscellaneous amount of receipts, and it would be interesting to know to which of them the unexpected growth of Revenue was due. A good deal of the increase, he found, was due to Miscellaneous Receipts, and included £126,000 profits of the Post Office Savings Banks, which were added to Revenue account at the close of last Session; but against that, a corresponding amount of deficiency arising from the old Savings Banks and the Friendly Societies should be set. The most satisfactory amount of growth was in the Income Tax—and it was to that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had addressed himself, in the main, to provide for increase of taxation in the coming year. There was one matter on
    570
    which he could not congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had not been able to keep the Expenditure within the Budget Estimates. The excess of actual Expenditure over the Estimate in the Budget—setting apart the Vote of Credit—was £109,000. Well, the fact remained that here was one more Budget which showed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not able to control the expenditure of the Departments so as to bring the actual expenditure within the Budget Estimate. The right hon. Gentleman had again had his usual misfortune—he had been overwhelmed by the large amount of Supplementary Estimates. That was a matter to which he called attention last year, and to which he must call attention again this year. A large amount of Supplementary Estimates was a defect in finance. It was an indication of want of care and accuracy in framing the original Estimates for the year, and it was also an indication of want of firmness on the part of the Treasury. The Supplementary Estimates of this year amounted in all to £913,000. Deducting the Savings Banks and Friendly Societies deficit charges, the Supplementary Estimates for the year had considerably exceeded £700,000; and, in connection with this, he should like to ask the attention of the Committee to a Return in regard to Supplementary Estimates which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on his Motion, placed on the Table of the House last year; because it showed how the Supplementary Estimates had grown under the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would exclude from consideration the year 1873–4, because that was the year in which the Government was changed, and the Liberal Government were responsible for the Estimates in the greater part of the year. The present Government came into Office at the close of the year, and had only the last two months—two important months—in which the finances of the year were wound up. Therefore, he excluded that year, and would only take the last four years during which a Liberal Government was in Office, and exclusively responsible for the finances. In those four years, the Supplementary Estimates amounted, on an average, to something over £500,000; and in the four years for which the

    571
    Conservatives were exclusively responsible to over £1,000,000. In the year 1874–5, the Supplementary Estimates of the Conservative Government had been £1,528,000; in 1875–6, £1,144,000; in 1876–7, £1,127,000, and in 1877–8, £913,000. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to meet the deficit chiefly by an increase of the Income Tax. He could not refrain from again expressing his regret at the step which the right hon. Gentleman had taken in 1876 in making such very large exemptions and abatements in the payment of that tax. It was not consistent with sound finance to undermine so much a tax which, in the main, must be the tax to be relied on in an emergency. He was afraid it was in vain to ask what number of persons had been exempted under Schedules A, B, and C. But, from a Report of the Inland Revenue, it appeared that under D and E the number who paid the tax in the year 1876–7 had been only 585,000—whereas it had in 1875–6 been 789,000—and that there would have been 40,000 more chargeable under those Schedules last year; so that 244,000 persons, or 30 per cent, who would have been liable, had gone scot-free. He did not know the loss caused to the Revenue by the abatement of £120 on all incomes under £400. But there was also the greater political objection of making Income Tax, as it were, a charge on a comparatively limited number of persons. If it was to be a tax voted by the many, and paid by comparatively few, they lost a great and valuable check on an unnecessary increase of taxation. As to the tobacco duty, he would only presume that the right hon. Gentleman had consulted with the best authorities as to the possibility of an increase of smuggling. The duty on a pound of common tobacco, worth 8d., was now 3s. 2d., or about 500 per cent, and tobacco in general was not only a very highly-taxed, but an easily smuggled commodity.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDcould not join in the criticism on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, at the end of a twelvemonth, the Revenue and Expenditure did not precisely agree with his Estimate. All that he professed to do was to make the best Estimate he could, and the result of that operation he thought satisfactory. He thanked the right hon.
    572
    Gentleman for the concession as to the Inhabited House Duty, a matter he (Mr. Hubbard) had long been interested in on behalf of his constituents in the City of London. He regretted the increase in the Income Tax, because it threw an undue proportion of taxation on particular classes, and because the right hon. Gentleman had not indicated the result of an inquiry he had undertaken whether any mitigation could be introduced of the inequalities of the Tax. The right hon. Gentleman had said, in introducing his Sinking Fund arrangement, that it would be in the power of the House at any time to suspend or qualify that arrangement. Here, then, was an occasion for doing so. He could not reconcile to himself the amount of taxation raised to pay off the National Debt at the rate of more than £5,000,000 a-year, by a process of taxation, which was driving honesty and truth out of the country. Nothing could justify a Minister in imposing year after year a system of taxation so demoralizing and oppressive.
    MR. DODSONexplained that the average of the Supplementary Estimates during the four last years for which the Liberal Party were responsible had been £527,000, and of the Conservative four years, £1,253,000.
    MR. DODDSsaid, he would only trouble them for a few moments on two points. The first had reference to the very important subject to which his hon. Friend the senior Member for South Durham (Mr. Pease) had alluded—namely, that of loans to harbour authorities under the provisions of the Harbours and Passing Tolls Acts. He earnestly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, when he gave the subject the further consideration he had promised, in connection with the larger question of loans to local authorities, find himself able to adopt the suggestion that had been made to him by his hon. Friend, and extend the provisions of the Harbours and Passing Tolls Acts to existing loans of public harbour authorities, instead of confining advances, as at present, to loans for new works to be hereafter executed. He gathered that the loans already made to harbour authorities, for harbour purposes only amounted to about £900,000; whilst the loans to other local authorities

    573
    under an extension of the system of granting loans by Public Works Loan Commissioners, inaugurated under the Harbours and Passing Tolls Acts, amounted, he gathered, to almost £20,000,000. A very few additional millions advanced to public harbour authorities would enable them to discharge all their loans at high rates of interest, and to devote their funds more extensively to harbour improvements. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire had referred to losses incurred through loans to harbour authorities; but these loans must have been made before the passing of the recent Act, as, under its provisions, loans could only be made to existing public harbours after a full and searching inquiry by a competent engineer, nominated by the Board, as to the utility of the works, the sufficiency of the estimates, and other matters of that kind; whilst, as regarded financial considerations, the most careful investigation was made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners into the financial position of the borrowers, and no loan whatever was granted until the Commissioners were thoroughly satisfied that the revenue was amply sufficient to protect the public from loss. In short, the loans were confined to public harbours, the solvency of which was proved to the entire satisfaction of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. The other point to which the hon. Member wished to refer was one that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not referred to in his luminous exposition of the financial affairs of the country, nor had it been touched upon during the debate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had, during the period when he controlled the National Finance, swept away an immense number of anomalous taxes and charges, and very materially simplified their fiscal system; but the duties, to which he was about to call attention, had been left untouched and their anomalies continued, and were, in his opinion, indefensible. He referred to the duties on probates and administrations, and to the legacy duties. In the first place, the probate and administrative duties were dissimilar, the duty upon administrations being 50 per cent more than that upon probates. For this anomaly no good reason that he was
    574
    aware of could be assigned. Then, following upon these duties, came the legacy duties, assessed at various rates, varying from 1 to 10 per cent—another anomaly which, in his opinion, ought to be removed. These duplicate charges—for such they were upon what might be termed the succession to personal, as distinguished from real, property—were a most prolific source of vexation, annoyance, and expense, as every hon. Member must, from his personal experience, well know; and this wholly irrespective of the amount of the duties themselves. All this ought, in his (Mr. Dodds') opinion, to be swept away, and a combined and uniform rate of duty substituted. He hoped to have an early opportunity of calling the attention of Parliament more fully to this very important subject, and he should not now trouble the Committee with any lengthy details. He would simply mention what his suggestions were, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would take them into his consideration, and make them available on some future occasion. He proposed, in the first place, to abolish the distinction between the stamp duty on probates of wills and letters of administration, and to do away with the anomaly of imposing an additional tax upon a man who left the law to distribute his property instead of distributing it himself by his will. The anomaly ought, he thought, to be put an end to, and the same stamp duty charged upon both documents. Then, he would abolish the various differential rates of legacy duty; and, finally, he would combine the two duties, and levy one uniform advalorem rate upon all successions to personal property. He found that in 1877 legacy duty was paid upon property amounting to £115,000,000, and the sum realized was over £2,846,000, whilst during the same period probate duty was paid upon about £125,000,000 sterling, and yielded about £2,200,000. The aggregate amount of duty derived from these two sources—namely, stamps upon probates, letters of administration, and testamentary inventories and legacy duty was, therefore, about £5,000,000. A uniform charge of 4 per cent would yield somewhat more than this sum, and its uniformity and certainty would increase this amount considerably, and thus greatly benefit the Public Exchequer, whilst it would remove anomalies

    575
    which were productive of the greatest possible vexation and expense to all who were liable to account for these duties. He would not detain the Committee further, but would earnestly commend these two important matters to the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Committee.
    MR. GORSTremarked that if the operations of the scheme for the payment of the National Debt were to be suspended for a year, there would be no necessity for imposing increased taxation upon the country. Under the name of asking for a war tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in reality asking the people to pay an additional tax for the purpose of paying off the National Debt. He thought that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw five-sixths of the additional burden of taxation upon the payers of the Income Tax, leaving only one-sixth of it to be borne by the country generally, was an unfair one, and one which was not desired by the masses, who would not object to bear their fair share of taxation.
    DR. KENEALYsaid, that the whole nation would hear with joy the strong and vigorous language in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) had denounced what he had truly designated "the iniquitous Income Tax." The right hon. Gentleman was a high authority—higher could not be—on finance, and he had profoundly studied the subject. He had felt it his duty to declare openly in that House that the Income Tax Act was "eating away the honesty of the country." This was a terrible statement, and the worst of it was that it was true; for the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of it as a fact within his own knowledge and experience. That being so, how much was it to be lamented that the Chancellor of the Exchequer not only retained, but even increased this odious impost! He might have avoided doing so by reducing the public expenditure, which was in many things extravagant, and in nothing more so than in maintaining Royal Palaces and Parks for those who were well able to maintain them themselves. The right hon. Gentleman was also expending £5,000,000 a-year in paying off the National Debt. This was hardly wise; for if we could reduce the National
    576
    Debt to £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 only, instead of the £750,000,000 which it was, we should be simply enabling those who came after us to plunge into the same extravagant and costly wars as those had done who came before us, and for whose folly we were now paying. To apply this £5,000,000 a-year to the public service would be, he thought, wiser than to squander it in this apparent reduction of our burdens; and it would be more appreciated by those who groaned under the Income Tax. He was grieved to hear the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) express his sorrow that the Income Tax did not embrace a larger area of victims to it; and he wondered what the "Liberals" throughout the nation would think of this doctrine, coming from the front Opposition bench by one of the Liberal champions, who felt so much, as they always proclaimed, for the poverty and suffering of the middle and humbler classes. Many of these would be inclined to think that the Budget was framed in the interests of the rich rather than with consideration for the poor. More especially would they do so if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to listen to the appeal of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), who had adjured him to impose no taxes whatever on those who kept packs of hounds. He, on the contrary, instead of sharing in that sentiment, would be glad if the present tax on hounds were doubled; those who enjoyed such costly luxuries ought to pay for that enjoyment, as they could well afford to do. He joined the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), and those other hon. Members who followed him, in lamenting that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not increased the duty on spirits. He might do so without the least fear of that smuggling which seemed to be before the eyes, and in some sort to disturb the rest, of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord). The progress of temperance was on the increase and advance among the best elements in this country; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have had an increase of popularity among the most valuable members of the community if he had discouraged the consumption of spirits by an augmented duty. He thought also that the Chancellor of the

    577
    Exchequer would have done well if he had reduced the cost of telegrams from ls. to 6d. Many persons were now deterred by the higher price from using the Telegraphic Department who would not scruple to do so if the tariff were lower. He fancied that, as in the penny postage scheme, so far from the revenue in telegrams suffering by this reduction, it would be in a short time doubled. As to tobacco, he did not much approve of an increased duty. Many persons thought that tobacco was used by the poorer classes as a luxury. He believed rather that it was used in numerous instances as a stay of the pangs of hunger by those who could not afford to buy sufficient food. Upon such, therefore—the very poor—this additional duty would be severely felt. But while taxing this poor man's solace, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not in the least burdened the rich man's pleasure. Why did he not put a 1s. stamp upon every bottle of champagne drunk? He calculated that there were at least 100,000,000 bottles of what was called and sold as champagne consumed every year in the United Kingdom. This, if taxed with a Government 1s. stamp, would produce a large revenue, and it would fall on those who were well able to pay. Champagne was a wine mostly consumed by very foolish, or very wealthy persons; and he owned he had no such sympathy with either as to relieve them from taxation for their enjoyment while the poor man's pipe was saddled with a new impost.
    MR. SERJEANT SPINKSsaid, he had very great pleasure in rising upon that occasion to express thanks, on behalf of the community he represented, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for conceding the principle that in the assessment of Income Tax there should be a recognition of the depreciation of machinery. It was a matter which he had always taken great interest in, and only that morning he had received from a large body of his constituents a strong representation upon the subject, and urging him to bring the matter upon this occasion before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. While touching upon this subject, he ought also to say that this concession would be a matter of great satisfaction to his hon. Friend and Colleague the junior Member for Old-
    578
    ham (Mr. Hibbert), who last year brought this question under the notice of the House. He should like to put one question with regard to the Railway Passenger Duty. He was not sanguine enough to expect the slightest assistance with regard to the remission of that duty; but the question he was going to ask was, What was the amount which had been derived from that impost during the course of the year which had just ended? And, while upon that subject, he might venture to say that he had been, in common, he believed, with many Members of the Committee which sat upon that subject, very much disappointed that no action had been taken with regard to that which was so strongly proved before the Committee and reported upon—namely, the illegal manner in which the Railway Passenger Duty was levied. That did not simply rest upon the assertion of Railway Companies or of Members who took an interest in the matter, for it might be remembered that several officials belonging to the Government were called before that Committee and gave the strongest testimony as to the illegality of the course now being pursued. He hoped, if that matter could not be dealt with during the present Session, that it would be considered in the next. As regarded the extra duty proposed to be put on dogs, that was a matter on which he looked with a great deal of satisfaction. He had, as Chairman of the Petty Sessions in the neighbourhood in which he resided, had the matter under his consideration, and he was sure that everything which diminished the number of stray dogs was really an additional comfort to the people. As to the increase in the Income Tax, he could not but think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the right course in obtaining the greater part of the Revenue he required from that tax, especially under the circumstances which now existed, when that tax did not press so heavily as it once did upon the more humble and poorer classes of the community. He hoped that, considering the great amount of additional security which had been provided for the country by the judicious expenditure—for he believed it had been judicious—of money raised by the Vote of Credit, the extra taxes would be cheerfully and readily paid by all classes. As to the tobacco

    579
    duty, he owned that he did not feel himself competent to speak very much on the question as to whether the charge should be made on tobacco or spirits, for he indulged in neither. Therefore, he was very impartial; but he was afraid that in some cases the tax would fall a little heavy on certain poor people, especially among the agricultural labourers, who, eschewing both spirits and beer, indulged in a pipe after working hours. However, he supposed they must bear their share of taxation with the rest of the community; and he could not help thinking, on the whole, that this Budget, considering the extraordinary circumstances under which it was made, would give satisfaction to the whole Kingdom.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he sympathized with the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) when he said he should like the whole deficit to be paid by taxation in the present year; but Chancellors of the Exchequer were but human, and they could hardly expect any Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring the virtue of self-denial to the point that the hon. Member for Maid-stone desired. He (Sir George Campbell) was content to say, looking at the various circumstances of the case, that the Budget was a just, equitable, and fair mode of meeting the difficulty. In his opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exercised a wise discretion in the mode in which he had apportioned the taxation. He thought the Income Tax was a fair tax on which to make an increase; and he considered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rightly made that increase. It was right, also, to put increase of taxation on those influential classes by whom the warlike feeling was chiefly promoted in the country. The readers of The Pall Mall Gazette and The Daily Telegraph were, no doubt, payers of Income Tax; and he was glad, by this addition to it, they would be reminded as to the results of the policy which they had adopted. But they knew that the desire for a spirited foreign policy was not wholly confined to the payers of Income Tax; and he thought it right that other classes should have a gentle reminder of the fact that to carry out such a policy meant that they must pay for it, and that by an increased duty on tobacco. He earnestly asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to yield to the suggestions of hon.
    580
    Members to further tax spirits, seeing the difference already existing between the dues paid on spirits, such as Scotch whiskey and English beer. The tax on whiskey, in proportion to the amount of alcohol which it contained, was actually six times as heavy as the tax on beer, or was, at all events, enormously heavier. He was inclined to believe, with the great majority of medical men, that when alcohol was consumed it was better to take it in the shape of a little whiskey and water than of the beer which was so largely drunk in England, though he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), that it would be still better not to take it at all. It appeared to him, that the state of beeriness in which both both men and some women so habitually lived in England was a great deal worse than any occasional excess which occurred in the drinking of whiskey in Scotland. In Scotland, a considerable portion of the population lived from month to month the life of Arcadians, drinking nothing but water; and, if once or twice a-year they did get drunk on the occasion of some hiring market, that, he thought, was not half so great an evil as the constant "boosiness" in which Englishmen indulged in consequence of the facilities which were open to them for drinking beer. He wished, in the next place, to say a few words on another subject, in respect to which he was happy to say the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done an act of long-deferred justice to Scotland—he referred to the proposed remission of the tax on collie dogs. ["No!"] Yes; the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the shepherd's collie dog—that was to say, the poor man's dog—was to be exempted from taxation; and although some hon. Members seemed to think that proposal was wrong, he, personally,, had taken a very different view of the subject since the occasion on which he had canvassed the electors of a Scotch county in the Highlands some 10 years ago. He then happened to attend a meeting, at which he made a speech touching on foreign affairs and a great variety of other questions, without having been able to move, in the slightest degree, the feelings of his audience. Before he concluded, however, somebody having mentioned the point to him, he told the meeting he had something to say with regard to collie dogs. The

