Sitting of 23 May 1881

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Colne and Marsden Local Board*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Board Schools (Scotland) Teachers*.
Second Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Cottingham, &c.)* [162]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Horfield, &c.)* [166].
Committee—Customs and Inland Revenue [136]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Land Tax Commissioners' Names [126].
Third Reading—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Orders* [145]; Local Government Provisional Order (Birmingham)* [144]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Brentford Union, &c.)* [149], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  CONSTITUTION OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, What difficulties prevent the granting the Return ordered by Parliament on the 19th June 1879, relating to the names of the existing members of the Board of Trade, and the memorandum setting forth the order or charter under which members of the Board were originally appointed? Also, When he anticipates being able to lay upon the Table of the House a detailed statement showing how the Board of Trade have disposed of moneys received from the Admiralty on account of the Merchant Seamen's Greenwich Pension Fund?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the hon. Member put to me a similar Question on the 7th of January, and I am unable to add anything to the answer I then gave him, to the effect that the Order was dropped in consequence of the Dissolution. Of course it could be renewed; but I do not think that any public object would be served thereby, as all the information is already contained in books of reference at present in the Library of the House. As regards the second Question, I am informed that Papers will shortly be laid before Parliament showing the number of seamen to whom annuities have been granted and the amount paid to each annuitant, This
  1050
  will comprise al moneys received by the Board of Trade from the Admiralty.

  AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT (INDIA).
  MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any decision has been come to on the proposal of the Famine Commission regarding the establishment of an Agricultural Department, more particularly with reference to the improvement of the agriculture of India; and, whether, as advised by that Commission, an officer has been appointed to initiate the special department which should deal with Famine Administration, and consider and mature schemes of
  "Emigration from those parts of India where the condition of the agricultural labourer has been brought to the lowest verge compatible with continued existence,"
  to other localities the natural resources of which are said to need nothing but labour to convert them into sources of plenty?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Question to which my right hon. Friend refers is the subject of a Correspondence between the Government of India and the India Office. That Correspondence is not yet complete. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will ask the Question at a later period of the Session, when I hope to be able to give him a fuller answer.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CO. MAYO.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. G. A. H. Moore, of Moore Hall, county Mayo, has, since the rejection by the House of Lords of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, evicted a number of tenants, and, amongst them, one named Stephen Loftus, of Ashbrook, Strard, Ballyvoy, Mayo, whose family numbers eleven, and the rent of whose holding was £8 15 s., while the Poor Law Valuation is only £4 7s. 6d.; whether the holding has been in Loftus's possession and that of Ids forefathers for one hundred and ten years; whether he has been left by the eviction without any employment or means of living; and, whether he will consider the desirability of advising the insertion of such clauses in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill as will protect this class of tenants?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must ask the hon. Member to postpone this Ques-

  1051
  tion. I have not been able to get all the particulars. The man referred to was a sub-tenant, and he was evicted for non-payment of rent. There appear to have been five tenants and four subtenants.
  MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman know whether Loftus was evicted by Mr. Moore, or by the tenant?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: That I cannot tell.

  FISHERIES—EAST COAST FISHERIES— THE NORTH SEA—OUTRAGES ON BRITISH FISHERMEN.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the report of Mr. W. H. Higgin on the outrages committed by foreign upon English fishermen in the North Sea; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend taking any steps with regard to obtaining a convention between England, France, Belgium, and Holland, which is so urgently required? Before a reply was given to his Question he begged the permission of the House to read the following telegram from Messrs. Capps, of Lowestoft:—
  "The 'Warrior,' belonging to us, fishing last night, 30 miles off Lowestoft, had 15 nets and ropes cut away by a foreign trawler. Believe done with 'Belgian devil.'"
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have communicated with the Governments of France, Holland, and Belgium with a view of dealing with this matter; but they have not yet received a reply to their communications.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CO. TIPPE RARY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that since the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill by the House of Lords, the Rev. Edward Denny Lynch, a landlord owning property in Tipperary, has evicted among other tenants a person named Thomas Slattery, from a farm at Milltown, near Tullamore, Fethard, Tipperary; whether it is a fact that the rent of the farm was sixty pounds, while the Poor Law valuation was thirty-five pounds; that the farm had been for thirty-six years in the occupation of the
  1052
  Slattery's; that Slattery has no other employment or means of living than that given him by his farm, and that his family are nine in number; and, whether, if these are facts, he will endeavour to have a Clause introduced into the Land Law (Ireland) Bill to prevent such evictions in the future?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the date of this eviction. This occurred on the 6th of June, 1879, before the existence of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. I believe that the rent was £60, and the Poor Law valuation £40. It is true that Slattery had no other means of support—no employment, and that ho depended on the farm. He was admitted a caretaker on the 20th of August, 1880.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, since the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, the Rev. Edward Denny has evicted a tenant named Dennis Dooley from his holding at Milltownmore, Tullamaine, Fethard, co. Tipperary, for arrears of rent; if the rent of said tenant was £95 and the valuation of his farm £47 per annum; and, if the farm was in possession of the family of the said tenant for a period of about seventy years?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have no doubt the land owner was the gentleman described. The name of the tenant was, I think, Dennis Loomy, not Dooley. He also was evicted in June, 1879. I believe the Question is accurate in other particulars.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the last part of his Question had not been answered.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, it is not customary to state, in answer to a Question of this kind, what steps it is intended to take with regard to a Bill before the House. I must remind the hon. Member that the Minister in charge of the Bill is the Prime Minister.

  COPPER AND COPPER ORE—RETURN OF EXPORTS AND IMPORTS, 1880.
  MR. W. CORBETasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to a Return issued to Members on Wednesday the 18th instant, "of all Exports and imports of Copper and Copper Ore, &c." for the year 1880;

  1053
  whether he has observed that Ireland is not credited with any exports whatever; whether he is aware that the "Wicklow Copper Mine Company," incorporated under the Act 26 Vic. c. 209, have for years carried on mining operations and exported ores from the port of Arklow; whether such exportations have now ceased altogether; and, if not, whether he can state what is the reason for omitting all mention of them from the Return in question?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, as this Return is prepared by the Customs Department, I have to answer the Question on behalf of the Treasury. If the hon. Member will look again at the Return, he will see that it only professes to give the exports and imports from and into the United Kingdom. It does not profess to include removals coastwise, or from one part of the United Kingdom to another. I have no knowledge whether or not there has been copper or copper ore sent from Arklow to England; but if there were it would not appear in this Return.

  POST OFFICE—COLLECTION OF ASSESSED TAXES.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Postmaster General, Whether, having regard to the far greater convenience of the public, and to the saving which would be effected to the State, he will consider, in conjunction with the Board of Inland Revenue, the expediency of using the machinery of the Post Office for the collection of assessed taxes?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the Question concerns the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury rather than the Post Office; but if either of these bodies have any representation to make to the Post Office on the subject I need not say it will be carefully considered.

  VETERINARY DEPARTMENT (IRELAND) —VETERINARY INSPECTOR AT LONG FORD.
  MR. LITTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board is aware that the order made by them, and transmitted to the Longford Board of Guardians on the 3rd February last, directing them to appoint a duly qualified veterinary inspector, as required by the Act of Parliament, has not been com-
  1054
  plied with; and, will the Local Government Board take steps to compel the Board of Guardians to comply with the Act of Parliament?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I find from inquiry that the order was made by the Local Government Board, and transmitted to the Board of Guardians. The present Inspector has been acting since 1878, and has been re-appointed from time to time. The Board of Guardians expressed full confidence in his efficiency, and stated that when last appointed there was no answer to the advertisement issued by them offering to accept the post on their terms, and they think it desirable that his services should be retained. There is an order under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, that if from any sufficient cause it is desirable to appoint a person, the Lord Lieutenant may authorize the local authority to appoint a person not having the qualification of Veterinary Inspector, and it appears there was no other course to adopt in this case.

  ARMY—THE 58TH REGIMENT.
  COLONEL DIGBYasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the case that the 58th Regiment, which behaved so gallantly and suffered so severely at the action of Laing's Nek, is about to be sent to the unhealthy island of Mauritius?
  MR. CHILDERS: I think, Sir, that the House will agree with me in deprecating any interference by the House of Commons with the military authorities in the selection of particular regiments for particular duties. Three companies have to be detailed from the regiments in South Africa to form the garrison at Mauritius, and the selection which the general officer commanding has made is approved by his Royal Highness and by myself.