    581
    announcement was greeted with a roar of applause, and he at last found out what was the particular subject in which the meeting seemed to take the greatest interest. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to it was, in his opinion, a great act of justice, and would be fully appreciated by the people of Scotland; but how far it was right to make the exemption by means of placing additional taxation on other descriptions of dogs he was not prepared to say. It was, no doubt, wise to have some sort of tax upon dogs for the purpose of registration; but whether it was well to levy a tax on the poor man's pet he was not sure. But he was happy to be able to bear testimony to the equity, prudence, and boldness of the Budget, and he would not at this moment cavil with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about so small a matter as the increase of the taxation on dogs. Before he resumed his seat, he desired to make a few remarks on the subject of local taxation. That was a subject on which he had constantly had occasion to exercise his mind in another country, and since he returned to England he had sat on Committees of that House, and was now a Member of one whose investigations bore on the question. It had also come under his notice last year that, especially from Scotland, a number of measures for the purpose of effecting local improvements were brought before the House, there being no less than three borough Water Bills from his constituency. Now, he was very much opposed to the increases of debt, and to the throwing on posterity additional burdens; but he knew, from experience of the case of the borough of Kirkcaldy—that the raising of local loans, such as those to which he was referring, was a great advantage when the funds were prudently administered, as he believed they were in Scotland. Though, therefore, he wished to resist any extravagance with respect to the granting of local loans, he did not think it would be wise to check their prudent application. He was of opinion that the interest charged on those loans should be such as not only to recoup the Exchequer, but also to cover any possible losses in regard to their repayment. There was, however, a great deal of trouble and expense attending the promotion of Private Bills for the
    582
    purposes of improvement loans, and much was left to chance, and to the views which might be taken by a particular Committee, as to whether those Bills were successful or not. Although there were some objections to the State becoming a public money-lender, yet those who came to the State for loans were subjected to a scrutiny from the Local Government Board, which checked extravagance, and, in some degree, enforced economical and prudent expenditure. While, therefore, he recognized the justice of the remarks which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, he would venture to express a hope that he would not be too hard on small bodies who made application for local loans, so as to prevent small boroughs, such as that which he had the honour to represent, from obtaining the money which they wanted to carry out really useful works, without the expense and labour which attended the promotion of Private Bills.
    MR. CHILDERS: I wish to make one or two remarks on the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, of course, not with the view of debating the main propositions which he has laid before us, the discussion of which may very well be deferred to another day. I would, in the first place, say a few words on a subject which has been adverted to by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord). I mean the disproportion between the duty levied on spirits and that which is levied on beer. No doubt, if you take the quantity of alcohol in spirits, you will find that it is taxed much more heavily than the alcohol in beer; but what, I would ask, do those hon. Members who complain of that disproportion, propose to do to remedy it? Is any one of them prepared to say that the duty on beer should be doubled, or that the duty on spirits should be diminished by one-half? I think the hon. Member for Greenwich would soon discover, if he were to propose an increase in the Malt Tax, that his proposal would be almost overwhelmed by the opposition which it would create; while the whole House, with very few exceptions, would resist any Motion which might be made for a large reduction of the duty on spirits. If you diminish the tax on spirits by one-half, you will cause

    583
    an immediate loss to the Revenue of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 a-year. [Mr. BOORD said, he did not propose the reduction of the spirit duties.] I was asking, not the hon. Gentleman only, but all who complain of this disproportion, whether they proposed to reduce the duty on spirits?—and I would remind them that if £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 of Revenue are sacrificed, the ingenuity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, I am afraid, be very severely taxed in trying to find a substitute for so large an amount. Fivepence in the pound in the shape of Income Tax is hard enough; but to have to impose an 11 d. Income Tax, in order to adjust the duties on alcohol, would frighten the most courageous Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, be that as it may, my chief object in rising was to ask one or two Questions of the right hon. Gentleman, premising that under the special circumstances of the case the Committee will, I am sure, agree with me that nothing could be clearer than the statement which he made this evening, and that no one could have placed his proposals before us in a more satisfactory way. The first remark I would make has reference to what fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), who said that we have now another instance of the Expenditure of the year exceeding the Budget Estimate. That may be regarded as a small matter; but it has been for many years a rule of finance that the Expenditure ought to be kept within the Budget Estimate. Now, it so happens that, only once during the time of the late Government, was the Estimate exceeded by the actual Expenditure; but I am afraid there is not a single year in which the Expenditure has not exceeded the Budget Estimate since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has occupied his present position as Finance Minister. My right hon. Friend, I have no doubt, regrets as much as any Member of the House, that that should be so, and I think the House ought to support him in insisting that the various public Departments should so regulate their expenditure that the Estimate should not be exceeded. I would, in the next place, like to say a word as to the outcome of the Revenue during the last year. My right hon. Friend says it is quite true that, in the
    584
    case of each of the last three Budgets, we on this side of the House have questioned the soundness of his Estimate, and that this year, as in former years, the total Revenue has exceeded that which the Government anticipated. Well, those two statements are perfectly correct; but it must be borne in mind that the only two items of Revenue which independent Members who are not behind the scenes can really question are the Customs and Excise; and last year several hon. Members, as well as myself, did question, so far as the information at our disposal enabled us, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not too sanguine as to those items. He will recollect that on two previous occasions we were right in the view which we took, and this is now the third time in which the Customs and Excise Revenue have fallen below my right hon. Friend's. Estimate. It is very true that the items were better than those shown in the original Budget; but, candidly enough, the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the Committee that he received from the Customs and Excise, within the last few days, a considerable amount of Revenue which, properly speaking, belongs to the year 1878–9. He mentioned the sum of £350,000 as the amount which has been thus anticipated and brought into the Revenue of 1877–8. Now, the Customs and Excise duties have exceeded the Estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by some £83,000— the Customs Revenue being £119,000 more than the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to receive, and the Excise £36,000 less; and if the right hon. Gentleman received £350,000 which really belonged to the present year, the result was that the Revenue from Customs and Excise had fallen short of the Estimate by £266,000 or £267,000—a considerable amount, and justifying, in my opinion, the caution with which we recommended him to proceed in estimating those two sources of Revenue. The next point to which I wish to call the attention of the Committee is that it has been the invariable custom, on all these occasions, so long as I can remember—and certainly it has been the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own practice— to state the amount of the Debt and the public balances at the end of the financial year, showing to what extent the National Debt was being paid off. This

    585
    statement has, owing, no doubt, to some accident, been omitted on the present occasion. I do not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the omission, considering the amount of details which he has felt constrained to give us on other points. This, however, is a year in which it is very desirable we should know what has been done towards the reduction of the Debt; for I observe that, during the last quarter, the amount of Debt raised in excess of the amount paid off was no less than £5,500,000— the exact figures given in the Gazette Return being £8,799,000 of Debt raised, and £3,472,000 of Debt paid off, showing a net increase of Debt for the quarter of £5,547,000. What I should like to know is, how the Debt stood on the 1st of April? I rather suspect that the Funded and Unfunded Debt and the Terminable Annuities stood very much at the same figure as on the 1st of April, 1874. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred to the local loans, and to the extent to which the necessity for providing for them had pressed on the financial arrangements of the Treasury. Now, all that he said on that subject may be very true; but, remembering, as I do, the debates which took place in 1874, 1875, and 1876, I am bound to remind my right hon. Friend that great credit was taken by the Government for the advantages which they proposed to confer on local institutions by enabling them to borrow money on easier terms. If it has turned out that the amount of those loans has been too great, then they had better reduce it, for the total annual amount is settled by Government and need not be exceeded. At a time when the Metropolitan Board of Works can borrow in the open market at the rate of 3½ per cent, I cannot see the necessity of looking so much to the Exchequer as the great lending institution. I should wish, also, to make a remark about the Expenditure charged on the Vote of Credit. Only the other day, some of us ventured to say that it was impossible to spend the £6,000,000 for which we were asked during the remainder of the financial year. For making that statement we were rebuked. We were told that £6,000,000 was the sum expected to be spent, and that any portion of it which was not spent would be repaid into the Exchequer. Well, no one can deny that
    586
    the Government have shown the greatest possible activity in the matter of this Expenditure. The whole energy of the spending Departments has, during the last two months, been devoted to getting rid of the £6,000,000 as quickly as possible up to the very last hour; but, after all, only a little more than one-half has been expended, although enormous sums have been given for the purchase of iron-clad ships. There is another point which I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make quite clear—that is to say, whether, quite irrespective of any special Expenditure, the ordinary Revenue is not short of the ordinary Expenditure by £1,560,000? So that, if there had been no extraordinary Expenditure whatever, we should still have had another 1d. added to the Income Tax; so that the policy of the last four years has resulted in this—that after two years 1d. has been added to the Income Tax, that in other two years another 1d. has been added; in other words, that, leaving wars and rumours of wars out of the question, for the ordinary purposes of Government, 2d. has been added to meet increased Expenditure. Upon the proposed increase of taxation, I do not at present wish to make any remark. At another time the proposal to add 2d. to the Income Tax and 4d. per 1b. on ordinary tobacco will come before us, and be discussed at length; but there is one Question to which I should be glad to have an answer. Is it proposed to add only 4d. to the cigar duty? If so, I question whether justice will be done to the home manufacturer of cigars, as against the importer—a pound and a-half of tobacco being required for a pound of cigars. I will conclude by asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to take further debate on the subject? I would suggest that, after the necessary formal Resolutions, he report Progress to-day, take the Committee pro formâ to-morrow, and settle then when the proposals shall be discussed. I know it is important that certain Resolutions should be taken to-night for the protection of the Revenue; but I hope the House will then have a reasonable time to consider the statement generally.
    MR. MONKdid not rise for the purpose of adding anything to the able criticisms of the right hon. Member for

    587
    Pontefract (Mr. Childers). Were he inclined to say anything in regard to the Budget, he would, perhaps, express his regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed an addition of 2d. to the Income Tax, instead of endeavouring to equalize direct and indirect taxation by adding to the duty on spirits. His purpose in rising now was to make a very modest request to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was good enough to listen to a request made by him (Mr. Monk) last year as to taking off a duty levied on institutions to benefices. There was still a duty imposed upon licences granted by Ecclesiastical Courts for improvements or additions made in churches or churchyards. The amount of duty was, probably, under £500;but, while it was so small, it was considered a great grievance by those who were called upon to pay it. Whenever any alteration was made in a church or churchyard it was necessary, according to the law confirmed by the Public Worship Regulation Act, that a faculty should be obtained from the Bishop of the diocese. These alterations were paid for by subscriptions raised among the congregations themselves, there being no fund out of which their cost could be defrayed. It was thought to be a grievance to have to pay even the small tax of 10s. on a faculty to obtain which additional fees and other payments were necessary. The abolition of this tax would be very pleasing to those connected with the Establishment.
    MR. M'LAGANjoined in the congratulations offered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the hon. Member for. Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) upon the Budget that had been laid before the Committee. In putting a Question that evening with regard to the Passenger Duty, he (Mr. M'Lagan) did not expect to get any different answer than that given to him. He was glad, however, to find that the question of repealing the Passenger Duty was still open, and that when times were better a diminution might be expected. Now that all other taxes on locomotion were abolished, it was a simple injustice that this tax should be continued. With regard to the Estimates, he, unlike some hon. Members, thought it better that Estimates should not be full than that they should. If they had full Esti-
    588
    mates, the Expenditure was likely to come up to them; but when there was a short Estimate, there must be Supplementary Estimates, and the criticism to which such Supplementary Estimates were subjected constituted a sufficient check on Expenditure. He thanked the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the exemption from the dog tax of shepherds' dogs; but he wished the dog tax had been increased to 10 s. instead of to 7s. 6d. That, he believed, would have been more satisfactory to the country. He would like to know whether the exemption would extend to dogs employed by those in charge of cattle as well as by those in charge of sheep? If so, there would be a possibility of evasions of the law. He was sorry that still more duty had not been imposed on tobacco. The consumer would have to pay the whole of the tax put on; whereas, if it had been raised by 6d. or 8d., the dealers would not have had the same advantage over the consumers which they would have when a sum not so easy to divide was added to the duty. He was glad no additional duty had been laid on spirits, which were taxed sufficiently. He would not wish to see the tax reduced; but if a tax was to be laid on alcoholic liquors, it should be accompanied with more taxation on beer and wine, so as to put England, Scotland, and Ireland more upon a level with regard to their payments. The tax on wines from France, in particular, should be increased; because the French had shown that they did not appreciate the boon we had given them in admitting their produce to this country at a low rate.
    MR. M'LARENthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his Budget. He thought it excellent, and had no Amendment to suggest; but he wished to remark upon some suggestions made by some hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) maintained that it would have been better if the new taxation had been so proportioned that a larger part of it would have fallen on the working classes. Now, he (Mr. M'Laren) approved the Budget, because there was no special taxation of working men, who would have to pay only their share of the increased tobacco duty. The work-

    589
    ing classes already paid far more than a fair share in proportion to their income of the taxation of the country. From a Parliamentary Paper issued that morning, it would be seen that the National Revenue from actual taxation last year was about £65,500,000. Another Return, issued recently, showed that the duties on spirits, malt, and tobacco, and the licences for selling these articles, came to £39,000,000. This sum did not include wine. This £39,000,000 was mainly paid by the working classes, as being by far the most numerous, and it was 60 per cent of the whole taxation of the country. He held, therefore, that the working classes paid a great deal more than their just proportion according to their income. Other hon. Members had said that additional duty might have been put upon spirits. That could not have been done without injustice, unless the whole question of the relative duty charged on spirits and beer had been taken into consideration, and the duties revised together. In all matters of taxation, a Chancellor of the Exchequer must naturally desire to treat equally every part of the United Kingdom. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not carry out this wish by adding to the spirit duty. Taking the quantity shown by the Inland Revenue Report to have been consumed last year, and assuming that 1s. would have been the amount of additional duty imposed, the effect would have been that Scotland would have had to pay £410,000. Under any equable adjustment, England being seven times as populous, and far more than seven times as wealthy, ought then to have paid seven times £410,000, or £2,870,000; but, under the present mode of adjustment, England would only have paid, upon a 1s. being added to the spirit duties, £1,334,000, because of the comparatively small quantity of alcohol consumed in the shape of whiskey in England, and of the large quantity consumed in the shape of beer, which was taxed to an infinitesimal extent as compared with whiskey. The man who took his ounce of alcohol with water paid six times as much taxation for it as the man who consumed a quantity of beer containing the same quantity of alcohol. No one who had studied the facts and figures of this subject could suggest an increase of taxation so unjust to Scotland. Since 1863 the duty on spirits
    590
    had been raised six times; but, whatever the duty was, the consumption had continued to increase. It was useless, therefore, to attempt to check consumption, as had been suggested, by an increase of these duties. He was thoroughly statisfied that the Budget was a good one.
    MR. C. S. PARKERthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the shepherds and sheep-farmers of Perthshire, for the proposed exemption of their dogs from taxation, and hoped that the practical instructions issued would not unduly limit the expected boon, but would exempt as many dogs as were actually employed by them in tending sheep. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not listen to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), that hounds should be exempted from the tax. They were kept not for business, but for pleasure, and there was no good reason why they should be exempted.
    MAJOR NOLANcould not approve of the proposed increase in the tobacco duty, which would be seriously felt in Ireland. Besides, the working classes already paid more than their proportion of taxation. The reason that the tobacco tax would fall more heavily on Ireland than on England was that Ireland was not so wealthy, while smokers naturally consumed about the same amount of tobacco. He thought it fortunate that the spirit duty had not been raised, or the question adverted to, when some Irish Members were present; because many were prepared with good speeches and long ones, having plenty of statistics in them, to fire off at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One hon. Gentleman told him he was prepared to speak for two hours; and, as he had recently spoken on a kindred subject for two hours and 50 minutes, he (Major Nolan) rather thought the hon. Gentleman would have kept his word. The whole argument against the imposition of an extra spirit duty was summed up in the conclusion arrived at from statistics by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), that anyone drinking spirits paid six times as much on alcohol as anyone paid who drank beer. It would be wrong to raise the tax on spirits without raising the tax on beer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would see that the heavier

    591
    the tax on incomes the greater became the importance of a question which he (Major Nolan) wished to bring forward when he had another opportunity—namely, the question of the abatement from that tax. He saw no reason why the abatement should cease to be allowed when incomes reached £400. The fair and mathematical proceeding would be to deduct the same sum from everybody's income before levying the tax, and at a future stage he thought he would divide the Committee upon this question. He was also in favour of an extension in the amount of the abatement, the result of which would be that the Exchequer would lose a large sum on very small incomes; but as small incomes paid proportionately more indirect taxation than large ones, the extension would be just. A man of large income could only consume about the same amount of Exciseable and Customs' commodities as the man of small income, so that the former did not suffer so much from indirect taxation, and ought to pay more direct taxation. This question would become very important if there should be a large War Income Tax. The men of small incomes would not care to pay an Income Tax of 1s. or 1s. 2d. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not listen to suggestions to increase the spirit duties at any future time, and that he would not be so unjust as to put a heavy amount of taxation upon Scotland and Ireland in order to relieve the responsibility of England.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Before replying to the observations and criticisms that have been made upon my necessarily unpleasant Statement, I would thank the Committee for the attention with which that Statement was listened to. I can only say that I congratulate myself and the Committee also on the spirit in which the proposals have been received. Of course, I quite understand that in allowing the discussion to close this evening, those who have taken part in it in no way commit themselves to approval of the whole, or, indeed, of any part, of my Statement. They have only assented to the passing of the fiscal Resolutions, which could not be delayed without very great inconvenience; but which, of course, will be subject to be reversed if the House so thinks fit. What I propose
    592
    is, that we should take to-night the Votes for the tea and tobacco duties, and then report Progress on the other Resolutions, for the discussion of which we can hereafter fix a day. There is some inconvenience, of course, in not passing the Income Tax Resolution at once; but we have faced that inconvenience before, and we must face it again for a few days. A good deal of discussion has gone on to-night upon proposals which have not been made. I will not enter into the merits of those proposals, except to say that I doubt whether an addition to the spirit duties would, as a financial operation, be successful, for there has been a continuous falling off in that source of Revenue, and it seems to me that the experience derived from various attempts at increasing the duty does not speak very much in its favour as a fiscal measure. As regards some of the arguments that have been brought forward, I would say of them that I do not think we ought to attempt to adjust our taxation upon theoretical or mathematical bases. It is perfectly impossible to make the taxation of this country so accurately and mathematically equal as some hon. Gentlemen seem to think. You could not take different kinds of strong drink—such as spirits, wines, and beer—and adjust your taxation in accordance with the precise quantity of alcohol in each. Neither do I think you could take the Income Tax and so adjust it as that it would bear with the same amount of pressure upon everybody. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) seems to think that as regards the duties on tobacco it would be unfair, while raising the duty on unmanufactured tobacco, not to raise it on cigars to a somewhat greater extent, so as to equalize the price of the article. That is not the principle upon which we proceed. If he looks into the matter, he will see that the tax is levied on the leaf as it comes into this country, and when it so comes it is either used in the form of leaf tobacco, is cut up into smoking tobacco, or is made into cigars. Some of the tobacco brought into this country is not brought in in the form of leaf at all, but in the form of ready made cigars. The object, then, is so to tax the foreign cigar as fairly to represent the cost of manufacture in this country. The scale of such taxation is that which was settled in 1863, after

    593
    very careful consideration and long debates in this House, under the scheme of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and which established a difference amounting, I think, to 1s. l0 d. between the manufactured cigar and the unmanufactured leaf. If, therefore, you were to raise the duty on cigars to more than that amount above the duty on the unmanufactured article, you would do one of two things—you would either give protection to the British manufacturer against the foreign importer, or you must find some means of taxing him on the manufacture of his cigar after he has got the leaf. That would involve an inconvenient process; and, therefore, we propose, in order to avoid the inconvenience, to raise the tax by 4d. all round. An hon. Member has recommended us to raise it by 6d., because that would be a sum more easy of calculation; but 4d. per lb. represents ¼d. per ounce, and that, perhaps, is just as easily divisible as 6d. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) has asked me what particular class of Stamps shows the largest amount of increase this year? The fact is, that there are very slight differences under all the different heads of Stamps. There are small improvements under the heads of Stamps for Legacy and Succession Duties, Labels, Bills of Exchange, and Bankers' Notes; and there is somewhat of a falling-off under the heads of Probate, Deeds, Receipts, Drafts, and other Instruments. But the changes are so slight, that I do not think there is any other inference to be drawn from them, than that the Revenue from Stamps has, on the whole, fairly kept up. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Serjeant Spinks) has asked me the amount received from Railway Passenger Duty this year; and my answer is that it was £750,000. Then my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) wishes me to state to the Committee that which, in point of fact, I frankly stated before—namely, that, irrespective altogether of the extraordinary Expenditure caused by recent events, the Expenditure for the coming year will exceed the Estimated Income by a sum which would be covered by an addition of about 1d. in the pound to the Income Tax. I am sorry that this is so, and
    594
    that I should have been brought under the lash of my right hon. Friends the Members for Greenwich and Pontefract. I have made my Statement in the way which I thought would be most clear to the Committee, and without wishing to conceal the fact that there was a deficit in the past year, and that there is a likelihood of a deficit in the coming year. I will not go into either excuse or justification—whichever you like to call it—of this increase in the Expenditure. To a very great extent, however, I may say that the increase has been, and is, due to legacies that have been left to us by our Predecessors—not legacies of which I wish to complain, but still legacies. The Education Act, for which they claim—and very justly claim—a great deal of credit, has been a very expensive measure to the country, and it is an expense which must, in the nature of things, go on increasing. I do not complain of this, because I think the Act is a very proper one to have passed. The Party opposite passed the Act and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are never tired of claiming credit for it; but they must not blame us for carrying it out—when they have ordered the dinner, they ought not to complain of us who have to pay the bill. I might say the same of certain portions of our military expenditure. Many of the improvements which were made by the last Government have been heartily accepted by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy); but, though excellent, they have been found to be of a very costly character. So it has been with other matters; and these remarks connect themselves with a subject on which some remarks were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich at an earlier period of the evening. My right hon. Friend seemed to be rather hurt at my having mentioned the Harbour and Passing Tolls Acts as the commencement of the loan system for public works; but where, I would ask, is the further development of the system thus established to be found? Not in any measures of ours, but in measures passed by a Government of which my right hon. Friend was the head—I allude particularly to the Education Act, under which a system of local loans to school boards was set on foot. The greater part of the expense so created has been cast upon us. Then

    595
    there are the Sanitary Acts, which established the same principle, and put upon us a large amount of expense. Then my right hon. Friend says—"You have done good service in calling attention to this matter, but why do you not do something more; why do you not attempt to check it?" The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) again, says—"This is a matter on which we have been in the habit of taking a great deal of credit to ourselves." This may be so; but I venture to say that we are doing—and have been doing—all that we can in order to prevent the evils arising from that system. We have done more than one thing in this direction since we came into Office. We have, in the first place, instituted the principle of bringing in a local Budget, by means of a Bill, which gives an annual opportunity of discussing the system of local loans, instead of leaving the Treasury to lend money at discretion. Let me also remind the Committee—and through them the public—that we have passed an Act for the purpose of rendering it more easy for local authorities to borrow money independently of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. With regard to the question of the tax on dogs, I would request hon. Members to wait until they see the clauses of the Bill. I doubt whether we can profitably discuss it at present. Then there remains the Question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract, and his reminder that I have not stated the condition of the Debt. I believe the result of the year to be that the permanent Funded Debt on March 31, 1877, was £712,621,000, and in the past year there has been created for Telegraph Service an additional £314,000, making in all £712,935,000. In the course of the year, £1,166,000 have been cancelled by the new Sinking Fund; the old Sinking Fund was used to pay off advances of £48,000; Life Annuities, £723,000; Land Tax, £92,000; and the Judicature Act, £31,000, making a total of £2,068,000; so that the permanent Funded Debt on the 31st of March stood at £710,867,000, being an estimated decrease on the year of £1,753,000. Then with regard to Terminable Annuities, the estimated value on the 31st of March, 1877, in 3 per cent Stock was £49,308,000; and on the 31st of March,
    596
    1878, it was £46,328,000, or a decrease of £2,979,000. But when we come to the Unfunded Debt the case is different. The Exchequer Bills outstanding at the beginning of the year were £4,193,000, and new Bills were issued in the year for local works to the amount of £400,000, making a total of £4,593,000. Then there were Exchequer Bonds outstanding at the beginning of the year amounting to £7,550,000, less a portion of the Suez Canal Bonds paid off, £60,000, and new Bonds issued on account of the Vote of Credit £2,750,000, making up the amount of the Bonds outstanding on the 31st of March to £10,239,000. There were also Treasury Bills outstanding at the beginning of the year to the amount of £2,200,000, and new Bills amounting to £3,570,000; in all, £5,770,000. Therefore, the total amount of the Unfunded Debt at the end of the year was £20,603,000, against £13,943,800 at the beginning of the year, or an increase of £6,659,000; which is due, of course, mainly to the money borrowed on account of the Vote of Credit and for local loans. I may, making a comparison of the whole period during which the present Government has been in Office, state the Debt as follows:—In round figures, the Debt, when the Government came into Office, was £779,300,000, and the amount due from persons and public bodies to whom the Government had lent money was £15,300,000. This last amount may be described as assets; and, deducting them from the gross amount it leaves a net Debt of £764,000,000. On the 31st of March last the Debt was £777,800,000; but the amount due to the Government on the Suez Canal Shares, and from persons and bodies to whom money had been lent, was at the same date £30,800,000; so that the assets, so to speak, have doubled since the accession of the Government to Office. The net Debt, therefore, on the date I have mentioned was £747,000,000, as against £764,000,000 at the former date, making a diminution in the net amount of £17,000,000.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the addition of 4d. per lb. to the duty on tobacco was on both manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] It was rather an awkward thing

    597
    to make the duty 5s. 7d. per lb., and he thought the retail dealer would take advantage of the odd figure and charge an even shilling. He also thought the rapid increase in the Income Tax, weighing heavily as it would upon persons with small fixed incomes, was a most dangerous experiment. He could see no valid reason why some addition might not have been made to the spirit duties; and he hoped the matter would be reconsidered before the taxation for the year was finally fixed.
    MR. PARNELLregretted that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had so framed their Budgets as that the largest part of the money taken from Ireland and Scotland for Imperial purposes was drawn from the very poorest of the people, instead of from the middle and upper classes, as was the case in England. Ireland contributed in taxes on articles of consumption and use a sum of £5,360,112, of which amount more than £4,500,000 was derived from the duties on spirits and tobacco, which were chiefly consumed by the very poorest of the people. It was said that whiskey was not more heavily taxed in Ireland and Scotland than in England; but it was forgotten that in those countries whiskey was the common beverage of the poor people, which was not the case in England. Everyone who had lived for a number of years in Ireland must have observed that whiskey as a beverage was natural to the climate, just as beer as a beverage was natural to the climate of England. Various circumstances attendant upon the poverty of the people in Ireland made them more prone to have recourse to the use of stimulants than if they were well-off and well-fed. Many a man suffering from the pangs of hunger, and having only a few pence in his pocket, thought he would acquire more temporary strength for the work he had to perform by purchasing a glass of whiskey than if he spent the same amount on bread. Undoubtedly, people who were miserable and badly-off would always seek consolation in the use of ardent spirits. Of course, he would be told that it was perfectly fair to levy such a tax on whiskey, as its incidence was the same in Scotland and England. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer was certainly not responsible for the original rise in the spirit duties. A former
    598
    Chancellor of the Exchequer, seeing that he had a poor country to deal with in Ireland, and conscious that he could not hope to raise any Revenue worth speaking of, if contributed by the classes who furnished the principal portion of the Revenue in England, deliberately selected an article upon which he should be able to get a large increase of Revenue from the poorest classes. The taxation of spirits and tobacco was a monstrous imposition as regarded Ireland. The Revenue from all sources in that country amounted to about £7,500,000, and in England it reached £67,000,000. But in Ireland the Revenue contributed by the very poorest people was relatively very much greater than was contributed by the same class in England. It was only by taking advantage of the taste of the people of Ireland for stimulants and tobacco that they had been able to raise any Revenue in that country worth speaking of. He knew how Ireland could get out of English rule to a large extent. If Irishmen would only give up drinking whiskey, and so deprive the English Government of £5,500,000, the Government would conclude that it was not worth while retaining that country, and would let it try to govern itself. He did not, however, see any probability of a great diminution in the amount of spirits drunk in Ireland, although the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill might effect something in that direction. The broad fact still remained—that of the Revenue of £7,500,000 derived from Ireland, £4,500,000 was derived from the duties on spirits and tobacco—£3,500,000 being realized from spirits, and £1,000,000 from tobacco. The increase in the duty on tobacco was a matter which deserved the serious consideration of Irish Members. In the case of Ireland that tax would come out of the pockets of the very poorest people. A dozen other methods of taxation might have been devised by which the poorest classes in Ireland would not have been called upon for that undue amount of contribution. It was true they smoked a cheap kind of tobacco; but the incidence of this tax would fall equally upon all kinds of tobacco—cheap and dear. Thus the tax of 4d. per lb. would affect the poor man who smoked bad tobacco quite as much as the rich man who smoked Havannah cigars.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as was generally expected, had imposed an addition to the spirit duties, the probability was that with the rising sense in Scotland of the injustice of the alcoholic duties, and the long-continued sense of injustice in Ireland on the same subject, it would have been impossible to have got the Budget through before the Holidays. The subject of the alcoholic duties was too important to be dealt with in a desultory manner, for he believed it would become a great question that would divide the three countries. There could be no doubt, whatever, that the duties upon spirits affected the Scotch and Irish peoples in a manner that was absolutely and abominably unjust. In Ireland, during the last 25 years, they had raised the duty on spirits 400 per cent; and that had been done, as the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had pointed out, in order to get a Revenue from the country. Now, that Revenue was contributed by the poorest, the most ill-fed, and the worst-clothed population in the whole of Europe. Assuming that a labouring man spent 2s. a-week in alcoholic drinks, the labourer in England bought beer with it, while the labourer in Scotland and Ireland bought whiskey. Each of the three men would consume very nearly the same amount of alcohol; but the spirit drinker contributed 1s. 6d. to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whilst the man who drank beer only contributed 3d. From the remarks of his hon. Friend one would suppose that whiskey grew indigenously in Ireland. The reason why spirits were so largely consumed in Ireland was that beer was the product of a high state of civilization. Its manufacture required great capital, besides great care and experience. Breweries were very numerous in England all over the country, and the trade was a very lucrative one. In Ireland breweries were very few in number; and, although very good beer was brewed in Dublin, there was but a very small consumption of it in the provincial districts in Ireland—spirits being almost exclusively drunk. That was the reason why the duties had been raised; and he trusted that the time was coming when a stand would be made upon that subject, and when Scotchmen and Irishmen would insist that something like equality should be intro-
    600
    duced in the taxation of alcoholic beverages. He was not in favour of levelling the spirit duties down—he did not want to make spirits particularly cheap; but he wished to put them on the same level as beer, and therefore he would level up the duties on beer. If the Government taxed beer on its alcoholic strength in the same way as they taxed spirits, they would raise upwards of £90,000,000 a-year. It was also proposed to increase the duty on tobacco. That plant had been cultivated with great success in Ireland, where excellent tobacco was grown and could be grown again, the climate being exceedingly well suited to it. But the English Government had entirely prohibited the cultivation of that plant, which had formerly been prosecuted with great success. The Government were going to realize £700,000 by a tax of ¼d. per ounce on the ordinary tobacco which the people smoked. But did any Member of the House suppose that the consumer would get it for ¼d.? Tobacco would be raised at least ½d. per ounce, and the farthing would go into the pockets of the retailer. It appeared to him that that was an exceedingly cruel proposition. Tobacco was valued by the poorer classes when they were old, worn-out, and ill-fed, even more than the food they consumed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really desired to act justly, he would have imposed an additional 1s. on the wine duty. Wine was consumed almost solely by the upper classes; the lower classes did not drink it, and they would not appreciate it if they did. The public paid now 6d. a-glass for the commonest claret across the counter, and if the duty was raised 1s., making it 2s., it would not in the slightest degree interfere with the retail price of wine. In that way, a portion of the burden would have been placed on the upper classes, and not merely on the lowest and most miserable portion of the population. The question was too large to go into then; but he hoped this Session would not close before a combined effort was made by the Scotch and Irish Members, aided by some English Members who seemed to understand the subject, to obtain a full inquiry into the question of alcoholic taxation. Since 1853 the duties on spirits had been gradually raised, as it was found the