  ARMY RETIREMENT—WARRANT OF FEBRUARY 5, 1880.
  MR. COBBOLDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the case that the provisions of Her Majesty's Warrant of 5th February 1880, allowing officers to count service given under the age of twenty as qualification for beneficial retirement, have, under that Warrant, retrospective application in the case of officers who had left the Army between the 13th of August 1877 and 5th February 1880, after completing twelve

  1055
  year' service, above the age of twenty, but have not such retrospective application in the case of officers who had left the Army between those dates, before completing twelve years' service above the age of twenty; whether, if this is the case, the distinction in this respect between the two classes of officers was intentionally made; and, if so, on what grounds, and whether he considers the ground for such distinction sufficient; and, whether he will take into consideration the propriety of extending the privilege of counting service given under the age of twenty as qualification for beneficial retirement to officers who left the Army between the 13th August 1877 and the 5th of February 1880, before completing twelve years' service above the age of twenty?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the Warrant of the 5th of February, 1880, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, undoubtedly has the effect expressed in his first Question; but, as I am not responsible for that Warrant, which was issued on the advice of my Predecessor, I cannot venture to say what intentions may have passed through his mind. I have, however, received representations urging relaxations of the Warrant in the sense of the hon. Member's third Question; but at this moment I cannot say whether or not they will be complied with. Questions of the retrospective effect of new regulations are among the most difficult I have to deal with.

  ARMY—THE FORTHCOMING ROYAL WARRANT—OFFICERS PROMOTED FROM THE RANKS.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that officers who have been promoted from the ranks will be most injuriously affected by the Royal Warrant intended to take effect on the 1st July next, as these officers seldom obtain promotion to the rank of commissioned officer until over thirty years of ago; and that, as many of them have only two or three years' service, they will be compelled to retire without a pension?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I have not lost sight of the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, and when the new Warrant appears he will see that both as to officers now serving who have been promoted from the ranks and also as to
  1056
  officers hereafter so promoted, full provision has been made, insuring them sufficient pensions.

  TELEGRAPH ACT, 1868—POSITION OF TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will be able to make any statement with regard to the position of the telegraph clerks before the Whitsuntide Recess?
  MR. MACLIVERasked the Postmaster General, If his attention had been called to the opinion given, on the 19th instant, by Mr. Attorney General, defining the legal status of the telegraph clerks, and whether he would adopt and act upon it?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, some days ago I submitted certain preliminary propositions to the Treasury on the position of the telegraph clerks. Those propositions are now being considered by the Treasury in connection with the Post Office; and I can say on behalf of the Treasury, and on behalf of the Post Office, that we are both most anxious to arrive at a decision as soon as possible. As soon as a decision is arrived at I shall make it known. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Macliver), I am sure the House will see that that is a matter with regard to which I ought to have Notice.

  PRISONS (IRELAND—GOVERNOR OF LIMERICK GAOL.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Eager, Governor of the Jail of Limerick, in which several persons are at present confined under the provisions of the Coercion Act, is the same Mr. Eagar whose conduct was brought under the attention of the House of Commons on June 1, 1869, by the late Mr. George Henry Moore, and who on that occasion was stated by Mr. Moore to have harshly and cruelly treated Mr. W. H. O'Sullivan, while imprisoned in the said jail, detaining him for fourteen days before he was allowed to see a solicitor, twenty-eight days before he could write a letter, and one hundred and twenty days before he was allowed to see his wife and children, leaving the said Mr. O'Sullivan with insufficient clothing at night, compelling him to wash filthy basins, to drink from

  1057
  filthy vessels, and to walk round a ring in the prison yard in silence, Mr. O'Sullivan being a political prisoner never put on his trial either before or after his imprisonment; whether, in the course of the same Debate, Mr. Chichester Fortescue did not admit that Mr. O'Sullivan was treated "with an amount of severity which was beyond the necessity of the case;" whether the same Mr. Eager did not punish the slightest breach of the silent system by the political prisoners with bread and water for forty-eight hours; and, whether in view of these circumstances, it is in accordance with the present treatment of political prisoners to commit the charge of untried prisoners under the present Coercion Act to persons exposed to such charges?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that he had really answered the first Question already. Mr. Eager was now Governor of the Limerick gaol, and his conduct was brought under the attention of the House in 1869. But the hon. Member quoted a speech of the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) felt bound to call attention to a few words that went before and after that quotation. Mr. Chichester Fortescue had said that it was
  "Unnecessary for him to go fully into Mr. O'Sullivan's allegations, but, after careful inquiry, he had ascertained that there was a large amount of exaggeration in his representations. At the same time his apprehension was that there was an amount of severity beyond the necessity of the case."
  Then Mr. Chichester Fortescue also made use of the words that it was
  "Worthy of remark that neither Mr. O'Sullivan nor any other political prisoner made any complaints of treatment whilst in prison."
  He (Mr. W. E. Forster) quoted those remarks, because the hon. Member had only given part of Mr. Chichester Fortescue's observations. He had no to attempt now to go into the case, which happened in 1869; but, having looked carefully into the matter, there was no doubt that the prison regulations of that time were such as to require considerable change, and changes had been made at the time of the passing of the Westmeath Act. He did not think that in the case alluded to any special blame attached to the Governor. But he wished to state with regard to the present position of affairs that the Governor was under the supervision of the Execu-
  1058
  tive Government, and that the regulations were very strict in the matter. There had been no complaint against anything that the Governor had done.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to know, Whether Mr. O'Sullivan had not written to the public Press challenging Mr. Chichester Fortescue to prove that there had been any exaggeration in the statement of his case; whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to statements in The Freeman's Journal as to the treatment of prisoners; and whether for 20 out of the 24 hours, prisoners were confined in a cell 12 feet by 6 feet?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he declined to go into a case which happened in 1869. With regard to what was going on at the present time, he had answered a similar Question a day or two ago. He had no complaints brought before him. He could not take notice of complaints appearing in newspapers without any responsible authority. The orders were that any complaints made in the usual manner would be thoroughly and immediately investigated.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—LICENCES TO CARRY ARMS.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the refusal of certain magistrates in Ireland to grant licence to carry arms to respectable persons on the ground that they had attended Land League meetings; and, if so, whether the Government approve of the action of such magistrates?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that he had practically answered that Question a few days ago. Under the Peace Preservation Act magistrates were bound to exercise a discretion in any case brought before them. He must decline to lay down any general rule on the subject. If any person felt aggrieved, he had the remedy of applying to the resident magistrate himself.

  PAST OFFICE—THE MAILS IN ARGYLL SHIRE AND THE NORTH OF SCOTLAND.
  MR. MACKINTOSHasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has concluded any arrangements for expediting the mails to and from Inverness and

  1059
  the North of Scotland, in consequence of the numerous representations made on the subject?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that no arrangements have yet been concluded; but the negotiations are now being completed.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—HIGHER EDUCATION (WALES).
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he can state when the Report of the Departmental Committee on Higher and Intermediate Education in Wales will be received?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I have communicated with the Commissioners on Education in Wales, and I am informed that the labour attending the collection and arrangement of the materials and statistics necessary for the preparation of the Report and the examination of the vast amount of supplementary information furnished to the Commissioners during the progress of their inquiry has proved far greater than could at first have been anticipated. The task of arranging these materials is now nearly completed, and the Commissioners hope to be able shortly to present their Report.

  LAW AND POLICE—ALLEGED OUT RAGE AT GREENHITHE.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the statement contained in a circular of the 12th May 1881 from Mr. Samuel Charles Umfreville, of Greenhithe, to the following effect:—That some years ago, in consequence of his having obtained a true bill from the grand jury against the proprietors of cement works, the people of the works assembled with bands and having banners representing himself and his solicitor in the agonies of death. That the result of these demonstrations was that his wife was killed by the blow of a stone received at her own gate. That the perpetrator was never discovered. That persons who had signed affidavits in favour of the claims of a poor widow to compensation, were visited by crowds and intimidated and prevented from giving evidence; if he can inform the House
  1060
  if the banners referred to were seized and destroyed by the police; and what steps, if any, were taken to apprehend persons reasonably suspected of intimidating and inciting to violence and murder; and, whether the perpetrators have been since brought to justice?
  SIR WILLIAM FIARCOURT,in reply, said, he believed the events referred to were stated to have happened about six years ago. It was not easy to obtain information about circumstances which took place so long back; but, as far as he had been able to ascertain, the facts stated in the first part of the Question were without foundation. No banners, therefore, were seized or destroyed, nor had there been apprehensions of persons reasonably suspected.