    601
    people would drink stimulants although they sold their clothes to procure the means. These duties had been successively 2s. 3d., 3s. 4d., 4s. 6d., 8s., and now they had reached 10 s. The result was that they had wrung out of the pockets of the Irish people £4,000,000 per annum of extra taxation of various kinds during the last 25 years, while they refused to lay any additional tax on the beverage of the Englishman. The only remedy was to tax alcohol wherever it was found, in wine according to its strength, in spirits according to the amount of proof spirit, and beer should be treated in the same manner, so that no one should be placed in a worse position because he happened to live in a part of the country where he could not get beer.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he could not share the objections which had been taken by the two hon. Members who had preceded him as to the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the right hon. Gentleman had imposed four-fifths of the additional taxation upon the richer classes by means of the Income Tax, it was not unfair that a portion of the remaining fifth should fall upon the poorer classes; and, moreover, it was desirable that all classes of the community should be made to feel a lively interest in the Expenditure of the country. He rose for the purpose of making a practical suggestion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be very much alarmed at the local indebtedness of this country, and he objected very much to the claims which the local authorities were making upon the Exchequer to receive money at low rates for public purposes. The objection of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be based on two grounds—first, that the total local indebtedness was rapidly becoming excessive in the country, and should, if possible, be kept within more moderate dimensions; and, secondly, that there was some fear lest the Public Exchequer should ultimately suffer loss in consequence of the loans granted from it. He (Mr. Chamberlain) would say with respect to the latter of these two objections, that at present, at all events, there could be no possible reason for even a fear; because he believed it was the fact that no local body was at present indebted to more than twice the amount of its actual rates, or,
    602
    in other words, to more than one-tenth of the total value of the property which remained as security for the money so lent. As long as they had a security which was worth 10 times the amount lent, there really need not be the slightest fear that the Public Exchequer would suffer. As to the rapidly-increasing total amount of local indebtedness, he did not think that was so alarming as the figures at first sight would lead one to suppose. It must be borne in mind that recently very great progress had been made by local authorities in obtaining possession of various public works—such as gas works and water works—which must be treated as investments, and not as loans for ordinary expenditure. With regard to the remainder, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see that a great part of that expenditure was absolutely necessary, and was imposed upon local authorities by Act of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the expenditure for providing schools and for many sanitary undertakings. Nothing that the House could do would enable local authorities to dispense with such responsibilities, and the only result of making it more difficult to obtain money from the Public Exchequer would be that the local ratepayers would have to pay a larger interest, and it was impossible to see that anybody would be benefited thereby. So far as the security was absolute, it was clear that no loss could be incurred by affording the accommodation sought by local authorities. There was, however, a certain portion of that expenditure which might be said to be permissive, such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred, and which was very large in the town he represented—the expenditure under the Astizans' Dwellings Act. At present, the municipality was a debtor to the extent of £1,000,000 to the Public Works Loan Commissioners, and this debt would be further increased by £500,000 before their contemplated improvements were completed. The Public Works Loan Commissioners possessed not merely the security of the Birmingham rates, but the security of the freehold property the local authority had purchased, which was now worth the sum paid for it, and in 20 years hence would be worth twice as much; although, in the course of that period, a large portion of the loan would have been repaid. Unless

    603
    the Birmingham municipality had had the advantage of the credit of the Public Exchequer, that scheme could never have been carried out. The difference between the rate at which they borrowed the money lent by the Public Works Loan Commissioners and the rate at which it could have been obtained through other channels, amounted to an annual charge of something like £5,000 per annum. The people of Birmingham had voluntarily taxed themselves to the extent of £15,000 per annum to defray the cost of improvements under the Artizans Dwellings Act; but they could not have afforded to have incurred an extra charge of £5,000 per annum. Therefore, if the Birmingham municipality could not have borrowed from the Public Exchequer, the only result would have been that the work would not have been done. The House must bear in mind that it had, by an almost unanimous Vote, approved of that legislation, and had afforded by its discussions, and by the determination to which it had arrived, a stimulus to local authorities to engage in such work and to carry it out with energy and success. Now, he came to the practical suggestion. It was, of course, desirable that local authorities should apply to the Exchequer as seldom as possible. Small local authorities must constantly come to the Public Exchequer; but in the case of such towns as Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, their credit was so good that, if the Government gave them a little assistance, they could go into the markets themselves for loans, and not be beholden to the Government. If the local authorities consolidated all their loans into one loan, that in itself would be a great step in advance. Take, for example, the case of Birmingham. They had loans raised upon separate rates—upon the improvement rate, upon the borough rate, and upon other rates, each of them being really based upon the same security at the bottom, although the incidence of the taxation was in some cases slightly various. There would, in his opinion, be no practical difficulty in bringing in a general Act to place these loans upon the general security of the property of the town, and so enable the local authorities to consolidate them into one another. If the Government would bring in a Bill to enable trustees to invest in municipal
    604
    loans, then towns such as Birmingham would at once bring out a loan on the London market, and would never again trouble the Chancellor of the Exchequer for financial aid.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, if he voted against the increase of the tobacco duty, he should not do so because he regarded it in the light of an Irish national grievance, but simply on popular grounds, believing, as he did, that it would be most oppressive on the poorest class of the population. The objections they were entitled to raise to the spirit duties were of a different character, inasmuch as the incidence of that tax fell with disproportionate weight upon Scotland and Ireland—for in these countries whiskey was the national beverage. The increased tobacco duty would press more heavily upon the people of Ireland than upon the people of the sister countries, from the circumstance that the poorest class in Ireland was poorer than the poorest class in England and Scotland. He did not approve of the suggestion that the spirit duties should be increased. It was all very well for those who took the other side of the question to say that the Englishman paid as much upon his whiskey as the Scotchman or Irishman. It must be recollected that there might be a national injustice where there was no individual injustice. That tax was deliberately imposed with the full knowledge of how it would bear on Scotland and Ireland, and it was on that ground that the justice of the objection made by hon. Members from Ireland rested, However, the case as regarded the tax on tobacco was entirely different, all three Kingdoms being equally affected.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he was one of those who, some years ago, urged upon the Treasury the expediency of granting loans to localities on easy terms. On the whole, he believed, much good had been done in this way. The danger alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not a consequence of the system itself, but arose from loans having been granted too lavishly by this and former Governments. Now, the tendency of the right hon. Gentleman's Statement, he believed, would be that the Treasury would think it proper and patriotic to suspend or limit all loans, however beneficial they might be, and they would act unfairly. Places like Bir-

    605
    mingham, which had had the advantage of Government money, would be at their ease; while struggling localities, to which it was manifestly the duty of the Treasury to lend a willing ear, would be left in the lurch. The true remedy for the undue pressure on the Treasury, arising from too lavish and lenient an expenditure, was not suddenly to deny the needy places the advances they required, but to put a fair price upon the Government money, and give it wherever it was wanted—on proper security, of course. What Mr. Carlyle called—"Strength to the strong, and devil take the hindmost," was not, in his opinion, the best policy for the Government to pursue. The obviously juster and wider course would be to put such a minimum price on Government Loans as would yield, in every case, a moderate profit, and tend to make the Imperial Treasury, acting on known and recognized rules, a bank for local improvements throughout all parts of the country.
    MR. FRENCHthought the tobacco duty would operate unfairly as between vendor and consumer. In Ireland, the tobacco consumed by the poorer classes was sold at 3d. an ounce, and the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to put ¼d. per ounce on the price of it. Now, the farthing was not a coin that was in general circulation, and the result of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal would practically be that an additional ½d., instead of ¼d., would be charged to the consumer.
    Resolution agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the following Duties of Customs shall be charged on and after the 5th day of April 1878, on Tobacco imported into the United Kingdom, in lieu of the Duties now payable thereon (that is to say):—
    Tobacco Manufactured, viz.:—

    £

    s.

    d.

    Segars.

    the lb.

    0

    5

    4

    Cavendish or Negrohead

    the lb.

    0

    4

    10

    Snuff containing more than 13lbs. of moisture in every 100lbs. weight thereof

    the lb.

    0

    4

    1

    Snuff not containing more than 13lbs. of moisture in every l00lbs. weight thereof

    the lb.

    0

    4

    10

    Being Cavendish or Negrohead Manufactured in Bond

    the lb.

    0

    4

    4

    Other Manufactured Tobacco

    the lb.

    0

    4

    4

    Tobacco Unmanufactured, viz.:—

    Containing 10lbs. or more of moisture in every 100lbs. weight thereof

    the lb.

    0

    3

    6

    Containing less than 10lbs. of moisture in every 100lbs. weight thereof

    the lb.

    0

    3

    10."

    —(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MAJOR NOLANinquired in what form he could put the Question that the tobacco duties remain unaltered?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the second and third of the Resolutions that had been put into his hands related to the tobacco duties, and that the hon. and gallant Member might effect his object either by saying "No" to the second Resolution, or by moving to amend the clause or Schedule of the Bill to be founded upon it subsequently.
    MAJOR NOLANthought it would be simpler to move a Resolution in terms similar to those of the Resolution relating to tea.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsuggested to the hon. and gallant Member that he should divide against the second Resolution as it stood.
    MR. W. H. SMITHpointed out that the duty on tobacco was not an annual duty, and that the effect of the Resolution being lost would simply be to leave the duty as it was. The hon. and gallant Member, therefore, would effect his object by saying "No" to the Resolution when it was put from the Chair.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, his reason for making the inquiry was that he did not wish to place himself in the absurd position of appearing to object to all duty on tobacco. He only objected to the increase.
    MR. PARNELLasked whether the increase on all classes of manufactured or unmanufactured tobacco was the same —namely, 4d. per lb?
    MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that the increase in the duty was the same on every description of tobacco.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 24: Majority 180.—(Div. List, No. 96.)
    (3.) Resolved, That, in lieu of the Drawback now payable on Tobacco, there shall be allowed on and after the 5th day of June 1878, a Drawback on the exportation, or deposit in a bonded warehouse to be used as ship's stores, of Tobacco, of Three Shillings and Seven Pence per pound, subject to the provisions of "The Manufactured

    607
    Tobacco Act, 1863," (26 Vic. c. 7) for ascertaining the amount of Drawback payable, and under such regulations as the Commissioners of Customs may see fit to adopt.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for one year, commencing on the 6th day of April, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, the following Duties of Income Tax (that is to say):
    For every Twenty Shillings of the annual value or amount of Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A) (C) (D) or (E) of the said Act, the Duty of Five Pence;
    And For every Twenty Shillings of the annual value of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act,—
    In England, the Duty of Two Pence Halfpenny;
    In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Duty of One Penny Three Farthings;
    Subject to the provisions contained in section one hundred and sixty-three of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, for the exemption of persons whose income is less than One Hundred and Fifty Pounds, and in section eight of 'The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1876,' for the relief of persons whose income is less than Four Hundred Pounds."
    MR. CHILDERSwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state to the Committee, whether this was purely a formal Vote, leaving the Question entirely open to discussion afterwards?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it certainly would not preclude future discussion. The reason for adopting the Motion at that time was purely one of convenience, with regard to the payment of dividends.
    MR. CHILDERSasked, whether the dividends payable to-morrow would be subject to the increased rate of the Income Tax?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERanswered in the negative.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYinquired, whether the effect of the Committee now agreeing to the Motion would be, in any degree, to preclude the making of a proposal that the Income Tax Act should contain some provision for continuing the tax, subject to any future alteration
    608
    which might be determined by Parliament for a certain number of days beyond a twelvemonth? The question had Frequently been raised by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) and discussed in the House. For his own part, he did not wish to enter into a discussion at present; but desired only to know whether it would be competent to raise the question when the proposal for containing the Income Tax Act came under the notice of the House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Resolution would not, in any way, compromise the action of the House in the matter.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, on and after the first day of June, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight, in lieu of the Annual Duty of Five Shillings imposed by the Act of the thirtieth and thirty-first years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter five, there shall be granted and charged the Annual Duty of Seven Shillings and Sixpence for and in respect of every Dog of the age of Two Months or upwards, for which a Licence to keep the same shall be taken out under the said Act, such Licence terminating on the thirty-first day of December following the day on which it is granted."
    MR. CHILDERS, without wishing to express any opinion as to whether the change proposed was a bad or a good one, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether such a Motion ought to pass on the night of the Budget being proposed, seeing that the increase of the tax was not to take effect until the 1st of June?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERat once consented to the withdrawal of the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (5.) Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to the Customs and the Inland Revenue.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
    (Mr. Raikes, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)

    [BILL 138.] SECOND BEADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: I am sorry at this late hour to

    609
    detain the House on what I fear will be a dry and uninviting subject. At the same time, it is one which is, this year, more than usually connected with the Budget which we have just been discussing; and it is, I think, convenient that the attention of Parliament should be drawn, as early as possible to the question of local as well as Imperial finance. The Resolution, upon which the Bill is founded, was passed at so late an hour that it was impossible for me to make a complete statement in detail upon the subject.
    MR. MONK MR. MONK rose to Order, and inquired, whether it was not a matter of necessity that the Bill should be in the hands of hon. Members before the second reading was moved? He asked the Question because the Bill had not been delivered.
    MR. SPEAKER: No doubt it would be more convenient if hon. Members had the Bill in their hands; but I am not prepared to say that the right hon. Gentleman is out of Order in moving the second reading.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that he has been no loser by not having seen the Bill, because there are other stages at which its provisions can be discussed, and the discussion can be more conveniently taken in Committee. At the same time, I may say that the Bill has been in the Vote Office during this afternoon, where it can be had by hon. Members. I now desire, in the first place, to explain the provisions of the Bill, and to state the reasons which the Government have for asking for the particular sum of money which is required. I will afterwards, with the indulgence of the House, and in accordance with the practice of the last two Sessions, endeavour to place before it, as shortly as I can, what is the condition of indebtedness of the local authorities of this country at the present time, and also what has been the amount of charge, under several heads, upon the ratepayers during the past 12 months. I find, from the Report of the Public Works Loans Commissioners, which was issued last summer, that, by the Act of Parliament under which they were then operating, there was placed at the disposal of the Commissioners the sum of £4,000,000, to be advanced to local authorities within the financial year ending June, 1877. It
    610
    appears, also, that of that sum, £2,426,000 was advanced, and, in addition, a balance in hand, unexpended under previous loans, of £802,725. Therefore, during the year to which I have alluded, there was advanced by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to local authorities the total sum of £3,249,602. The Act of 1877 authorized that a grant should be made of £4,000,000 to the Commissioners for making advances to local authorities during the year beginning April 1, 1877, and concluding June 30, 1878. This sum of £4,000,000 is now practically expended three months short of the time for which it was granted. Although, as I stated last year in introducing this Bill, £4,000,000 was to be granted, £10,000,000 had been asked for by various local authorities having a right to ask for public money. It was anticipated that only four-fifths of the money would be taken, and, accordingly, it was estimated that £4,000,000 could be relied upon as representing the real sum which would be actually called for within the year. That Estimate, so far, has proved to be correct, as £4,000,000 has been found to be practically sufficient. It is now proposed by this Bill to authorize a grant to the Commissioners from the Exchequer, of £6,000,000 for England, and £800,000 for Ireland, for the service of the current year. The sums of money asked for by the local authorities on the 31st of December last were double that amount—not less than £12,000,000. At the same time, acting upon the experience of last year, but assuming that a larger proportion than four-fifths will be required, it is estimated that one-half, or £6,000,000, will be issued. As stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, the cases in which the Public Works Loan Commissioners are required to advance money at exceptionally low rates of interest are—(1), to urban and rural sanitary authorities under the Public Health Act; (2), to urban authorities or town councils, with a population exceeding 25,000 inhabitants, under the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Act; (3), school boards, under the Education Act; and (4), harbour authorities. The interest is to be charged at the rate of 3½ per cent in most of these cases, except as far as it may be necessary to secure the country against loss. The rules laid