  THE STANDING ORDERS OF THIS HOUSE.
  MR. THOMASSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can undertake at the commencement of the Session of 1882 to submit the Standing Orders for the consideration of the House, with a view by their revision to economise the public time?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we have not yet made sufficient progress in the present Session to enable me to make a categorical declaration as to what we may or may not do at the outset of next Session. But I must say that, with that reservation, I am of opinion that the condition of the House with regard to its arrangements for conducting Business now constitutes a public question of the first magnitude, requiring the earliest attention as soon as the state of Business will permit.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF POOR LAW GUARDIANS AT BELFAST.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the manner in which the annual election of Poor Law Guardians for Cromae Ward, in the Borough of Belfast, has been conducted for the present year; if it be true, as disclosed in evidence before the magistrates at petty sessions, in Belfast, on the 13th May instant, that the policeman entrusted with the delivery and collection of voting papers at said election was guilty of grave neglect in the discharge of his duty, by failing to collect

  1061
  voting papers in the houses of several of the streets in which he had laid them down, and in other districts having called at the residence of the voters at ten or eleven o'clock at night, when many of them had retired to bed; if it be true that the policeman in company with Mr. James R. Christian, one of the succesful candidates, under their system of election, entered a public-house in the said ward, and partook of refreshments, and whilst thus regaling themselves, is it true that the parcel of collected voting papers then in the constable's possession were opened, examined, and altered by the said Mr. Christian, or one of his agents, who was also present; and, if any or all of these assumptions be accurate, will he take into consideration the form in which the last election for the Poor Law Guardians for Cromae was conducted?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the Vice President of the Local Government Board informs me that there appears to have been some irregularity in distribution in connection with the voting papers; but the Board do not think that they should exercise their powers under the 23rd section of the Act 67 Vict. c. 92. I requested a communication from the Inspector of Constabulary in Ireland with reference to the misconduct of the police-constable on the occasion. I have not yet received his Report, and therefore I cannot say whether it will be necessary for me to bring the matter under the notice of the Local Government Board or not. I perceive, from the newspaper report referred to, that the magistrates before whom the police constable was brought on the charge of neglect acquitted him.

  BALLOT ACT—THE ST. IVES ELECTION.
  SIR HENRY PEEKasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the declaration of the poll at the late St. Ives election:—
  "The result of the polling was in the first instance declared as follows:—Ross (Conservative) 517, Pendarves (Liberal) 395; majority 122. This result took both parties by surprise, and it was at once openly declared that some mistake had been made in the counting. So strong was the feeling in the matter that the returning officer directed another counting of the votes, and the correct numbers were then found to be:—
  1062

  Ross

  462

  Pendarves

  360

  Majority

  —102"

  and, if, in his opinion, the existing machinery of the Ballot Act is sufficient?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, he thought the Question ought to have been addressed to his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council on Education, because the defect seemed to have arisen through the violation of one of the elementary rules of arithmetic. This was a circumstance which could not always be guarded against; but he did not think it afforded evidence that the machinery of the Ballot Act was insufficient.
  SIR HENRY PEEKasked if the Attorney General was aware that at the last Election his Colleague and himself received from the electors of Mid Surrey 1,330 more votes than were recorded by the High Sheriff?

  ARMY—INFANTRY MAJORS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can now give any further information as to the duties of the eight majors of an infantry regiment under the proposed territorial organisation, and especially whether they will pay companies?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that the captains promoted to be majors will continue to perform their present company duties, including payment of the men; but they will be mounted. No change will, as a rule, be made in the duties of existing majors until they are promoted.

  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES ACT, 1870—RETURNS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will consider what measures can be adopted to render the Return of "Life Assurance Companies," as annually issued, more valuable, by avoiding to a greater extent discrepancies of dates in the Returns, visible in the Blue Book issued to Members on the 17th May instant, as follows:—(1.) In the "Annual Returns" (Schedules 1 to 4, sections 5 and 6), taking care, even if the

  1063
  issue be made later, that the majority of them may be (as stated in the heading) for the previous year, in place of being (as they are in fact) forty-eight for the previous year, and sixty-six (or the great majority) for the year before; (2.) In the case of the "Valuation and Statistical Returns" (Schedules 5 and 6, sections 7 and 8), that the compilations embrace more recent periods than those in the Blue Book referred to, varying, as they do, from 1872, and, in the case of twenty-seven Companies, not being later than 1876?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, he was afraid that it would not be possible to make the changes suggested. The accounts of Life Assurance Companies were made up to different dates; and the Act gave a period of nine months during which the Return might be made to the Board of Trade. Moreover, some of the Companies made quinquennial Returns; and in others the period was as long as 10 years. It would, therefore, be impossible to have all the Returns made up to the same date, unless the publications were kept back so long as to be practically of little value.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE NATIVE TRIBES.
  MR. GORSTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the statements that have been publicly made that the Boers of the Transvaal are organising commandos to punish those native tribes which were loyal to the British Government in the last insurrection, and in particular against a chief named Montsuine; and, in the event of the Right honourable gentleman stating that Her Majesty's Government possess information of these facts, what steps it is intended to take to protect Montsuine and other natives from outrage?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, we telegraphed on Saturday to Sir Hercules Robinson, and have received the following reply:—
  "Yours yesterday received. Administrator, Pretoria, heliographed, 11th May, that a field cornet had arrived there preceding night from Potchefstroom district, who stated Boer commando, about 400, proceeded under orders from Kronje, on 8th, to attack Montsioa, between whom and Machabi, other Caffre chief, hostili-
  1064
  ties had been going on. Commission called on Boer leaders for explanation. They said their reports stated that Montsioa had attacked Machabi, and was threatening Lichtenberg, and that Boer commando was simply to defend homes. We at once sent an Imperial officer, Major Ernest Buller, with Piet Joubert, to Potchefstroom, to order Montsioa to keep quiet and commando to disperse. It was arranged that kronje should appear before the Commission to explain proceedings. Montsioa was to be told that Commission would deal with whole question of Keate Award."
  Governor Sir Hercules Robinson further telegraphs from Newcastle, May 22—
  "Major Buller reports from Potchefstroom that rumours as to Boer commando against Montsioa much exaggerated, and no forward movement made."
  MR. GORSTasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had any information about the reported slaughtering of 70 Caffres?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The telegrams which I have read contain all the information that has reached me.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will any information be forthcoming shortly about this matter? It is important that we should know the attitude of the Government in connection with these proceedings.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: If the right hon. Gentleman gives Notice of any Question it will, of course, be carefully attended to.

  PUBLICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  MR. THOMASSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he thinks it desirable to fill the houses of honourable Members, at the public expense, with bulky copies of Provisional Orders Confirmation Bills, which they never read, or to deliver to honourable Members on every occasion when a Bill is upon the Order paper for Committee, copies of the Amendments on such Bill, when such copies of Amendments are identically, word for word, the same as those previously delivered (e.g. Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Bill); and, whether, in the interests of the Public Exchequer, he does not think it desirable to alter the practice in these respects?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The delivery of Bills and Notices of Motion to hon. Members is made under the general direction of Mr. Speaker, assisted, when necessary, by the Printing Committee. As representative of the

  1065
  interests of the Exchequer, I should, of course, desire that all unnecessary expense should be avoided; but I do not think that it is for me to say what papers are or are not required for the convenience of Members. I have, however, your permission, Sir, to state that in your opinion the question whether Provisional Order Bills should not be treated as regards circulation in the same manner as Private Bills is one deserving of consideration.

  VACCINATION ACT—THE MAGIS TRACY.
  MR. H. LEEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Lord Chancellor, after submitting to the Town Council of the Borough of Southampton the name of James Seward Pearce, the Sheriff of the town and county of Southampton, now declines to add his name to the Roll of Borough Magistrates; and whether the ground of objection is the opinion Mr. Pearce holds in relation to compulsory vaccination, and the fact of his having been fined for non-compliance with an order under the Act; and, whether the Government purpose to make this a disqualification in the case of all justices of the peace who hold similar views?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he had communicated with the Lord Chancellor on this subject, and the Lord Chancellor stated that the grounds of his objection to Mr. Pearce did not relate to any opinion entertained by that gentleman, but to the fact that he had been twice convicted and fined by the borough magistrates for offences against the Vaccination Act. Of these facts the Lord Chancellor was unaware when he signified to the Town Council of Southampton that Mr. Pearce was a fit and proper person to be appointed a borough magistrate. The offences of which Mr. Pearce had been guilty were subsequently brought to the notice of the noble and learned Lord, who naturally came to the conclusion that a gentleman who had not himself recognized the duty of obeying the law was hardly a suitable person to add to the roll of borough magistrates.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF JAMES THOMPSON.
  MR. JACKSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If
  1066
  he can recommend the discharge from prison of James William Thompson, sentenced at Ripon to three months' imprisonment for alleged burglary; and for whose release a memorial has been signed by nearly 300 respectable persons, supported by many affidavits of persons in a position to form an opinion, and who believe Thompson to be entirely innocent?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he had investigated this case very carefully, and the result of his deliberations was that an order for the discharge of the person referred to in the Question had been sent three days ago.

  INDIA—GRANT TO GENERAL SIR FREDERICK ROBERTS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is contemplated to make a present of £12,000 to Sir Frederick Roberts for his services in Afghanistan; whether, if so, such moneys are to be furnished by the inhabitants of India, or those of the United Kingdom; and, whether this House will have an opportunity to express an opinion upon this present before any decision being finally taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has a Question upon the Paper on the same subject as that to which this Question refers. Considering the exceptional character of the noble Lord's Question, perhaps he would be good enough to read it out at full length.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would wait until his Question, which was the 48th on the Paper, should be reached. Perhaps the noble Marquess would read it himself.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Then do I understand the noble Lord declines to read it?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I have to say that I stated some time ago, in moving a Vote of Thanks to the Army in Afghanistan, that Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to confer a

  1067
  Baronetcy upon General Stewart and General Roberts, and that, in accordance with precedents, the Council of India had voted a sum of £1,000 a-year to each of them, or, as an alternative, the sum of £12,500 in commutation of a pension. These sums will be charged on the revenues of India, and have been voted by the authority of the Council of India. The sanction of Parliament to this grant is not necessary, and the matter will not be brought before this House unless my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton or some other Member thinks it necessary to call attention specifically to the subject. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) puts a Question on the same subject, and as he declines to read it, I shall myself have to put the House to the trouble of listening to it. I am asked by the noble Lord—
  "Whether it is a fact that Sir Garnet Wolseley received for his eminent services in Ashantee a grant of £25,000; Whether General Sir Frederick Roberts on his return from India was definitely informed by him that, in return for his equally eminent services in Afghanistan, he would receive a grant of £20,000; and whether Sir Frederick Roberts, on his return home from South Africa, was informed that the grant of £20,000 had been reduced by him to £12,000; and, if so, why the grant originally promised has not been made?"
  In reply to these Questions I have to state that I believe that Sir Garnet Wolseley did receive £25,000. But that was a grant made by Parliament; while the sums which have been voted to Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts were voted by the Council of India on my recommendation, strict Indian precedents being followed. In reply to the second Question, I have to state that Sir Frederick Roberts returned home from India in November, that I never had any communication whatever with him on the subject of a pension or grant of any kind until February 26, 1881, and that in informing him of the honour which Her Majesty's Government proposed to confer upon him I used these words—
  "I propose to submit to the Council of India that a grant of £1,000 a-year for life be made to you."
  A day or two afterwards I saw Sir Frederick Roberts, and I had some conversation with him, the exact terms of which I cannot, of course, vouch for.
  1068
  The general effect of it, however, was that he felt some natural hesitation about accepting an hereditary honour when the pension by which it was to be accompanied was limited to his own life and not continued to his son. In consequence of that conversation I wrote him a letter on March 1, from which I must read a short extract. I said—
  "The precedents are so clearly in favour of limiting any grant from the revenues of India to one life that I should have considerable difficulty in inducing the Council to depart from the usual course in this instance, but there have been cases in which, where the original recipient has enjoyed a grant for only a short time, it has been renewed in favour of his successor. I cannot doubt in your case, if you should unfortunately not obtain the benefit of a pension for a considerable period, the circumstances would be favourably considered by the Secretary of State and the Council at the time, but I cannot give you any formal assurance which would bind my successors and the Council on this point. I think, however, the Council would be prepared to consider favourably any request you might make to commute the grant for a capital sum."
  A short time after the receipt of that letter Sir Frederick Roberts left England for Natal, having first signified to me his grateful acceptance of the honour proposed to be conferred by Her Majesty, and his wish that the pension should be commuted for a capital sum. Some delay took place in the final settlement of the matter, in consequence of its being ascertained—what had not been previously brought to my knowledge—that owing to the provisions of an Act of Parliament it would not be possible for either Sir Donald Stewart or Sir Frederick Roberts to draw a pension of £1,000 a-year while they held the offices of Commander-in-Chief in India or Madras. They finally answered, accepting a pension of £1,000 a-year when they could legally receive it, or, as an alternative, the sum of £12,500, which was in both cases in excess of the actuarial value of a pension of £1,000 a-year. I think this statement will show that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that I ever assured Sir Frederick Roberts that he would receive a sum of £20,000, or any sum other than that which I have mentioned. And now, having made this statement, I think I am entitled to ask the noble Lord upon what grounds, other titan those which are contained in the calumnious and lying gossip which ap-

  1069
  pears in certain newspapers published in this Metropolis, he has founded the Question put to me containing imputations of so injurious a character? I will also ask whether, before putting his Question on the Paper, he had taken the trouble of satisfying himself by those means which were open to him—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What means?]—by communication with Sir Frederick Roberts or otherwise, to ascertain whether there was the slightest foundation for the statements which he has brought under the notice of the House?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I have put this Question on information which came to my knowledge. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I did not consult Sir Frederick Roberts, because I regret to say that I have not yet had the honour of making the acquaintance of that illustrious General.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: May I ask the noble Lord whether he had any foundation whatever for putting the Question, except a paragraph in a newspaper called Vanity Fair?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I am not in the habit, nor shall I hope over to be in the habit, of putting Questions to Ministers founded on statements which may appear in Vanity Fair.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask the noble Marquess whether, having referred to certain actuarial calculations, he is prepared, in accordance with the Rules of the House, to lay them on the Table?
  MR. R. N. FOWLER: I would also ask, whether it was not in accordance with the general rule, in giving a pension of £1,000 for distinguished services, to grant it for two lives?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir. The precedents have been carefully examined, and there is no instance of the original grant having been made for more than one life, although in several cases the grant had subsequently been continued to the successors. In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), I have to state that I have no actuarial calculations to lay on the Table. The statement I made was founded on the information given me by the financial authorities at the India Office, and I have no doubt whatever as to its accuracy.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The noble Marquess said there were actuarial
  1070
  calculations; and I would ask you, Sir, whether, having referred to those calculations, he is not bound, by the Order of the House, to lay them on the Table?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: What I believe I said was that the sum of £12,000 was larger than the actuarial value.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: There must be some Report, Sir, on which the noble Marquess acted, and I ask whether the noble Marquess is not bound to lay it on the Table?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that the noble Marquess has quoted from any specific document.
  MR. ONSLOW: I wish to ask the noble Marquess, whether he is aware that his private secretary said anything to General Roberts on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is absolutely impossible that anything of the sort can have taken place. The letter I read was copied by my private secretary, who was perfectly aware of the intentions of the Government, and he could have made no such statement as the Question of the hon. Gentleman implies.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND—LOWER HOUSE OF CONVOCATION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has observed that the following gravamen was adopted in the Lower House of Convocation on Thursday last, as an articulus cleri:—
  "That it is understood that a relaxation of the rules governing the admission of Representatives in the Lower House of Parliament is proposed, and that for certain reasons this House has the deepest interest in deprecating any such relaxation at the present time;"
  whether he has further observed that, during the discussion upon the said gravamen, Archdeacon Palmer asked if the Lower House of Convocation would not be acting impertinently to deal with anything connected with the action of the Houses of Parliament, and if it was not coming near a violation of privileges; whether the Lower House of Convocation did not only come near a violation of privileges, but was actually guilty of a violation of privileges in dealing with anything connected with the action of this House of Parliament; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps

  1071
  to convey to the clerical dignitaries and deacons forming the Lower House of Convocation the serious danger to that House of such conduct; and, whether he will relieve the anxieties of Members of this House and of electors of the United Kingdom by explaining what are the effects (if any), spiritual or temporal, of the adoption of the gravamen already referred to as an articulus cleri by the Lower House of Convocation?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, my hon. Friend asks me whether I will relieve the anxiety of the Members of this House by explaining what is likely to be the effect, spiritual or temporal, of a gravamen adopted in the Lower House of Convocation on Thursday last as an articulus cleri. My hon. Friend has, I am afraid, been a little more alarmed than he need be by these ecclesiastical terms, due probably to the fact that he has not a very intimate acquaintance with Convocation or the individuals who compose it, for I observe in the last paragraph but one he requests me to convey to the "clerical dignitaries and deacons"—[Mr. LABOUCIIIRE: That is a mistake. "Deacons" should be "divines."]—I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that he need have no anxiety in the matter, and that the gravamen is not likely to prejudice him or any other Member of the House. I observe that the Lower House of Convocation express an opinion somewhat adverse to the admission of clergymen into the House of Commons, mid as that opinion agrees with that which has been pronounced by the House itself, I do not think we can complain of Convocation confirming our decision. Under these circumstances, having relieved my hon. Friend's anxieties, I hope that he will not expect that I should proceed any further in this matter.