    611
    down by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, under their exceptional or saving provisions, divide the loans to be advanced into three categories—namely—(1),those advanced for a period not exceeding 30 years, are charged at 3½ per cent; those advanced for 40 years, at 3¾ per cent; those advanced for between 40 and 50 years, at the rate of 4 per cent. There is, I understand, very little use made of loans coming under the second category; but it seems that a considerable sum of money—not less, I think, than £200,000 —was advanced in the year 1876–7, at the rate of 4 per cent. I have stated that the applications for money have amounted this year to not less than £12,000,000; but we have, apart from previous experience, reason to believe that £6,000,000 will be really required, because we know that, under the Public Health Act, the sum of £3,093,000 has been sanctioned; under the Artizans and Labourers Dwellings Act, £1,100,000; under the Education Act, £1,673,400—making a total sum of £5,866,400. The sum, also, of £800,000, has been inserted for Ireland, as the amount of money required to be advanced by the Board of Works in Ireland. It will be readily seen, by what has already been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how very important it is that other sources should be found, if possible, for obtaining these advances of money than the Imperial Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already alluded to the provisions of the Local Loans Act of 1875, as having facilitated the loaning powers of local authorities. That Act provides for the issue of various kinds of securities, which are divided into four classes. First of all, there may be nominal debentures; secondly, debentures payable to bearer; thirdly, Terminable Annuities, the principal and interest to be discharged by annual instalments; and, fourthly, in certain cases there may be the issue of Debenture Stock. Official sanction may be given to the issue of these securities by the Local Government Board, in which case the securities cannot be disputed; and, in certain instances, trustees are permitted to invest. Now, this Act is being brought into operation with insufficient effect, considering the facilities which it was intended to give. In the first year after the passing of the Act, the amount
    612
    raised under it was not more than £3,000; but during last year it rose to £200,000; and the whole of this money was raised at 4 per cent, or within a fraction of 4 per cent. Now, a sum of not less than £200,000, being for the extended period above mentioned, was advanced under the Sanitary Acts by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, at the rate of 4 per cent. Therefore, it seems a toss-up, as it were, whether, so far as amount of interest is concerned, local authorities had gone to the open market or the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of these particular advances; and I cannot help hoping that, as time goes on, recourse will be had more freely to the open market. Further, I find that, amongst the applications which will be made during the coming year, there is one item of £215,000 for Burial Boards. This amount will be advanced in the ordinary way by the Commissioners, at not less than 5 per cent, to those authorities. But it is open to them to proceed, under the Local Loans Act, and to avail themselves of the advantages offered by its provisions; and, so far as that is done, it will be, I hope, in diminution of the call upon the Public Exchequer, and of the charge upon the ratepayers in respect of public cemeteries. I do not wish to weary the House by describing the various advantages which might be derived from a more free and general adoption of the provisions of the Local Loans Act; but I may say that I have caused a Memorandum to be prepared in the Department over which I have control which will, no doubt, be found useful to hon. Members who may choose to apply for it, as it will give, in a compendious form, all particulars necessary to be known by the public authorities who have power to borrow under the Act. As a matter of importance bearing upon a clause in this Bill, I may state that, under the original Public Works Loans Act of 1875, the Local Government Board were required to satisfy themselves that the money asked for was applied to the purposes for which it was intended. That power has been freely exercised, and in several cases it has been ascertained that some misapplication has occurred chiefly by the payment of interest out of the capital sum advanced. But, in case of any such mis-

    613
    takes or shortcomings, there is no power given by the Act to the Local Government Board to secure the replacement of the money misapplied. It is now proposed by clauses in this Bill that power shall be given to require the replacement of the money so misapplied. There are two other clauses in the Bill to which, perhaps, I ought to allude; because, as has been observed by hon. Members, the Bill has not long been in their hands. One is a clause empowering the Treasury to compound a debt due from the Epping rural sanitary authority; the other gives power to cancel arrears of a loan due in respect of Wigan church. With regard to the latter case, a decision was given in the House of Lords two years ago, declaring that, in consequence of the lapse of time and change of circumstances, the churchwardens and church rates of the parish were no longer liable to repay the remainder of the loan and interest. It would take me a long time to go through the particulars of those cases; but they are fully set out in the clauses of the Bill. The Epping case is a most unfortunate one. It has been progressing for some years, and the end of it has been that, subject to the approval of the Treasury, the Public Works Loan Com missioners have compromised the debt due to them for the sum of £5,000. It can-not be denied that great care is required in sanctioning advances, whether through the medium of Provisional Orders, as practised In the Public Departments, or through the agency of private Acts; because it has been found that, after power has been given to raise certain sums of money for the execution of particular works, they are shortly found to be insufficient, and further application for additional capital is made. I will give an illustration of what has occurred in my own recent experience. By a private Act, passed two years ago, a sum of £30,000 or £35,000 was taken with a view of providing a certain district in Lancashire with water. The water was, undoubtedly, needed; plans were prepared, and Committees of both Houses of Parliament were satisfied as to the propriety of the expenditure. Only two years have elapsed, and not only has the £35,000 been spent, but a debt of £30,000 more has been incurred by the local authority; and it is estimated that it will take an addi-
    614
    tional £40,000 before the water so urgently needed can be provided. I mention that case to show how important it is that Gentlemen, serving on Committees upon Private Bills as well as the Public Departments, should be extremely careful in investigating the grounds of the estimates when they are asked to sanction the measures proposed. I need say no more of this Bill, except that it will have the effect of placing the Public Works Loan Commissioners in possession of funds, by which they will certainly be able to carry on their operations for another 12 months, probably until the summer of 1879. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) need be under no apprehension that the Government desire to place any check upon the issue of these funds, subject to the regulations provided in such cases. Whether the rate of interest in future should be placed, under certain circumstances, at a higher figure than has been paid in the past may be a question; but, at present, I see no reason to anticipate any change in that respect, as the local authorities have a right, under the Sanitary and other Acts, to borrow money at 3½ per cent. Now, Sir, I will take advantage of this opportunity to lay before the House some account of the financial progress which has been made by the local authorities of the country during the past year. I shall not weary the House with so many details as I have given on a former occasion, because I think many of the observations which I have made before will be still fresh in the minds of hon. Members. I will begin by expressing the great satisfaction which I feel at the admirable disposition which has been displayed by the local authorities to fulfil the requirements of the Act of last Session, which requires all returns to be made up to a uniform date. The estimate I made of the local debt 12 months ago was £105,500,000, or, in round numbers, £105,000,000, and the actual amount of loans outstanding at Lady Day, 1877, was £105,702,588, so that there was only a difference of £202,588; and, dividing the additional amount of loans into the three well-known categories, we find the loans charged upon rates during the year to have been £5,425,676; those charged on tolls, £556,376; and those charged

    615
    on duties £45,000; making a total of £6,027,052. The average of the loans in previous years was, as nearly as possible, £7,000,000; therefore the amount last year was pretty much in accordance with the average. I do not intend to trouble the House any further in reference to the loans raised on tolls and dues; but I will confine myself to those which were charged on the rates. In 1876, the total amount of loans charged upon the rates was £70,644,174; and, in 1877, we find the amount is £76,089,850; being a net increase of £5,445,676. The chief items of increase were the Metropolis debts, which showed an increase of £630,941; urban sanitary debts, £3,033,356; and school board loans, £1,644,970. I may remark there was a decrease on county loans of £138,273; and of the total outstanding loans charged upon rates—namely, £76,089,850, the boroughs, including the Metropolis, owe no less than £60,485,000—and this is exclusive of burial and school board loans. And now as to the ability of the boroughs to bear these charges. I will mention that, as far as I can ascertain, the loans charged on the rates of the Metropolis are between £18,000,000 and £20,000,000;whereas the annual rateable value of the Metropolis is £23,000,000. Therefore, the charge is less than one year's rateable value. Excluding the Metropolis, and taking 10 of the largest and most populous boroughs in the Kingdom, I find they have a rateable value of £11,957,632; while the debt is £20,706,843, or not quite two years' rateable value; but in these debts are included the loans in respect of valuable properties in waterworks and gas. I will give the House a few details as regards particular towns. Brighton, outstanding loans, £661,056, rateable value, £543,140; Bristol, outstanding loans, £462,919, rateable value, £719,237; Birmingham, outstanding loans, £2,811,824, rateable value, £1,352,556; Liverpool, outstanding loans, £4,083,577, rateable value, £3,019,941; Salford, outstanding loans, £1,019,785, rateable value, £750,229; Manchester, outstanding loans, £4,707,678, rateable value, £2,229,187; Bradford, outstanding loans, £2,826,132; rateable value, £772,291; Leeds, outstanding loans, £3,376,804, rateable value, £1,033,133;
    616
    Sheffield, outstanding loans, £244,578, rateable value, £827,205; and Newcastle-on-Tyne, outstanding loans, £502,490, rateable value, £710,613. Now, of course, these are places in which it is true that the debts do not really mean money out of pocket, and in respect to which there is no return whatever; but they include the ownership of valuable properties, such as gasworks and waterworks, which have been acquired. It may be said, putting these 10 largest boroughs aside, that the remaining municipal boroughs, with a rateable value of £32,823,841, have a debt of only £26,455,865, or about three-quarters of one year's rateable value, and in several of these cases the authorities are possessed of valuable property in gas and waterworks also. Even if we take the whole of the rate-able property in England and Wales, we find that it is, in round numbers, £120,000,000; while the total debts charged on the rates are, in round numbers, £76,000,000; or a little more than three-fifths of one year's rateable value. The financial condition of the several local authorities for the year ending Lady Day, 1878, may be computed as follows:—Loans outstanding at Lady Day, 1877, £105,702,588; deduction for repayments of principal, £4,800,000; leaving a total of £100,902,588. Then we know that loans have been sanctioned by the Local Government Board, and those are as follows:—Sanitary Authorities,£3,093,806; Artizans'Dwellings, £1,100,000; Boards of Guardians, £245,500; authorized by Local Acts, £3,479,500; Education Department, £1,673,400; Metropolitan Board of Works, £1,252,000; Burial Boards, £215,200; total, £11,059,400, which, if added to the total which I have stated just now, will make £111,961,900; and, deducting the outstanding loans for 1877, there remains an increase of £6,259,400. The indebtedness of the country at the present time may, therefore, be estimated at £112,000,000, which is considerably less than one year's rateable value. I was asked last year by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), to distinguish the increase of debt between the urban and the rural sanitary districts. Now, the loans sanctioned during the year ended Lady Day, 1878, are as follows:—To urban sanitary authorities, £3,979,446;

    617
    to rural sanitary authorities, £214,360; and, including the amount sanctioned by the Local Government Board under local Acts, the whole estimated increase of debt is £11,000,000, of which not less than £9,500,000 is due to urban districts. As to the £3,479,500 for loans under local Acts during the last year, I may mention that a very large proportion was for remunerative undertakings, such as water and gasworks. Thus— Blackburn, water, £430,000; Leeds, gas and water, £550,000; Longton, gas, £100,000; Newcastle-on-Tyne, tramways, quays, &c., £300,000; Ramsgate, water and gas, £171,000; and Warring-ton, gas, £200,000. These are the results of Acts of Parliament passed during last Session, and no doubt there will be other Acts of Parliament of a similar character passed in future Sessions. I think it may be interesting to the House to know what has been the operation of the Artizans Dwellings Act so far as it has gone. I find that for the year ending Lady Day, 1878, the loans under it were—Birmingham, £1,000,000; Liverpool, £50,000; Swansea, £25,000; and Wolverhampton, £25,000; making a total of £1,100,000. There are other applications which are under consideration, and there is no desire but to meet these applications in the spirit in which they are made; and, after what I have stated, I think the House has no reason to be dissatisfied with the readiness which the authorities have shown in our great towns to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act. I now come to the rates levied for the year 1876–7, and these amounted to £23,617,511, being a net increase, over the preceding year, of £917,852. The principal items of that increase are as follows:—Highways, £23,402; Metropolis Management, £92,714; Urban Sanitary, £263,759; School Board, £443,145; and Boroughs, including the Police, £131,492; making a total of £954,512. The increase in the highway rates is attributable to the disturnpiked roads; and of the urban sanitary rates, in a great measure, to new rates, such as gas and water rates, brought into the account. I cannot say much as to the prospect of a diminution under several of these heads in many of our large towns in which the population is rapidly increasing, and where they are
    618
    still in a backward condition as to gas and water supplies. With respect to the educational rate, I think the case is somewhat different. The Act has been put in rapid operation, especially in London, and large sums of money have been raised in a short time, and the country is now being fully supplied with school accommodation, so that we may hope the time will soon arrive when we shall see a diminution of that amount. I. need hardly say more in further illustration of what I have said of the real power of the local rates of the country to bear this increased charge, than to mention that the rateable value of the country in 1873 was only £109,200,000; in 1874, £111,770,000; in 1875, £115,703,000; in 1876, £119,000,000; and last year, £124,546,000. So that, while the indebtedness has largely increased, there has been a rapid increase in the annual rateable value of the property of the Kingdom. One of the causes of the large increase in the rateable value of the country is that during the last year, under the provisions of the Rating Act, 1874, applicable to game, woods, and mines, new property to the amount of £1,500,000 has been brought into rating. I apologize for having brought these figures before the House; but I think it was necessary that I should make them public; and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been of opinion that, whether agreeable or not, they should be brought under the notice of Parliament, because a great deal of alarm has arisen from hon. Gentlemen not knowing really what these loans are. This Bill has more than a local interest, because it deals with questions specially demanding the attention of Parliament. Last year I illustrated, by a comparison between rates and taxes, the indifference which this House has sometimes shown to the imposition of new burdens, when taking the form of rates rather than taxes; but that is only another way of expressing the truth, that the House has no fear of new burdens being added except those which are added with its knowledge and consent. Still, great changes in local taxation have been made without the real knowledge of Parliament, and I wish that Committees on Private Bills were more uniformly guided by