  METROPOLITAN DISTRICT ASYLUMS BOARD.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has received a representation from the Metropolitan District Asylums Board as to the great necessity for immediate legislation to define, and, if requisite, enlarge the powers of the Board and the local authorities of the Metropolis to enable them to discharge the duties imposed upon them under the Act of 1867, in making provision of adequate hospital
  1072
  accommodation for smallpox patients; and, if he will state what course he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I have received a representation from the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District as to the alleged necessity for legislation to define and enlarge the powers of the managers and the local authorities. Independently of and prior to this the subject had much engaged theat tention of the Board. We are now in communication with the managers for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the amendments of the law which appear to them to be required. When we have received the reply of the managers, we shall be in a better position to determine what steps it may be expedient to take; but at the present moment it would be premature to express au opinion on the subject.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— MURDERERS OF CAPTAIN ELLIOTT.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the murderers of Captain Elliott have as yet been apprehended; and if so, before what tribunal, civil or military, in or out of Her Majesty's dominions, they will be tried?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, we telegraphed on Saturday, and have received the following reply from Sir Hercules Robinson:—
  "Yours 21st. Persons accused of murdering Elliott have not been apprehended. Case is in hands of Attorney General, Transvaal, who will act with all expedition possible. Boer leaders promise co-operation. President Brand has taken steps to bring to trial persons accused of murder of Barber, which was committed within Free State."
  I mentioned on Friday that the persons accused of murdering Captain Elliott would be tried by the High Court of the Transvaal under the existing law.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Considering that this murder took place four months ago, under circumstances of peculiar treachery and cowardice, I should like to know whether any communication has passed between the Government and the leading Boers asking for an explanation why greater despatch has not been used in the arrest of these malefactors; and whether the Government are prepared to remove this trial from the Transvaal to the Cape or Natal in

  1073
  order that there might be a proper administration of justice?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I cannot answer the first Question off-hand. As to the second Question, the Commission has made the decision that the murderers are to be tried by the existing High Court of the Transvaal.

  FRANCE—THE NEW COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any communications have been made to the Chambers of Agriculture with respect to the duties proposed to be levied on agricultural produce under the new Treaty with France?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, communications had been made by the Foreign Office to the Chambers of Commerce; but he was not aware whether any had been made to the Chambers of Agriculture. The matter should receive his attention.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) BILL—DISTRESS FOR RENT.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in accordance with the Resolution unanimously adopted on a recent occasion by the House, he will move the insertion of a Clause in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill abolishing the right of distress for rent in all tenancies to which that measure applies?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not desirous to see the practice established of putting Questions such as this on matters relating to Bills which happen to be before the House. Notice of two Amendments has already been given in connection with this subject, and as the matter is one which has many branches and considerations bearing on it, I would rather that it was reserved until the Committee stage.

  FOREIGN JEWS IN RUSSIA—EXPUL SION OF A NATURALIZED BRITISH SUBJECT.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of the Protest addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Russia, relative to the expulsion of Mr. Lewisohn, a British subject; the text of the Russian Law bearing on the question; and of
  1074
  the notice stated to have appeared in the "Gazette" warning Jewish subjects of the Queen generally of the existence of prohibitory Laws in Russia as to their residence in that Country? He also wished to ask the hon. Baronet, whether he has seen a description by an eyewitness of recent outrages in Kieff, and a translation of a Russian account of these outrages, from which it appeared that thousands of men, women, and children had been left without the means of subsistence; that many of them were killed; and that the perpetrators of these outrages were under the special protection of the civil and military authorities? If so, he wished to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to abstain from making any representations to Russia on the subject until they received an invitation from some other Power to do so?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I informed the House a few days since that, with the exception of at Odessa, Her Majesty is not represented at any of the towns where these riots have occurred. We have telegraphed to Odessa for full information, and we have received a telegram from the Consul General there. We hear that the riots at Odessa have come nearly to an end. They had ended entirely on Friday, but on Saturday there was some slight disturbance. No persons were killed at Odessa, or apparently dangerously wounded; but a large number of windows were broken and property taken away. There appears to have been 1,000 arrests made at Odessa by the Russian Government, and between 600 and 700 of the rioters are now in prison. It is proposed to lay upon the Table of the House the laws and regulations affecting the residence of Jews in Russia, and as soon as Her Majesty's Government are in possession of an authenticated copy of these documents they will consider whether any steps can be taken to obtain a modification of the laws in question. Lord Dufferin had more than one personal interview with the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and addressed formal notes to him on the subject on the 27th of January and 19th of February last. The Gazette notice referred to appeared in The London Gazette of August 7, 1860.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether Her Majesty's Government would

  1075
  follow the example of their Predecessors in the case of the Bulgarian outrages, and depute a Special Commissioner to make inquiries in Russia?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member must give Notice of that Question.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has seen a statement made at a meeting of London telegraph clerks on Saturday last, "that some of them had worked twenty-one consecutive hours;" whether the statement is true; and, if so, what rate of overtime is paid for such exceptionally severe labour; and, how far is liability to such excessive hours prevalent at other large offices?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in the inquiries I have been lately making into the position of the telegraphists, I have seen reason to direct particular attention to the question of overtime. Although the length of the ordinary day's work is eight hours, it is often arranged that the 16 hours worked in two days should be divided into a short day's work of three hours, succeeded by one of 13 hours, and after working 13 hours, the telegraphists not no frequently volunteer to work overtime. It has occasionally happened that a telegraphist has been on duty 21 hours. I am sure that such an amount of continuous duty must be alike injurious to the telegraphist and to the interest of the Public Service. In the proposals I am about to make with regard to the future position of the telegraphists, the question of overtime will be dealt with in such a way as will, I hope, prevent such excessive employment in future.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS—RIGHTS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Ender Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have or will come to a clear understanding with France as to the future position of British subjects in Tunis; whether their rights and privileges, as established under the Convention of 1875, are to be respected and maintained; and, whether France will assume the right and control the action of the Tunisian Government in respect of
  1076
  the renewal, revision, or denunciation of conventions now existing between Tunis and this Country, even if to the detriment of British subjects?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government consider that the position of British subjects in Tunis is established by the Convention of 1875 between this country and the Regency, and the hon. Member will find in the Papers already distributed that Her Majesty's Government have explicitly stated to the French Government their views with regard to the rights of British subjects under existing Treaties. I may point out to the hon. Member that Article 40 of the above-mentioned Convention specially provides that, although at the expiration of seven years from its conclusion, either of the high contracting Powers shall have the right to call upon the other to enter upon a revision of the same, yet until such revision shall have been accomplished by common consent, and a new Convention concluded and put into operation, the present Convention is to remain in full force and effect. With regard to the hon. Member's second Question, I can add nothing to what is stated in Lord Granville's Note to M. Challemel Lacour of the 20th instant., which will be found in "Tunis," No. 3, page 10.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—SPANISH AND PORTUGESE CATTLE.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that an Order has been issued for the compulsory slaughter at the ports of landing of all cattle from Spain and Portugal; and, if true, whether he will state what is the reason for the issue of this Order?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I regret to say it is true that the Privy Council have been compelled to withdraw the exemption from slaughter at the port of landing which has hitherto been extended to Spanish and Portuguese cattle. The grounds on which we have revoked this exemption are the outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in the North of Spain, in consequence of which the French Government have prohibited the importation of Spanish cattle into France; and the prevalence of foot-and-mouth, disease both in the North and South of Spain. We

  1077
  have not taken this step until after the fullest inquiry, and the most careful investigation on the spot, not only by our own Consuls, but by an experienced English veterinary surgeon. Having satisfied ourselves of the prevalence of disease in Spain, that country ceased to come within the conditions of the Act of 1878, under which alone foreign animals can be exempted from slaughter. The absence of any regulations in Portugal which would prevent the transit of Spanish animals, made it necessary to take the same course with regard to Portugal.

  FRANCE—THE NEW COMMERCIAL TREATY—NEGOTIATIONS—CONSTI TUTION OF COMMISSION.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the names of the Commissioners appointed to negotiate the Commercial Treaty with France; and, whether it is intended to take the evidence of experts from various parts of the Country during the sittings of the Commission?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Commissioners appointed to negotiate the Commercial Treaty with France will probably consist of myself, Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, K.C.M.G., C.B., Secretary and Controller-General of the National Debt Office, Mr. C. M. Kennedy, C.B., Head of the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, and Mr. Crowe, Her Majesty's Consul-General at Düsseldorf, and Commercial Attaché at Berlin and Vienna. Every opportunity will be afforded to manufacturers and the representatives of various industries in this country to afford information to the Commissioners on points connected with the proposed tariff before any arrangement is entered into.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. DILLON.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the honourable Member for Tipperary has returned from the infirmary in Kilmainham Prison to an ordinary cell, in consequence of the fact that the authorities of the prison put other persons to occupy and sleep in the room at first allotted to Mr. Dillon solely, and that under these circumstances he could
  1078
  not procure needful sleep; and, whether, in view of the delicacy of Mr. Dillon's constitution and the precarious state of his health, the Government will give him for his sole occupation a room in a suitable portion of the prison? He also wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, owing to the fact that there is but one cell provided in Kilmainham Prison for interviews between persons detained there and visitors, and that only one visitor is admitted to the prison at one time, it is impossible for more than twenty-four of the prisoners to receive visits on any day within the specified hours; and, whether, as the number of persons now detained in Kilmainham is much larger than the number capable of receiving visits under the present system, and as visitors are put to the inconvenience of long delays, and persons detained are deprived of the exercise of the right to receive a daily visit, a right ostensibly secured to them by the rules, the Government will take steps by increasing the number of visiting cells or otherwise, to secure that each person entitled to a daily visit shall be actually in a position to receive it?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I am informed that the reason why Mr. Dillon wished to be taken back to his cell is not that stated by the hon. Member. There are three visiting cells at Kilmainham, and it is not the fact that one visitor only is admitted at a time. Fifty or 60 visits may take place daily.
  MR. SEXTON: Will a room be set apart for Mr. Dillon's use?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: If the hon. Gentleman will give me sufficient Notice I will inform him of the position of affairs in that respect.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many hours on an average the hon. Member for Tipperary is compelled to remain in his cell alone?
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to point out to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has already given Notice of the Question of which the right hon. Gentleman now requires further Notice.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I can give no answer to that Question until I know what representations Mr. Dillon himself has made to the directors of the prison, and what their reply has been upon the

  1079
  subject. The Government will give every reasonable attention to such representations as Mr. Dillon himself may make, but they must be representations made by him.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I think there is more in this case than seems to be imagined. I think, Sir, it is absolutely necessary that we should be satisfied upon this point—that the hon. Member who is now in prison in Kilmainham shall not suffer more inconvenience or greater hardship than if he had been in prison in this House for contempt of the Orders of this House. The hon. Member has a right to be here under ordinary circumstances. He should be here taking part in the debates in this House; but we know that he is in prison, not because there is any charge against him, but because he is suspected. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give the House an assurance that the hon. Member shall not be subjected to greater hardship than if he had been a prisoner in this House for a contempt of its Orders?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I think I have already given an answer which applies to one part of the Question of the hon. Member. Mr. Dillon will certainly be subjected to no cruelty, and, as I have said, every attention will be paid to any representations he himself may make to the prison authorities.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE KING'S OWN BORDERERS.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state the reasons why York has been preferred to Berwick on Tweed as the head quarters of the King's Own Borderers, a Regiment essentially Scotch in its privileges, history, and origin?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the 25th Regiment has been localized at York since the year 1873; but that we have endeavoured to see whether some arrangement might not be made more in harmony with the traditions of the regiment, whose title is the Borderers, by moving them to Berwick. But this would have necessitated arrangements as to the affiliated Militia battalions which are practically impossible, and also would have raised difficulties as to barracks. With great reluctance, there-
  1080
  fore, I have decided that it will be best to leave matters as they are.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS—THE HULME TRUST.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the scheme for the Hulme Trust has left the Education Department; and when it is probable that it will become Law?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the schemes for the Hulme Trust were sent some time ago to the Charity Commissioners for the purpose of having certain alterations introduced, which, it is hoped, may prove satisfactory to the various parties interested. The amended schemes have now been returned, and approved by the Education Department, and unless further objections are made, there is no reason why they should not become law in about two months.

  ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES—THE COMPANIONSHIP OF THE BATH.
  MR. BRIGGSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether field officers retired from the Auxiliary Forces with permission to retain their rank, are eligible fur the honour of the Companionship of the Bath about to be bestowed on a limited number of the field officers of those forces; and, whether that honour is to be confined to field officers in active service?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the selection of officers of the Auxiliary Forces for honorary distinctions is made as a general rule from officers in active command of regiments; but those who have retired from the command and have been appointed honorary colonels of their regiments, are not considered absolutely ineligible for those distinctions.

  THE CONSTABULARY (IRELAND)— CIRCULAR OF INSPECTOR GENERAL.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was a fact that since the issue of the Circular, which was published in the "Freeman's Journal" on Saturday, the arrests of persons "reasonably suspected" by the police had not more than doubled in number?
  MR. PARNELLwished to ask the Chief Secretary a Question of which he

  1081
  gave him Notice earlier in the evening—namely, Whether his attention has been directed to a paragraph in the "Freeman's Journal" of Saturday, which has been published in several London journals of this morning, purporting to be the text of a Circular alleged to have been issued by the Inspector General of the Irish Constabulary, regretting that the police have been unable, in a great majority of instances, either to give grounds of "reasonable suspicion" of the perpetrators of the outrages, or of those who instigated them? He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether such a Circular has been issued; whether the "Freeman" correctly reproduced it; and, if so, whether it was issued with the knowledge and sanction of the Irish Executive?
  MR. M'COANalso asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question of which he had given private Notice.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I understand the Question put by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to be the same as that put by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan). I can state that the confidential Circular which I have seen in The Freeman's Journal of yesterday is, so far as I have been able to compare it, authentic, and has been issued with the knowledge and approval of the Executive Government, and, I may State, of myself. As regards the Question of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), I shall be ready tomorrow to give the reasons why that Circular was issued.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: With reference to that observation, I wish to know whether it is understood that there is to be a Morning Sitting tomorrow?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir.
  MR. CALLANwished to ask whether the following portion of the Circular had the full approval of the Chief Secretary when it was issued:—
  "This document is not to leave the hands of the County Inspector, and must be kept under lock and key, and any orders to insure its being carried out must be communicated verbally to the sub-inspectors, head, or other constables as emanating from the County Inspectors themselves."
  He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government gave instructions that deliberate misrepresentations should be made? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is passing beyond the limits of a Question.
  MR. CALLAN: If it will be necessary for me, in face of such a grave scandal, I will move the adjournment of the House. I do not wish to do so; but I wish to say unless the Chief Secretary gives explanations, and unless the explanations—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now using language menacing the House.
  MR. CALLAN: If I am in fault, it was not my intention to be so; and I hope, under the circumstances, I shall be excused. The Question I have to ask the Chief Secretary is, Whether this Circular was issued with his full knowledge and sanction; and if it was intended that a misrepresentation should be conveyed by the County Inspectors to the sub-inspectors, head, and other constables, as emanating from themselves?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not concluded with a Motion, and has, therefore, been guilty of an irregularity.
  MR. CALLAN: I said that unless the Question was answered, I would move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I wish to say that I understood the Question of the last hon. Member to refer to the Circular itself. I believe that it is exactly and fully authentic. I approved of it; and I will, at the proper time, give my reasons for it. As to the paragraph which has been read, I shall be prepared to-morrow to state everything I know in regard to it. I cannot, at the present moment, say more than that; but I will give a full explanation tomorrow.
  MR. CALLAN: Sir, to put myself in Order, I will conclude with a Motion. I must express my regret that a Minister of the Crown has not, at the earliest moment, availed himself of the opportunity of repudiating any knowledge of the Circular. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  [The Motion not being seconded, was not put.]

  WAYS AND MEANS—CUSTOM AND IN LAND REVENUE BILL—SALE OF LIQUORS IN RAILWAY CARRIAGES.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYasked the Prime Minister, Whether it was his in-

  1083
  tention to persevere with the Clause in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in Railway Carriages?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it is not a clause in the Revenue Bill; but I wish to make a short statement on the subject, and also on another point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. This proposal, of allowing strong liquors to be retailed in Pullman cars, was viewed by the Railway Companies who made the application, and by the Board of Inland Revenue, as simply a matter of administration. They were not at all prepared to expect that it would be regarded as a proposal of a revolutionary character. To dispose of their proposal would occupy several hours of the time of the House, and it is not my wish, since it is comparatively unimportant in relation to other matters, to ask the House to devote several hours to it. The proposal has been killed by the menaces to which it has been exposed. With regard to those who have opposed it, I should be glad if they would supply the Board of Inland Revenue with any suggestions they may have, so that they may be considered if the proposal should appear in a future year. I have also to state that, in fulfilment of the conditional pledge which I gave on Friday, it is my intention to ask the House to meet at 2 o'clock to-morrow, for the purpose of discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), and any kindred topic.