    619
    fixed principles as to the terms and security for the expenditure and appropriation of money. I now beg to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
    MR. DILLWYNthought it was scarcely in Order for his right hon. Friend to have brought forward this Bill on the present occasion, inasmuch as it had not been distributed; and it was a measure of such magnitude that they ought to have its provisions before them. He did not propose now to discuss whether the Bill was a good or a bad one; he objected to their proceeding with the second reading on the ground that important Bills ought to be distributed before they were allowed to pass that stage. It was a pernicious principle to take the second reading as a matter of course. He therefore moved the adjournment of the debate, and hoped that the Government would accede to it.
    MR. MONKseconded- the Motion. The statement they had just heard was most interesting, and contained much valuable information; but it was very desirable that information, based upon a complication of figures, in order to be understood, should be seen in print, especially when there were so many figures to be considered. He was somewhat astonished that after the previous ruling from the Chair the right hon. Gentleman should have taken the exceptional course he had. Although the Bill had not yet been delivered to Members, he had been able to obtain a copy from the Vote Office. It was a most important measure, for it enabled the Public Health Commissioners to advance no less a sum than £6,800,000, and it affected the position of debts already owing by sanitary authorities in England. Under these circumstances, and until the Bill was in the hands of Members, he hoped the second reading would not be pressed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    MR. GOLDNEYobserved, that the Bill was the most important measure
    620
    that had been before the House for some time. About one-sixth of the National Debt had been already advanced to boroughs, on some of which the sums lent amounted to one-tenth of the whole value of the rateable property. Many applications for loans, it was stated, had to be refused; and some localities being unable to pay, had had to ask the Imperial Government to meet their obligations. A very important clause in the Bill repealed the existing provision giving the Government a preference charge on the rates in respect of these advances. Another question arose on the mode of lending now adopted by the Government. If loans were made for periods less than 40 years, 3½ per cent was charged. But if 50 years were given for the repayment, 4 per cent was the rate of interest paid. There was thus a direct inducement on localities to lighten their burdens by laying on posterity the task of repaying a portion of these debts. It was an unjust system, for posterity would have its requirements as well as the present generation. The matter required very serious attention, and he hoped, if the Bill were passed, it would be referred to a Select Committee. A general Report ought to be made of the incubus laid bylaw upon property, and some method devised of controlling the expenditure of independent local authorities. If the present system were allowed to continue, the time would come when local taxation would become so burdensome, that a portion, at all events, of the debts would have to be remitted by the Imperial Government.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it was very desirable, and almost necessary, that the Bill should pass into law before the Easter Recess, and money must be provided to meet the obligations of the Government. It would be a great convenience to take the second reading then, and to discuss the clauses in Committee.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the House ought not to allow any Bill to be read a second time until it had been delivered to Members. That was the only intelligible rule, and the departure from it would lead to discussions like the present, whether the Bill were thought of sufficient importance to be distributed or not.
    Mr. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the rule to which the hon. Baronet had referred was a good one, and he should be sorry to depart from it. At the same time, he must ask the House to remember the necessity which existed to pass the Bill before the adjournment for the Holidays. Considering the objection now raised to the second reading a valid one, the Government would not press the Bill.
    MR. KNIGHTsaid, the public Works Loans Act was the least objectionable way of borrowing money for local works of England, because it necessitated the Public Works Commissioners seeing that the money was spent for the purposes for which it was borrowed. A great deal of the money borrowed by local authorities was under the Local Loans Act, 1875. Under that Act, the large sums thrown on the county rates by the new County Government Bill would also be borrowed. That Act did not compel the Local Government Board to see how the money was spent; all they had to do was to see that the property upon which it was lent was sufficient. A long statement had been made as to the £112,000,000 now borrowed on local securities in different parts of the Kingdom. Much of the money borrowed had been wasted—millions had been spent in pouring the filth of the towns into the rivers—millions had now to be spent in getting it out again. He would add to that the fact that in some cases the rates already pressed with an almost crushing weight on the taxpayers. In Reading, the taxes were now 10 s. 6d. in the pound; and the town required to borrow far more money to complete its sanitary works. Half the rental of the town was already swallowed up in such rates, and yet the debt was increasing. The remedy proposed was to take in portions of the surrounding country. It was an ordinary way out of the difficulty; and, on the part of the country, he objected to it. The amount spent by the local authorities in engineering experiments would soon rival the National Debt. The Public Works Loans Act was not so objectionable as the Local Loans Act, because it appointed Commissioners to see that the money borrowed was properly applied.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 44.]
    (The O'Conor Don, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Corry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 1st April.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Extension of Acts prohibiting Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to the whole of Sunday).
    Amendment again proposed,
    At end of Clause, to add the words "in all places except the following (that is to say): within the Metropolitan Police District of Dublin Metropolis, and within the cities of Cork, Limerick, and Waterford, and the town of Belfast, and within the said police district, and within the said cities and town, the said hours or times are hereby extended, and shall be as follows, that is to say, up to the hour of two o'clock in the afternoon, and after the hour of seven o'clock in the evening on Sunday."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAopposed the Amendment, because it created exemptions, and he held that all communities should be legislated for on the same principle. If this legislation were required at all, it was obviously much more requisite where there was a large population than in rural districts. The promoters of the Bill had, nevertheless, accepted the Amendment; but it destroyed the whole principle of the Bill. The Bill was a bad one in principle—the Amendment was worse. He was not prepared to run against the wishes of his Friends; but he certainly would, as far as he could, protest against the course taken. He, therefore, objected to the clause.
    MR. SANDFORDexpressed his surprise that the Committee should have been invited to vote upon the Amendment, when nothing had been said either by the Attorney General for Ireland or the Chief Secretary in recommendation of it. He should like to know upon what grounds it was proposed to exempt those five towns from the Bill? for it seemed to him that if the legislation were needed at all, it was more requisite in the towns than in the rural districts.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, it was quite clear that the population of the towns in Ireland was not increasing, but rather diminishing; and yet the convictions for drunkenness showed that the vice was much on the increase. From his own experience, he could say that it was in the towns alone where drunkenness was prevalent, and where exceptional legislation, such as this, was needed.
    MR. J. LOWTHERobserved that, even if the Amendment were adopted, he should not regard the Bill as a perfect one. It was proposed and accepted by way of compromise, and it should be remembered that in England the hours of closing were not uniform throughout the country.
    MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that it did not at all follow because Members in charge of the Bill were prepared to accept Amendments, by doing which they hoped to secure its passing, that other Members were also to accept them. There was no reason for putting so quiet a town as Derry under the new regulations and omitting Belfast. He was of opinion that the influence exercised by certain societies against Members of the House of Commons ought to be withstood as destructive of their freedom and independence. He had been informed that it was intended, by a certain bigoted section, at the next General Election to endeavour to make the support of legislation of this kind a test question. That dictation, he hoped, would not be submitted to.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that the Amendment which was proposed did not emanate from the promoters of the Bill; but, at the same time, he thought that if the duty were thrown upon him of defending it, he could offer some stronger reasons for its acceptance than they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He had consented to accept this Amendment, in the first place, because the Government afforded them facilities for the passing of the Bill upon the condition that their Amendments were adopted; and, of course, the Committee would be aware that without such facilities from the Government it would be next to impossible for the Bill of a private Member to pass. In the next place, it was thought that it would not be inconsistent with the views of the supporters of the Bill to accept
    624
    those Amendments, for this reason—that in some of those cities, Dublin, Cork, and other places, there was a very divided public opinion upon the subject. He had always maintained that unless they had the public opinion of the country with them in a matter of this description, an Act of the kind proposed would not be likely to succeed. They maintained that throughout the rest of Ireland public opinion was in favour of the Bill. A great number of persons, and many of the supporters of the measure, believed that the great majority of the populations, even of those cities, were in favour of the Bill; but they could not deny that there was a considerable proportion of the population in Dublin and Cork, and he believed also in Waterford and Limerick, who held a different opinion; and the promoters of the Bill were satisfied upon that ground to accept the Government Amendment, and to allow the Bill to be tried in that portion of the country where they believed the vast majority of the population were in favour of it. As the Government had taken upon themselves the responsibility of excluding those towns, they had agreed to this, preferring to have their Bill carried with these Amendments rather than to lose it for the sake of those particular towns.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was not going to make any remark upon the fact of that Bill, with 23 Amendments, being brought on at that hour of the night. He wished to ask what was the object of excluding five large towns from the operation of the Bill? It was well-known that those who lived in the towns had the opportunity of drinking every day in the week; and, certainly, if there was any inconvenience at all it was in the country, where there was very little opportunity for entering a public-house. It was a well-known fact that many persons living six or seven miles from a small town never went into town except on a Sunday, and, consequently, to a public-house; and that was the day they wanted to close them up. He thought it was rather premature of the promoters to press that Bill on as they had been doing during the last fortnight. It was only just lately that the people of Ireland had begun to believe that the Bill would really pass. Until then, they had never believed that the Government would

    625
    allow such a coercion Bill to pass. He was now going to say a word as to the Petitions that had been received during the past week. He found that there had been presented to that House a total of 52 Petitions in favour of the Bill, and what were those Petitions made up of? Twenty-four were from religious houses in the North of Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question before the Committee was the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland relating to the exemption of those five towns from the purposes of the Bill, and it would not be in Order for the hon. Member to go into any discussion as to the general objects of the Bill.
    MR. O'SULLIVANwould submit to the Chairman's authority; but he could not see how his observations were not in Order, when he said that the Bill ought not to apply to any part of Ireland. Of course, if he confined himself simply to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, all he could say was that it appeared to him to be a piece of cowardice on the part of the Government, because there could be only one or two objects in excepting those towns. They said—"We will make a certain ring, and you can come and drink inside that ring, but you cannot drink outside it." It looked rather like cowardice, because they knew very well that they were able to put down the people in the country and prevent them taking any amusement or refreshment; but they could not put down the people in the towns, because they were too numerous. It was well-known, from all the Returns that had been presented to that House, that there had been far less drunkenness in the country than in the cities. Well, the Chairman had thought that he ought not to go into the question of the Petitions presented during the past week; but he could not see how that was beside the question. He thought, however, that he would not be going outside the decision of the Chairman in dealing with the number of Petitions presented against the Bill. There were 103 Petitions presented against the Bill during the past week, and 102 were all from working men and women in the three Provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, and only one from Ulster. That showed clearly that the people of Ireland were against the Bill, particularly from three Provinces. Now,
    626
    a good deal had been said about the vote given by the Irish Members. It had been said that there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill, and it had also been stated by the Press—
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must again point out that the question before the Committee was the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that he would speak, as well as he possibly could, against the Amendment, because he thought it unfair that it should be passed. He thought it unfair that one part of the country should be excluded from the Bill and another part included in its operation; and, therefore, with regard to the clause, he thought it right to say that it was a fallacy to think that popular feeling in Ireland was in favour of the Amendment. It was probable that there would be a majority of Members in favour of the Bill, but not the overwhelming majority which the supporters of the Bill would have them believe. He found that there would be for the Amendment the same as for the main division. There were 53 in favour of it, while there were 15 against, and 35 absent. It was well to see how these 53 were made up. He found that from Ulster alone there were 21 in favour of the Amendment.
    LORD FRANCIS HERVEYasked whether the hon. Member was not out of Order in quoting these figures?
    THE CHAIRMANagain repeated that the question before Committee was the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNArose on the question of Order. He did not see that the hon. Member was really out of Order. There were five towns proposed to be exempted from the operations of the Bill, and a very large number of the Petitions to which his hon. Friend referred were from those towns; and, therefore, bore upon the question before the Committee.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought they must consider the main point of Order, and when the Chairman had given his decision it ought to be accepted.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked whether the hon. Member's observations would be in Order, supposing his Motion were one to report Progress?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question before the Committee was limited to the

    627
    exception of those particular towns, and he must point out to the hon. Member that in speaking to the Amendment he would only be in Order in speaking to circumstances relating to the exception. The right hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, aware that a Motion of the description to which he had referred gave a wider scope for argument; but, at the same time, he must point out that it was not a usual course to adopt. It would be difficult to conduct the proceedings of the Committee if, when an hon. Member had been ruled to be out of Order for speaking in a particular way, he should resort to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that he felt it very difficult to meet the Amendment fully without going into the merits of the Bill, and therefore he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O' Sullivan.)
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he should be sorry to offer any remarks at that moment which would obstruct the passing of the Bill; but when he considered its importance, and when he knew that the Amendment struck at the main root of the Bill, he could not but think that to bring in a discussion at that hour of the night was very undesirable. It was a very important Amendment, and though he had not been very long in the House, yet he knew that an Amendment touching the vitality of a Bill had been brought forward at such an hour of the morning. Now, as they were on the question of reporting Progress, perhaps he should not be out of Order in bringing to the notice of the Committee a communication which had been sent out to the supporters of the Bill, asking them to be present on that occasion. The Notice ran in the following form—
    "Irish Sunday Closing Bill.—Dear Sir, it has been decided to proceed with the above Bill on Thursday night, at whatever hour it may be reached, and your attendance and support in Committee are requested."
    The Notice was signed in the names of the O'Conor Don, Mr. R. Smyth, Mr. Corry, Mr. Dease, and Mr. C. E. Lewis. He was one of those who did not care
    628
    one moment for Notices sent to hon. Members. He had, in a small way, endeavoured to throw out the Bill, and he should still continue to do so. But not only did he wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the Memorandum which had been sent out to hon. Members, but he thought, also, that he should not be out of Order if he were to read a paragraph in a letter Which had appeared in a leading Radical journal that day—he meant The Times. It was signed "M.P.," and he supposed that meant Member of Parliament; but if it had been written by any Member of Parliament when that important discussion was going on, he considered it to be some what in the way of holding out to them a threat of a character which he did not at all like. The paragraph referred to proceedings which had taken place on the preceding Tuesday morning, and it said, talking about the men who were opposing the Bill—
    "If those 20 Conservative noblemen who voted in the minority— "
    he was one of those who voted in the minority and he was a Conservative; but he did not happen to be a nobleman—
    "knew the great force they have given to the Home Rule Movement by their extravagant conduct on Monday last, they would, on this account, as well as on the ground of Parliamentary decency and dignity, look back upon the part they took with anything but comfort or pride."
    He could not say that he looked back to that Tuesday morning with any comfort. But if he could be a humble means in aiding to throw out that Bill, he thought he should have cause to look back upon that Tuesday morning with pride. He thought that when a measure of that kind was under discussion they, as Representatives of the people, should have the opportunity of expressing their opinions upon a particular measure before the House without gentlemen, whoever they might be, writing in that way, and holding out threats to them upon their conduct.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there could be no doubt that that Bill was one of very considerable importance in itself, and that, therefore, the discussion in which they were engaged was one of importance. But he ventured to point out to the

    629
    Committee that there was something even of more importance than the merits of that particular Bill, and that was the manner in which the House of Commons was to carry on its Business. Now, they had claimed, and for a very long time they had thought they deserved, the reputation of being a very business-like Assembly; and with free rules, and with very little restraint upon the liberty of individual Members, they had been able to carry on, in a more or less business-like way, the affairs of the country. But of late, as hon. Members were perfectly well aware, difficulties had arisen, and great complaints had from time to time been made on account of the novel mode of resistance, and the extent to which that mode of resistance had been carried by minorities against the express wish of the majority. He was one of those who was always desirous to stand up for the rights of minorities, if possible; but, at the same time, there were limits, as everybody would acknowledge, beyond which those rights should not be carried. He thought that in the case of that Bill there was a very natural desire that it should be fairly discussed; there was a very natural desire amongst those who opposed it, and especially among those Irish Members who opposed it, when they found themselves in the minority in that House that they should have full and fair opportunities for stating their objections, for discussing them freely, and referring to proceedings that had taken place on a former occasion. He was not disposed to speak with anything like severity of the course that was taken, when the Bill last went into Committee, on the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair, and the merits of the Bill being discussed, over again when the Bill had got into Committee. It was, perhaps, an unusal, but still not a very unfair, course to take on a Bill of such importance; but that course having been taken, and the opinion of the Committee having been fully expressed, and the Committee having apparently determined to go on with the Bill and consider it in its details and Amendments, he thought it was but fair that those Amendments should be considered, discussed, and decided upon. They did not think it was reasonable that the House should be asked to sit during extravagantly late hours; but, on the other hand, it was impossible
    630
    that they could have a free evening for everything; and he thought that after the discussions which had taken place the other day, it was time for them to settle whether the Amendment should or should not be adopted, and then Progress might fairly have been allowed to be reported, and the Bill taken up again on a later date. The discussion seemed to have been fairly opened upon the point raised by the Attorney General for Ireland. It was a very important point, because upon it the Government were to decide whether they would give a certain amount of support to the Bill or not; and he thought the Committee were ready and ripe for discussion upon that point. Well, the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), who took a strong opinion upon the Bill, and who, he must say, had argued with very great fairness and in a manner that commanded the interest of the House, was proceeding to argue against the Amendment upon grounds which he was perfectly competent to take. He had somewhat exceeded the bounds of argument which he was entitled to use, and was called to Order accordingly. He understood that the hon. Member was perfectly prepared to submit to the ruling of the Chairman, as it was necessary he should be, if they were to preserve any Order at all; and he did not think that anybody could complain of the hon. Member. But, then, what happened? The right hon. Gentleman who sat opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), and who claimed to be an authority upon questions of Parliamentary Business, and who, at all events, had been placed on a Committee which had been appointed for the express purpose of considering Parliamentary procedure, deliberately got up and made a suggestion to the hon. Member that he might evade—for that was what it came to—the ruling of the Chairman, by moving to report Progress. Now, if there was one practice which was more detrimental to the order and dignity of the House than another, it was that very practice of reporting Progress, in order to enlarge a discussion which should be kept within narrow limits; and if they were to resort to proceedings of that sort, he said it would be absolutely impossible for Business in that House to be properly conducted. When an hon. Member was

    631
    excited, and felt himself restrained upon one question or upon another, and endeavoured by that means to escape from the limit laid upon him, they made some allowance for him; but, really, for the right hon. Gentleman to get up and make the suggestion that an hon. Member should move to report Progress, was subversive of all Business. He earnestly hoped that the Motion for Progress would be withdrawn, and that they might be allowed to devote their attention to the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland, after which he thought it would be reasonable to report Progress.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, the real question of dispute with respect to this Bill was what was the real feeling of the people of Ireland upon this question?—and, considering it of the highest importance that that should be stated to the House, he had asked a Question as to whether the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) could not obtain an opportunity for stating the facts? It must be recollected that this Bill was in an extraordinarily favourable position considering that, being in the hands of a private Member, it was actually in Committee in the first week in April; the discussion, usually taken upon the second reading, was adjourned until the next stage, and then by accident the Bill slipped into Committee without any discussion at all. Now, the pith of the question was whether the people of Ireland were almost unanimously in favour of this Bill, as was alleged on the one side, or whether, as was said on the other, they had been aroused to action by the prospect of its becoming law, and were now actively petitioning against it. The hon. Member for the county of Limerick was analyzing the large number of Petitions which had come in during the present week when he was called to Order, and he (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) desired that he should have an opportunity of completing his analysis. He had no intention whatever of suggesting obstruction, but only desired that the facts should be fairly placed before the Committee, and would advise the hon. Member (Mr. O'Sullivan) to withdraw his Motin to report Progress.
    EARL PERCYwished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.
    632
    Knatchbull-Hugessen), who was a Member of the Committee sitting upstairs on Public Business—namely, whether, in his opinion, it was a proper course to discuss the opinion of the people of Ireland upon the whole scope of the Bill, at a time when the only real matter before the Committee was an Amendment on a particular clause?
    MR. SHAWexpressed his disappointment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not concluded his observations with the suggestion that the long Sitting of the House should justify Progress being reported on this Bill. This was an Amendment of great importance, which he, for one, scarcely felt able to discuss at so advanced an hour; and there were several reasons why Progress should be reported before the Committee divided on the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland. In the first place, they were told that the Amendment was a compromise. Well, he supposed all legislation of that House was a compromise, more or less. For some hours he had been trying to effect a compromise with regard to this Bill, and he feared the difficulty would only be increased if they went to a division on the Amendment. Before adopting this measure, its supporters and the Government ought to consider several great practical questions. For instance, it had been said that the Bill would be an evil, while others said it would be a good measure. The Government might endeavour to settle that question by ascertaining whether there was any good or evil in the Bill. If the Government should be unable to determine the matter, at any rate, the constituencies would, when the matter came before them two or three years hence. They had not yet decided the question by the expression of opinion, nor had the opinion of the House been declared upon it. Hon. Members had said to him that they hated the Bill themselves, but would vote for it, because it was supported by the majority of the Irish Members and of the people of Ireland. He maintained that it had the sanction, neither of the majority of the Members of the House, nor of the majority of the people of Ireland. The Bill would not work in Ireland. He hoped the Government, with a view of arriving at a peaceful settlement of this question, would allow Progress to be reported.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, as the supporters of the Bill had been so often taunted with the assertion that the opinion of the people of Ireland was against the measure, he would invite the Committee to consider the facts of the case. First, it was known that three-fourths of the Irish Representatives were in its favour.
    MAJOR O'GORMANrose to Order. Was the hon. Member entitled to discuss this point on the Amendment before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMANexplained to the hon. and gallant Member that the question immediately before the Committee was not the Amendment, but the Motion to report Progress.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, public meetings on this question had been held all over Ireland, and there had been four to one in favour of the Bill. The magistracy, clergy, elected guardians, members of the town councils—all persons who knew the feelings of the people—were in its favour by overwhelming majorities. The majority of the Petitions were in favour of the Bill. [The hon. Member then referred to the manner in which the Bill had been dealt with during past Sessions and in the present one, especially to the long speeches delivered on Monday night by opponents.] With respect to the latter, he asked, were those speeches made for the purpose of convincing the House that the Bill was contrary to the wishes of the Irish people, or were they delivered with a view of defeating the Bill, as in previous years, for want of time? When the House had decided, by an overwhelming majority, larger than on former occasions, in favour of the principle of the Bill, was it fair to raise again the whole question as to whether this measure was opposed to the feelings of the people of Ireland? He hoped the majority in its favour would not allow the minority to override them. It was because the question whether a minority should override the majority had been raised, that the promoters of the Bill were obliged, at so late an hour, to ask the Committee to proceed with the measure.
    MR. KNIGHTsaid, that as he was one of those Members who had sat up all night to oppose this measure, he would give, in a few words, his main ob-
    634
    jection to it. In the first place, he was very much opposed to over-legislation, and he thought that late Governments, backed by the House of Commons, had been much disposed during the last 10 or 15 years to fall into that error. He was for leaving people as much as possible to their own devices, and not for interfering with them unless they committed some real crime. Above all, he was opposed to inventing new crimes by Act of Parliament, and then punishing people for committing them. This was an imitation of the police governments of the Continent, which he held in abhorrence. The provisions of this Bill were distinctly of that nature. Then, he was opposed to all sumptuary laws. It was against the conditions of that personal freedom, which Englishmen so much prized, that they should be taught by Act of Parliament what to eat, what to drink, and wherewithal they should be clothed—and he objected to this Bill on that account also. He had a still stronger objection to the main principle of this Bill inasmuch as he had seen it tried and seen it signally fail. He recollected, not long ago—since he had been in Parliament—an Act having been passed, very much reducing the hours in which drink could be sold on Sundays in that Metropolis. He supported that measure, which passed with acclamation from both sides of the House. But it soon turned out that the lower classes of the Metropolis did not take the same view of the matter. They would not have their one holiday interfered with. Sunday riots of an alarming nature occurred, carriages were driven out of the Park, the windows of some of the leading promoters of the measure were broken, the police were obliged to be concentrated to endeavour to control the heavy mobs that assembled in the Parks and elsewhere; and the rest of the town, deserted by the police, had to keep the peace as best it might. He recollected having himself had to act as private policeman in the street he then lived in. The result was, that the police had orders not to carry out the new regulations, and that Parliament had to repeal the objectionable Act, nem. con. in a very few months after they had passed it. He was convinced that this measure would, if carried out, produce a similar state of things in Ireland. Hon. Members might present

    635
    Petitions signed by Peers, magistrates, ministers, and tradesmen, and all under their control; but they must remember that they had other and larger classes to deal with—the lowest classes—the swarms of men with sticks in their hands, that he had seen filling the streets of Irish towns on Sunday evening. If hon. Members believed that those masses of people would quietly consent to see the houses of refreshment to which they had been accustomed to resort shut up, without a murmur, they might depend upon it that they were reckoning without their host. If the Bill now before them became law, they might depend upon it that the lower classes in Ireland would deeply resent it, and the result would be—he would not say revolution—but a series of petty riots from one end of Ireland to the other, and Parliament would have to repeal the law as fast or faster than they made it. He had committed an error in supporting the somewhat similar measure he had alluded to for the Metropolis, and he was not going to fall into a similar error a second time. He was ready to sit up another night to oppose the Bill if necessary. He thought that the mistake of the present day was that of closing great debates at so early an hour as 12, or half-past 12 o'clock. When he came into Parliament, the debates went on into the morning, and the time was occupied in debating the measure before the House, instead of being passed in squabbling, as at present. He thought that the 12 o'clock Rule was the root of the evil.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if ever there had been a principle debated over and over again, it was the principle of this Bill. Both English and Scotch Members were anxious that the question which deeply concerned the Irish people should receive the full attention of the Committee, and, if possible, be settled this year, in accordance with what appeared to be the desire of the people of Ireland. He had understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the Committee had arrived at a point which might fairly be decided that night. It could hardly be said to affect the general principle, because it was a recommendation to the Government to accept certain terms, to which opponents of the Bill could hardly object, which terms exempted large towns from the
    636
    operation of the Bill. He had hoped the Committee would have been prepared to accept the appropriate and practical suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to decide whether or not the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland should be accepted, and then report Progress. After that the Committee would arrive at the conclusion that the Government and the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) were at one with regard to the further progress of the Bill. If the Motion for reporting Progress were withdrawn, the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan), who was in possession of the House, would be heard with attention.
    MR. MURPHYsaid, that, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, he was himself about to rise in order to suggest that his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) should withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. For his own part, he was content that the division should be taken on the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland. Although he had intended to rise for the purpose of asking his hon. Friend to withdraw his Motion, he was surprised at the turn which affairs had taken; the debate which had arisen out of that Motion had been prolonged even by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), amongst others. Although the hon. Member was anxious that the Business of the Committee should proceed, he had occupied some considerable time in entering into the merits of the Bill, with the object of proving that the people—at least a vast majority of them—were in favour of the measure. He had himself been charged with adopting the unusual course of entering into the merits of the Bill immediately after it had gone into Committee. The hon. Member having stated the circumstances which had prevented a discussion of the principle on the second reading, and which had led to the understanding that such a discussion should be taken on going into Committee, explained that the latter stage was unexpectedly reached, at a Wednesday Sitting, through the sudden collapse of four Orders of the Day. This Bill stood next, and it went into Committee at once, without the principle being discussed. These were the facts of the case, which justified him in raising

    637
    that discussion the other evening on the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair; and he maintained that the new evidence which, in his opinion, went against the Bill, fully warranted him in discussing the merits of the measure on that occasion. He deemed it necessary thus to explain again his legitimate motives for the course he had taken, and the more so because, from the tenour of the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that right hon. Gentleman would appear to have adopted the idea so persistently urged by the promoters of the Bill, that he (Mr. Murphy) was not justified in raising a discussion on the principle or merits of the Bill in Committee. No Member of the House was more opposed than he was to the adoption of any factious or unnecessary proceeding, and he trusted that he would always act, not alone in accordance with the rules of debate, but with that deference to the instinct and unwritten law of the House which should also be a guide to every hon. Member. One word more before he sat down. It was very natural that he, on Monday, after the Bill had been discussed for seven or eight hours, should have supported the Motion to report Progress; but what did the promoters of the Bill do? They said they should not assent to Progress being reported, because two or three Gentlemen had made long speeches. It was true that a large portion of the time was taken up by two Gentlemen, of whom he was one; but if they had not spoken, there were other Members who, to his knowledge, intended to speak, but who did not. In any event, therefore, the time which had been taken would have been occupied. He trusted the Committee would see that on Monday, he had no other course to pursue than the one he took.
    MR. O'CLERYwished to say that a sufficient number of Members were present to prevent the House being counted out, and there was a sufficient reserve to keep the House in sitting until this Bill was passed.
    MR. J. LOWTHERhoped the Committee would proceed, and not be led away by the line of argument adopted by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken.
    MR. PEASEsaid, as one of the warm supporters of this Bill, he would be prepared to urge upon his ton. Friend the
    638
    Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) a three years' trial of this measure as suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. King-Harman), and he hoped the hon. Members for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) and Cork (Mr. Murphy) would withdraw their opposition, in order to give the Bill a fair trial, should this course be agreed to by his hon. Friend who had charge of the Bill.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthought that the hon. Member for the county of Limerick, when called to Order, had been hardly dealt with. The Bill they were then considering, when they considered the Government Amendments which had been proposed, was not the same Bill as it had been before. He was sure that if the Government Amendments were adopted, the supporters of this Bill in Ireland would be dissatisfied. All their Petitions and organization would be wasted for a miserable Bill not worth having. If the Government Amendments had been known before, such an agitation would never, have taken place in Ireland, for the play was not worth the Candle. The Bill, so amended, would be like the play of Hamlet, without the principal character. He did not believe that any Member could get up and say that the Bill was worth having if the large towns were excluded from its operation. It was in the large towns that the measure was required, if required at all; and was this agitation to be kept up year after year simply to apply the principle of this Bill to the rural districts of Ireland? If the House carried the Bill with the Government Amendments it would omit the very parts of the country which demanded such a measure. In Ireland the principal promoters of this measure were persons actuated either by a feeling that drunkenness should be put down, or by Sabbatarian views, which made this Bill necessary. Had a meeting of the promoters in Ireland been held to consider the compromise now proposed, the Bill would not have been accepted in the form it was likely to take. They were now told that only a few small rural districts were to be affected by the Bill, and that lamentable position was to be supported by the Government. If the measure was to be tried for two or three years, then, he said, let the five exempted cities be included. Let them have no

    639
    humbugging trial of this question; and if such a proposition as had been made would include the five cities, it would have his support.
    MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONthought it would only complicate matters if they discussed the duration of the Bill at that stage.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he would not have moved to report Progress had he had an opportunity of bringing before the Committee the new evidence he had to produce. The Petitions he wished to allude to had been presented within the last week. There were 52 in favour of the Bill and 103 against it. Of these 103, 102 were from the Provinces of Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, and only one from Ulster had been presented in favour of the Bill. He could assure the Committee that there never had been an agitation of such a fictitious character as that in favour of the Bill. He challenged hon. Members to prove that four years ago, at the General Election, this matter was even mentioned in their addresses to their constituencies. Only two persons had mentioned it—the two ex-Members for Dublin—they had lost their seats in consequence. A great deal had been said about the divisions in that House. The real state of the case was this. The other day 53 Members were in favour of the Bill, 15 were against it, and 35 were absent, in spite of a strong Whip issued by the promoters of the Bill and the Liberal Party. Out of the 53 who supported the Bill, 21 were from Ulster. There were eight Conservatives and 24 Home Rulers in the majority, while there were 14 Home Rulers against the measure. Out of the 59 Home Rulers, 23 were for the Bill, and 14 against it—that was the overwhelming opinion they had heard so much about. The Liberal vote on this question was only given to corner the Government. The other night there were six prominent Whigs for the Bill, and not one against it. When the Liberals were in power it was very different. As to the English Members, there were 37 against the Bill, and 119 in favour of it. They were told that the people of Ireland were in favour of the Bill; but of the two deputations from Ireland to London, the one in its favour was composed of two Scotchmen. Of course, it was easy to get up an agitation where there was plenty of money, and when one hon. Member was spend-
    640
    ing £3,000 a-year for that purpose, there was no lack of funds. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) talked of his public meetings; but where were they? He (Mr. O'Sullivan) challenged them to have a public meeting in the Phœnix Park, Dublin, and let that meeting decide the question of Irish opinion on the subject—would they take up that challenge? He should not have moved to report Progress, if he had not considered it hard to be shut up without making those facts known to the Committee, and he now asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that they could not accept the challenge of a meeting in Phœnix Park, because it was well-known that the publicans of Dublin convened all such meetings.
    MR. KING-HARMANpointed out that the other night they did not divide on the principles of the Bill, but whether the Chairman should leave the Chair or not; and, therefore, this important subject ought to be well-considered before they went further.
    MAJOR O'GORMANhad so frequently spoken on this question in the course of several years, that he felt great diffidence in addressing the Committee again on the subject. He should confine his attention to the Amendment brought forward by the Attorney General for Ireland, and which exempted certain towns from the operation of this Bill. One of those towns was the city of Waterford—that was to say, that the city of Waterford might have its public-houses open during the usual regulated hours on Sunday, and that the surrounding towns were not to have their public-houses open on that day. That being the state of the case, he would like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what must take place if the Bill, with that Amendment, passed into law. He held in his hand a list of the towns and villages near Waterford, in which the public-houses would be shut upon Sunday. The people of those neighbouring towns and villages would find themselves forced to flock into Waterford on Sundays for the purpose of obtaining liquor. A few of those towns were Carrick-on-Suir, Kil-macow, Portlaw, Passage, and Piltown; all would on Sundays come from those towns into Waterford. They must

    641
    come by boat, because that was the best and shortest way of doing so. [Laughter.] He wished to call hon. Gentlemen on the benches below him to Order. He assured the Committee that no one in that House enjoyed a good laugh more than he did; but he liked laughter to be convulsive, and not cachinnatory. Convulsive laughter was honest, but cachinnation was a sell, for there was nothing in it. The people of these towns would come to Water-ford by boats, and go into the public-houses, where they would sit all the day. They would drink a good deal; and when they wanted to go home, they would go to their boats at night and make the best of their way back to those places. Now, he ventured to say that many of these poor people would lose their lives by drowning. [An hon. MEMBER: Then there would be coroners' inquests.] Yes, there would be coroners' inquests. But did the right hon. Gentleman consider what would be the result of his Amendment, if passed. He had proved to him what disasters would ensue; and he wanted to know if the right hon. Gentleman intended seriously to proceed with his Motion? He believed he would be in Order to move to report Progress, and he would so move.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the previous Motion for reporting Progress had not yet been withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MAJOR O'GORMANmoved to report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That will not be in Order so soon after the other Motion is withdrawn.
    MR. CALLANmoved that Progress should be reported until after Easter. He believed that the opinion of the country had not yet been fully expressed on the subject. He had in his pocket a Declaration of the Sunday Closing Association, which contained signatures obtained by false pretences. On that Declaration was the signature of a gentleman who had proposed him at the last Election, and who for 18 years had been the chief magistrate of his district. He wrote to that gentleman, and, in reply, had received a letter that morning, stating, that if
    "my signature was affixed to any requisition calling on you to support the Irish Sunday
    642
    Closing Bill, I have only to say that I have never signed the document, or authorized anyone to sign it on my behalf; and, therefore, if my name appears on it, it is a forgery. I have never approved of the Bill; but, on the contrary, I believe it to be uncalled for and prejudicial, and tending to substitute shebeens instead of the regular licensed houses, and lead to a habit of the working classes to supply themselves with drink on Saturday."
    It went on to say that such a practice would produce most deplorable results. That was the opinion of the chief magistrate of his county. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had, over and over again, made charges against hon. Members of that House, based upon his favourite doctrine. He had said that "many a speech had been spoiled, and many a vote lost" through what he chose to call the "heated imagination of hon. Members." The hon. Baronet had gone further than this, and said that—
    "The destinies of our Empire may some day be seriously affected—very seriously affected—by the consumption of intoxicating liquors by Members at the refreshment places which exist within the precincts of Parliament."
    The point he wished to press upon the Committee was this. As there could be no hope of making any substantial progress with the Bill between the present time and Easter, why not adjourn the further consideration of the measure until after the Holidays, and, in the meantime, endeavour to come to some sort of a compromise? There could be no chance of this if the Bill was to be made a Party question of. In 1873 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) voted against the principle embodied in this measure; but now the Whig Party were supporting the Bill in order to secure a few scattered votes in the North of Ireland. He had no hope of the matter being satisfactory settled, unless it was dealt with from a social, and not from a Party, point of view. He begged to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Callan.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERthought the suggestion of the hon. Member who spoke last was one worthy of attention; and