  NAVY—COURT MARTIAL AT SYDNEY— H.M.S. "WOLVERINE"—CASE OF MR. C. P. STAMP.
  In answer to Mr. MACDONALD,
  MR. TREVELYAN said: Charles Stamp is coming home in the Dana, which started from Sydney on the 5th of March, to call, perhaps, at New Zealand and at the Falkland Islands on the way. The vessel will not have arrived before July. On his arrival in England I will see that his case is at once attended to. according to my promise to the hon. Gentleman.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTUIZBANCES IN THE COUNTY OF LIMERICK.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, Whether the garrison besieged in a castle in the county of
  1084
  Limerick was still holding out against the large military force which had been sent against it; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman would cause a map to be prepared and placed in the Library, which would enable hon. Members to follow the course of the military operations in that part of the country?
  [No answer was given to this Question.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.— [BILL 136.]
  (Mr. Playfair, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  LOCAL TAXATION.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. PELLrose, pursuant to Notice, to move—
  "That the annual consideration of the measures imposing taxation should be accompanied by a Ministerial Statement of Local Taxation and Finance, so as to afford the House an opportunity of reviewing as a whole the requisitions made on the Nation for local as well as Imperial purposes."
  He said, that he had hoped that such a statement as was indicated in the terms of his Notice would have been made on the subject of Local Finance. The question of local expenditure, local receipts, and local indebtedness was really one of national importance when they came to consider the growing figures which it involved, and he thought they ought to have the matter placed before them in as clear and comprehensive a manner as was done yearly in the case of Imperial Taxation and Expenditure. The Returns relating to Local Finance were extremely difficult to analyse, and rather difficult to understand, while the time at which the country received them was not a period when they were likely to command the attention they merited. In 1873 he had himself introduced a Bill into that House to require all local authorities to make a return of their accounts at a stated time; and, further, to provide that a responsible Minister—he thought the President of the Local

  1085
  Government Board—should produce as early in the Session of Parliament as practicable a succinct abstract statement of those accounts. That Bill had in it what he deemed a very useful clause—namely, one providing for an official audit of all the public accounts of local authorities. That proposal met with a most strenuous opposition from the boroughs, and when the Bill came from Committee as amended, that clause was struck out. The Bill reached the stage of the Report; but it excited dissatisfaction among those who administered the affairs of local authorities, and it failed to pass. At the end of that Bill there was a tabular statement, of no great length, setting out the form in which the accounts of local authorities could be rendered in a way which those who ran might read and understand. In 1875 the subject of Local Finance was felt to be of such moment that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement to the House upon it early in the Session in introducing the Public Works Loans Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) then said that the attention of Parliament itself and that of the various local bodies who administered Local Finance ought to be drawn to that subject, and, above all, to the contraction of debts. He quoted from an able pamphlet written by the then hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), who said—
  "That while the attention of the Nation is annually concentrated on the total amount, and on the items of Imperial Taxation, the particulars of Local Finance are known only to a few statisticians. The vast amounts expended and the extent of the loans contracted by these local bodies could not otherwise have escaped notice."
  He also remarked that the Government wished to provide some system by which the attention of the Government might be directed to the progress of local income, expenditure, and indebtedness, at a reasonable time. Now, it was on the reasonable time that he desired to in-insist; and the reasonable time, he ventured to submit, was as near as might be to the time when the Statement as to Imperial Finance was laid before the country, so that a comparison might be made between those two kinds of Finance, and that, while they might be congratulating themselves on reductions in the one, they might not overlook the enormous progressive increase in the
  1086
  other. The two subjects were not entirely disconnected. It was obvious that what was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in remissions of taxation did not, of necessity, diminish the need of expenditure or make the expenditure less. What he meant was this—it might be thought right at some not very distant day to reduce the grant from the Imperial Exchequer for, say, Education; and it was obvious that the loss caused by any withdrawal would have to be made by a demand on the public pocket in the form of a rate. In the year 1876, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hants (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was then President of the Local Government Board, made a statement on the subject in Committee of Supply; but it was then too late to serve the desired purpose. The following year, much earlier in the Session, the right hon. Gentleman made another statement on a Resolution as to Public Works, which immediately excited the attention of some of the leading Members of the House, and in particular of the right hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), who made use of a very remarkable term, and, speaking out of the fulness of his heart, characterized the local authorities, and justified their existence, as "machines for spending money," though he qualified that function by limiting it to spending "wisely." It was as the mouthpiece of a great spending authority that that right hon. Gentleman came to the Government for loans at a low rate of interest, and as the representative of a town that had already borrowed £5,000,000, and wished to increase its loan. For himself, he wished to cast no doubt on the probably remunerative nature of that loan; but it was proverbially true that money come by lightly would also go lightly. The question of local debt was one of such magnitude that an early annual statement ought to be made on the subject, to mark and call attention to its importance. In 1878 there was another early and comprehensive statement made by the then President of the Local Government Board; but that good practice was not continued in the following year, and it totally disappeared, in a satisfactory form, in 1880. That was an exceptional year, on account of the General Election; but hon. Members

  1087
  interested in the subject were then reminded by the President of the Local Government Board that they would be able to get what they wanted from the Local Taxation Returns. Those Returns, however, did not supply the necessary particulars, or, at any rate, did not supply them in a convenient form. They were defective, and, in some particulars, inaccurate and misleading. They were so voluminous as to confuse and baffle all but experts, and even an expert would have to search through 200 pages in order to arrive at facts which might easily have been stated in four folios. He asked the House to consider some of the items of this expenditure. Comparing the accounts of the year 1874, as presented in a tabulated Return for which he had himself moved, with those of 1879, which were the latest he had the material for computing, he found that during that period the expenditure in connection with education had increased from £1,200,000 to £3,354,000; the expense of police, in spite of a Government subvention, had risen from £2,630,000 to £3,035,000, and was still increasing. As to the loans themselves—and it was there, after all, that the danger really lay—they would some day or other have to be met by rates, and were therefore a specially important branch of the question. The total of the loans had risen between June, 1874, and Lady Day, 1879, from £84,000,000 to £128,500,000. The whole National Debt was something under £720,000,000, and would have to be paid off not more imperatively and necessarily than these local loans. Again, the duration of local loans, the periods for which money was borrowed, had to be considered by the House. One great municipal body had borrowed £1,000,000 in perpetuity, as though the prosperity of the town it represented—in which, by the way, murmurs of reciprocity had lately been heard—would last for ever. Long terms, such as 50, 60, or 100 years, were not uncommon; and he had known an important Metropolitan authority borrow money for 60 years in order to effect improvements that could not by any possibility last for half that length of time. He might mention, by way of illustration, that he had in his mind a case in which a number of boilers that had already been repaired had been purchased by money borrowed for the
  1088
  term of 60 years. The effect of refusing or withholding such a statement as he asked for would be to check all reforms in the right direction, to leave reformers with a sense of having blindly to pay more every year than they did the year before, and to excite in their minds a grumbling spirit, without the information essential to an intelligent comprehension of the points towards which reforms should be directed. An idea was still widely prevalent that if you could get an object carried out by means of the rates, you would get it done for nothing; that everybody benefited, and that nobody lost. The prevalence of this idea had a most demoralizing effect. He awaited with much interest the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman would make on this subject, and hoped he would not say that the matter must be postponed until the great question of local government had been settled. In his belief, the accounts could be worked out and presented to Parliament without waiting for the settlement of that very important question. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESsaid, he sincerely sympathized with, and cordially supported, the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire. He had on former occasions called the attention of the House and the country to this important subject, and had endeavoured to persuade the House that it was absolutely necessary that an annual Local Budget should be presented to Parliament, and that they should have an annual abstract of Receipts and Expenditure for all money levied from the ratepayers for the different purposes of the different local authorities. His hon. Friend in 1872 had aided and assisted in that object, and he ventured to say that if the proposal and policy were good, then the arguments in favour of it now were much stronger. He ventured on that occasion to draw a distinction between Imperial and Local Taxation, and he said that whilst every expenditure with reference to Imperial Taxation was scanned within that House with the greatest caution, and with great scrupulousness, yet in the question of local Taxation they were indifferent and apathetic to the whole subject. The accounts of the one were clear and ex-