    643
    if, the Motion before the Committee being withdrawn, a division was taken upon the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, he thought there could be no objection to postponing all further consideration of the Bill for a time, in the hope of a compromise being effected.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would at once withdraw his Motion in favour of the suggestion which had been made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 166; Noes 64: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 97.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
    MR. SULLIVANthought the time had come at which the Government ought to state—having passed their Amendment—whether they intended to take up the Bill, or to afford facilities for its passage through the House. If the supporters of the Bill were to be abandoned to the obstructive tactics of a small knot of Members of the House, it would be better for them to take Sittings of any length, and force the measure forward.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Government had never swerved from their original declaration—which was, that in the event of their Amendments being adopted, they would give facilities— and by facilities they, of course, meant time and nothing more—for the discussion of the Bill; such facilities being dependent, of course, upon the amount of time required for the transaction of the Public Business of the country. The Government had never undertaken to take charge of the Bill in any way, nor to support it.
    THE O'CONOR DONwished the Chief Secretary could state more clearly the shape which the facilities spoken of by the Government would take. If this was not done, he feared that it would be necessary to put the Bill upon the Paper for every night between the present time and Easter. He did not wish to cause unnecessary inconvenience to the House;
    644
    but he should really like to understand in what position the Government intended to leave the promoters and supporters of the Bill. If the proposal of the Government were a reasonable one, those for whom he spoke would be willing to accept it.
    MR. J. LOWTHERcould only say that it was impossible for the Government, in the present condition of Public Business, to name another day for the discussion of the Bill. Next week had already been set aside for an important debate, which was likely to last a considerable time; and then there were the Holidays to be remembered. The Government could not possibly promise a day before Easter; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, no doubt, in course of time, be able to afford facilities—by which he meant as much time as the Government could spare—for the consideration of the measure.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, it was exactly because "a day" had been mentioned before, that some hon. Gentlemen had been encouraged to think that if they consumed that day in opposing the Bill, they would effect the object they had in view. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowther) shook his head. He was sure that if the Chief Secretary told the supporters of the Bill they would not be limited to a single day, they would be quite satisfied. The Friends of the measure which was now before the House required to know whether the Government intended to make any such limitation; for, if that were their intention, obstructive Gentlemen would be certain to try and occupy the time which the Government might afford.
    MR. GOLDSMIDdesired to ask the Chairman whether the hon. Member was in Order, in saying that the Friends of the Bill "required" the Government to say so-and-so? He had sat in the House for a good many years, and he had never before heard such a demand made in that form. The present discussion had commenced on the understanding that if the Amendment of the Attorney General for Ireland were carried, further proceedings would be adjourned; but the supporters of the measure were raising all sorts of objections and were not keeping faith with the House or with the Government. In these circumstances, he thought that an adjournment should be made forth-

    645
    with, and that no more "demands" should be allowed.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, his hon. Friend who had just spoken had stated that he never before heard a demand made in the House upon the Government. He had heard a demand made very often; he was not sure that he had not heard the hon. Gentleman make a demand himself; and he did not think his hon. Friend had amended his mode of speech, when he stated, as a matter of assertion, that the promoters of the Bill had broken faith with the House and with the Government. At the same time, it would not, in his opinion, be fair to make any further demand upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman had made no limitation as to the quantity of time which the Government might give; and it was just and necessary for him to look to other and possibly more imperative calls of Public Business, which Members generally were bound to regard. In these circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friends who promoted the Bill would see that they had obtained from the Government all that could reasonably be asked for.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he would not ask anything from the Government which would be at all unreasonable. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) appeared to consider the promise made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland as of such a distinct character that the advocates of the Bill were to get facilities for carrying it forward; and, that being so, he would not trouble the House by going on with the present discussion. He would not put down the Bill again before Easter; but, immediately after Easter, he would follow it up night after night, until he was able to make progress with it.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he must protest against what he conceived to be the most immoral compromise which had been accepted by the promoters of the Bill. From the beginning of the agitation, the condition of the large towns in Ireland had been the main subject of complaint; and yet he now found that those who had advocated this measure readily granted to the Government licence to continue all the evils of the present system, in order that those Gentlemen might have the name of passing a Bill. That was not the manner in which Irish measures were usually presented to, and
    646
    promoted in, the House; and it was not, in his opinion, without a sacrifice of consistency and of political honour, that the present compromise had been effected.
    Motion agreed, to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday, 13th May.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL OBDERS (ABINGDON, &c.) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Borough of Abingdon, the Rural Sanitary District of the Abingdon Union, the Local Government Districts of Brampton and Walton, Buxton and Dalton-in-Furness, the Rural Sanitary District of the Headington Union, the City of Lincoln, the Rural Sanitary District of the Loughborough Union, the Local Government District of New-town and Llanwllwchaiarn, the Boroughs of Saint Helens and Southport, and the City of Worcester, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SULATEK-BOOTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 142.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Rodney, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Metropolis Improvement provisional Orders Confirmation (Bowman's Buildings, Marylebone &c.) *(61).
Second Reading—Threshing Machines (50); Marine Mutiny*.
Select Committee—Contagious Diseases (Animals) * (37), Lord Harlech added v. the Marquess of Salisbury.
Committee—Bishoprics (43–63).
Third Reading—Mutiny *,and passed.

ARMY—THE RESERVES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords. I wish to put a Question to the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State for War, of which I have given him private Notice. Let me disclaim all idea of disparaging the steps which the War Office are now taking. My impression is that it is only by those steps that war can be averted and the Conference secured. The Question I wish to put—if Her Majesty's

  513
  Government see no public inconvenience in answering it—is, Whether any measures are contemplated in regard to the Militia, to pave the way for making that Force available abroad beyond the present limitations?
  VISCOUNT BURY: The noble Lord asks me a Question, of which he has not given Notice, whether certain steps which he suggested on the 21st of March have been adopted by the War Office? I can only say that no such proposals have reached the War Office, and I therefore must request the noble Lord to give Notice in the usual manner.

FOUNDERING OF H.M.S. "EURYDICE."

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, he desired to ask his noble Friend who represented the Admiralty in their Lordships' House, Whether any steps have been taken to raise the Eurydice; and, whether, as had been asserted, she spread a quantity of canvas out of proportion as compared to other ships? That had been asserted in several papers, and perhaps his noble Friend would answer whether that was the fact or not? If it were so, it would go far to account for the accident. As to raising the ship—beyond the obvious advantage of recovering a vessel of some value, and the remains of those who were lost in her, in whom so many families must be interested, he wished to point out that a certain moral value attached to a successful effort to recover the loss sustained. It was not merely by successful engagements that the reputation of the Service had been sustained —sometimes as much credit could be gained by recovering a ship as by taking an enemy's. As an instance of this, he might mention that the Gorgon, a ship of war, was lost under extraordinary circumstances. She was blown up almost on to dry land—at all events, she was left on dry land—and the very skilful efforts of her crew were successful in restoring that ship to the service of the country. He wished, therefore, to know whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to take any steps for recovering the Eurydice, and whether that was to be done by the resources of the Navy or by means of a contractor? He trusted it would rather be by the resources of the Navy than by any other means; because it must be obvious that the experience
  514
  that would be gained in recovering a ship like this would be of considerable advantage to the country in future wars. He was not aware whether, since the case of the Gorgon, there had been any case of a ship being recovered to the Service by the efforts of their own officers and sailors.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, in answer to the Question of his noble Friend, he had to state that the Dockyard authorities at Portsmouth were making all the necessary preparations for raising the Eurydice. Divers were at work in removing the upper spars and sails, and other impedimenta. When that was accomplished, it was intended to attach four lighters to the wreck at low water, the effect of which would be that, as the tide rose, the vessel would lift; and she would then be towed into the shallow water of Sandown Bay. The ports, hatchways, and other openings would then be closed, and the vessel pumped out. Should the weather continue favourable for diving operations, it was hoped the vessel might be taken into Portsmouth Harbour in about three weeks' time. He need scarcely say that a strict and searching investigation would be made into the condition of the ship, and it was intended that the Court of Inquiry should not be held until these conditions were known. Whether anything would be discovered that might account for a catastrophe, that was without precedent in the annals of their Navy with regard to ships of this class, it was useless now to speculate on; but, for his own part, he must confess that he was not sanguine that such would be the case. With regard to the Question whether the Eurydice carried heavier spars or a greater spread of canvas than other ships of her class, he had to reply that she had precisely the same masts, yards, and sails as those carried by the 11—he thought—other ships of that class built by Sir Thomas Symonds, to compete with which the Eurydice was built by Admiral Elliot.

  BISHOPRICS BILL—(No. 43.)
  (The Lord Steward.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that the counties of Durham, Northum-

  515
  berland, and Cumberland—especially in Durham, which see was not a large one —very strong objection was felt to the division of that see as contemplated by the Bill; but, at the same time, no doubt, when once it was determined that there should be an additional bishopric, the people of the new diocese would come forward, with their usual liberality, to find funds. He confessed he did not see any necessity for dividing the present diocese, and hoped that no immediate steps would be taken in that direction. He did not see why the funds of the present bishopric should be reduced by £1,000 a-year.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPreminded the noble Duke that, on the occasion of the second reading of the Bill, the Bishop of Durham expressed his strong approval of the measure. Although the new see of Durham would not be a large one, he thought there were sufficient grounds for taking the subject into consideration; because, although the county of Durham was not large, that of Northumberland was, and he quoted the statistics showing the extent and population of Northumberland. The observations of the noble Duke struck at the Bill altogether; and it must, at the same time, be remembered that this was not a compulsory, but an enabling Bill.
  House in Committee.
  Amendments made.
  On the Motion of the Earl of POWIS, the following words were added at end of Clause 2:—
  ("Such contributions may include any gift or bequest of real and personal property not exceeding the limits prescribed by this Act for the endowment fund of each bishopric; and the powers of donors to bestow and of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to receive such gifts shall be the same as those enacted in the Act of second and third years of the reign of Queen Anne, chapter eleven, and of an Act of the forty-third year of the reign of King George the third, chapter one hundred and seven, enabling donors to vest gifts in the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne for the augmentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy for the benefit of ministers officiating in churches and chapels.")
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE, who had given Notice of a new clause, enabling a Bishop—save the Bishops of London, Durham, or Winchester—who may be above 75 years of age, or have
  516
  held a bishopric 25 years or more, to resign his seat in Parliament, said, that being Chairman of the Committee, he was unable to move his Amendment at that stage; he would, therefore, reserve it for the Report.
  Clause 10 (New style of Bishop of Rochester).
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to omit the clause which provides that the Bishop of Rochester shall, after the passing of this Act, be styled Bishop of Rochester and Southwark, and insert the following clause:—
  ("Notwithstanding anything contained in section 9, sub-section 2, of the Bishopric of Saint Albans Act, 1875, it shall be lawful for the person who at the passing of this Act is Archdeacon of Rochester and Saint Albans, if and when the Archdeaconry of Rochester shall have been severed from the Archdeaconry of Saint Albans under the provisions of the Bishopric of Saint Albans Act, 1875, to resign the archidiaconal jurisdiction conferred upon him as archdeacon of the Archdeaconry of Saint Albans by ' The London Diocese Act, 1863,' without thereby vacating the canonry in the cathedral church of Rochester annexed to the Archdeaconry of Saint Albans, and to continue to hold such canonry so long as he continues to be Archdeacon of Saint Albans.
  ("The Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England may pay out of their common fund any sum not exceeding two hundred pounds to the person who may upon such resignation be appointed Archdeacon of Rochester until the next avoidance of the canonry now held by the Archdeacon of Rochester and Saint Albans.
  (" 'Parish' in the Bishopric of Saint Albans Act, 1875, shall he taken to have the same meaning with 'ecclesiastical parish' in this Act.")
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 63.)

THRESHING MACHINES BILL—(No. 50.)
(The Lord Walsingham.)
THRESHING MACHINES BILL—(No. 50.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD WALSINGHAM, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he was far from claiming that the Bill which he was about to ask their Lordships to read a second time was as complete a measure as it might ultimately be desirable to introduce for the purpose of diminishing the risk of accidents to agricultural labourers by machinery of this kind. He was aware

  517
  that various accidents would occur from different kinds of machinery, and, perhaps, some even from threshing machines, which it was beyond the power or purpose of this Bill to prevent. But in recommending the Bill to their Lordships in its present form, he would urge its acceptance on the ground of an immediate and pressing necessity for some commencement of legislation in the direction indicated. The great majority of their Lordships were, probably, only too painfully aware of the dangers which attended the working of an ordinary unprotected threshing machine by young, unsteady, or inexperienced hands. He supposed there was scarcely a village, or, at least, scarcely a group of villages, in any of the corn-growing districts where an instance was not to be heard of in which some unfortunate labourer had not fallen a victim to the present system; and it was a significant fact that since the equivalent of the present Bill, owing to certain obstructive political tactics, failed to survive what was generally known as ''the Massacre of the Innocents," in "another place," last Session, at least 10 or 12 fatal or serious accidents had been added to the sad list. By far the greater part of these accidents occurred from the men on the drum of the machine, before leaving off work, pushing the loose corn towards the feeder with their feet, instead of sweeping it with a broom. The feeder himself, who stood in a sort of box provided for the purpose, was not, with ordinary care, exposed to much risk of accident; but those who stood on the floor of the drum, should they inadvertently approach too near the mouth, or attempt, as they often did, to kick the corn forward towards where the beaters were revolving, might in a moment be drawn into the machinery and fatally or fearfully injured. Now, their Lordships would be aware that several different degrees of protection might be afforded by means of the various inventions and appliances which had been devised for that purpose. Probably, the most perfect and complete safety would be insured by the adoption of some self-acting feeding apparatus—such as that of Mr. Wilder, which had been much exhibited and approved; and he, for one, would gladly see the use of some such protection made compulsory by law; but the cost of this apparatus, amounting to about £20 on
  518
  each machine to which it was applied, would be at once a heavy tax upon farmers, and would create strong opposition to the establishment of the compulsory system if insisted on in such a form; whereas, by some more convenient and less costly method, an almost equal protective result might be attained. He was assured that a very good and sufficient guard could be applied by means of a simple rail or fence, which could be raised when work was going on and lowered at other time, and that the actual cost of such a guard would not be more than from 15 s. to 20 s. Now, if the present Bill would only insure the invariable adoption of some such simple precaution as that, it would probably reduce the number of accidents by 60 or 70 per cent, and so far fulfil the best hopes of its promoters. It might be argued that the labourers ought to have sense enough to take care of themselves; but, unfortunately, among that class of men, too much familiarity seemed to breed a certain contempt for the dangers arising from momentary inattention or carelessness; and he need hardly remind their Lordships that there were many precedents for protective legislation—such as were to be found, for instance, in the Acts relating to factories and coal mines. He would gladly see the provisions of the Bill extended to several other kinds of machinery, such as steam saws and chaff-cutters; but if it should be found desirable to deal with this subject, a very short supplementary Act would easily effect the object; whereas, since this Bill had now obtained the unanimous assent of the other House of Parliament, it would be most unfortunate, by the introduction of any unnecessary Amendments, to run the risk of consigning so useful a measure to the fate which had befallen it on more than one former occasion in that "other place." Whether their Lordships concurred in that view or not, he would venture to express a hope that they would at least approve the principle of the Bill, and now read it a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord, Walsingham.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYasked why the Bill was not to extend to Ireland or Scotland?
  LORD WALSINGHAMsaid, he did not exactly know, but believed it to be

  519
  the result of the opposition which the proposal to include them had met with in the other House last year.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow,

  METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BOWMAN'S BUILDINGS, MARYLEBONE, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for the Improvement of certain unhealthy areas within the Metropolis—Was presented by The LORD STEWARD; read la, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 61.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.