  1089
  plicit; but the accounts of Local Taxation, on the contrary, were obscure and complicated, and almost unintelligible; whereas every item of our Imperial Taxation was under Parliamentary administration, and under the supervision of the Government, with reference to Local Taxation we were comparatively indifferent—he might say supremely apathetic—in respect of the mode and means by which these vast sums extracted from the ratepayers were expended. He had strongly urged that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for Imperial Taxation, the President of the Local Government Board should be made equally responsible for Local Taxation Expenditure. His hon. Friend had told the House of the Bill he had introduced in the year 1873, and which, had it passed, would have been a boon to the country. He suggested that there should be an Annual Budget of Local Taxation, and that that Budget should be made up at one period of the year. His hon. Friend had then been fortunate in one respect; he then got the assistance of a Member of the Government, the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld); he carried that Bill through Committee, but, like other private Members' Bills, it did not advance any further. His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in 1875, announced in the House that he advocated the principle and proposal in his hon. Friend's Bill, and he then initiated and established a Local Taxation Budget; and for the years 1876–7–8 they had an Annual Budget which was most interesting to that House and to the country. For the next two years it was omitted. But, as he had said before, if it was needful and necessary 10 years ago to have an Annual Statement of Local Taxation, it was far more important that they should have it now, for the rate of local expenditure and local indebtedness was alarmingly on the increase. It would scarcely be credited that 10 years ago local burdens were less than now. Notwithstanding that the late Government had given upwards of £2,000,000 in remissions, the burdens had increased by the imposition of now taxes—education, highway, and sanitary rates—so that positively all the boons granted by the late Government had been absorbed by new taxation for new objects. How was
  1090
  it on reference to their local indebtedness? They were actually increasing their local indebtedness at the rate of £10,000,000 per annum, and at this present moment he thought it would be found that our local indebtedness was £150,000,000, and that was considerably more than the rateable value of the property of the United Kingdom at this present moment. They had been endeavouring of late years very much to decrease the National Debt; yet, at the same time, they had been creating another kind of National Debt, far more rapidly, and at a much greater rate, than they were diminishing the old one. They had been creating a now debt in their local indebtedness. That debt was really amounting, at this moment, to almost the National Debt of many important States. He was one of those who thought that the mode and the means by which they had allowed money to be borrowed by their local authorities from the Public Works Loan Commissioners was radically wrong. We were thus giving undue facilities for borrowing money. He thought it had been an inducement to those local authorities to spend more money, and to spend that money more extravagantly than they otherwise would. He also thought that the mode and means which they had given them of spreading the repayment over such a very lengthened period was also a temptation to borrow money. It was hardly right in them that they should be drawing bills upon posterity for almost every conceivable object, throwing undue responsibilities upon them, and expecting posterity by-and-bye to pay them. It was not improbable that posterity might have many wants and requirements of their own; just as much as we had in the present generation; and he did not think that they would be particularly well pleased to find that we had mortgaged their securities so heavily and so severely as we had already done. We had no right to lighten our burdens and responsibilities by transferring so large a proportion of them to posterity. The system of Government Loans, except under very exceptional circumstances, was bad. Money was particularly plentiful and cheap at the present time, and if the security was good there was no difficulty in any local authority going into the open market and getting as

  1091
  much money as they required. In 1875 the late Government passed a Local Loans Act, and he would like to know why that had been so little utilized? Was it that the Public Works' Loan Commissioners were advancing their money on cheaper terms than it could be got in the open market, or were less particular as to securities? No doubt a certain amount of debt must be contracted by local authorities to carry out the various social and sanitary improvements which the Legislature was continually imposing exceptionally on the owners and occupiers of real property; but if local authorities went into the open market they would be more careful than when, as at present, they could run up large accounts with the Commissioners. It was not to be expected that local authorities should find money for the improvements that were forced upon them out of current revenue; but still Government ought to be much more cautious in sanctioning these debts. Greater care and more stringent regulations should he exercised, and their repayment should not be spread over so lengthened a period. In many instances there was an entire absence of any efficient and independent system of audit with reference to the application of these vast sums. All the accounts of the local authorities should be subjected to the same audit as that of Poor Law authorities and school boards, and be regularly published every year. He seconded the Motion, as ho was perfectly satisfied, if attention was called to our Local Taxation and our local indebtedness by an Annual Budget Statement from a responsible Member of the Government, we should better realize our responsibilities, and be a deal more careful and cautious in incurring them.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the annual consideration of the measures imposing taxation should be accompanied by a Ministerial Statement of Local Taxation and Finance, so as to afford the House an opportunity of reviewing, as a whole, the requisitions made on the Nation for local as well as Imperial purposes,"—(Mr. Pell,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he could not help thinking that it was not necessary to argue the Motion. They were all agreed that the whole subject of Local Expenditure should annually be brought before the attention of Parliament; and the only question was how that could be best accomplished. His work in this matter had been the humble one of collecting information; and in the course of his inquiries it appeared to him that the only chance of our local government being efficient, and our Local Taxation being moderate, was to have the whole subject placed on such a footing that the ratepayers should know what they were spending, and for what purpose the money was spent. To do that they must begin at the beginning, and not at the end—they must begin in the localities themselves. He thought they ought to have in every locality, in place of the present chaotic system, one local and spending authority. When that was accomplished they could then know for what they were being taxed and what they were paying. How was it possible to know that at present? In the district in which he lived, within a radius of a few miles, there were 35 taxing and spending authorities. He defied any man in that area to say where one must look for a check upon abuse or mismanagement. His proposal was not only desirable, but it was practicable. In speaking a few years ago with the present Lord Reay, then a Member of the Dutch Government, that gentleman said that Holland was perfectly satisfied with its local government. He (Mr. Rathbone) then said that that was the only country which he ever knew was satisfied with its local government, and he wished Lord Reay would undertake to get a statement of how they managed there to content the people with the local government. That statement had been obtained; and really the whole success lay in the principle which he had mentioned. The Dutch, he believed, originally derived their system of local government from this country; but, instead of letting it grow up, they took care to put it upon a regular system, and their system was the having one primary local government doing all the work for the district. The local authority brought in a Local Budget on the 30th September every year. The Budget lay on the Table until the following 1st

  1093
  January. It was sent up to what we should call our County Boards, and also to the Central Government; and if either of those bodies found that anything had been done which trenched upon their management, or was contrary to the powers and the duties of the local board, they had the right to object; but if no objection was made, the Budget became law on the 18th of January every year. It would be apparent to the House that if we had such a system in this country there would be no difficulty in the way of the President of the Local Government Board annually laying before the country a statement of Local Administration, Taxation, and Finance. It would be also evident that this Budget coming once a year before the locality in general debate, which brought everything that was interesting to any portion of the ratepayers before them, would meet with general attention and criticism. The consequence in Holland was that enormous powers had been given to the local authority. The primary local authority in Holland could levy any tax which was not levied by the Central Government; but yet those large powers were kept in check, and the local authorities there were economical and efficient.
  MR. T. COLLINSthought there could be no doubt that the Resolution, if acted upon, would have a very material effect in reducing the powers of local bodies in reference to borrowing money. It was a great mistake that the House did not lay down in broad principles that each generation for local purposes should pay its own debts, and that no borrowing powers should be given to local authorities extending over a period of more than 30 years. Anyone who had experience of local authorities knew that they preferred to borrow at 4 per cent if they could throw the loan over 50 years, rather than borrow at 3½ per cent if the loan had to be paid off in 30 years. The question always was—"Over how many years can we throw this debt, and how little can we pay year by year?" Unfortunately, the interests of owners and occupiers were at variance in that respect. The latter wore only anxious to borrow as much money as possible, and enter upon as large an outlay as they could, because it brought them immediate benefit. Owners naturally took a different view. He hoped, therefore, that Parliament
  1094
  would lay down the principle that each generation should pay the cost of its own fancies, instead of throwing its debts over 50, 60, or 100 years. He would also say a word as to the unfair incidence of burdens according as property was freehold or leasehold. At present, if there was a number of leasehold houses on one side of a street, and a number of freehold on the other, the one paid 3 per cent Probate Duty, and the other nothing, or next to nothing. It was a perfect scandal, and could be supported by neither rhyme nor reason. There should be no such distinction. Property should be divided into rateable and non-rateable, and the Probate Duty should be levied at different rates accordingly. Of course, the manner in which it was dealt with in the present Bill could only be regarded as fragmentary, and he hoped at a future time the subject would be grasped in a more general manner.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think there is great force in the statement made by the hon. Gentleman from the other side of the House with respect to the question of Probate Duty. There is no doubt whatever that that is a subject which must be taken into very serious consideration by Parliament. This much I said on a recent occasion, and I also pointed out that until the House had determined what it would endeavour to give to the Statute Law and other matters, it was not possible to legislate upon the subject of both duties. I pass from that, because I think it is understood this debate should have for its main object to deal with the subject raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell). With the spirit and aim of his speech I entirely sympathize, as I do with the speeches made since the hon. Gentleman sat down. I am very glad we are not placed in conflict with the terms of the Resolution; because, although some little objection might be taken on the score of ambiguity, I should be sorry to seem to be in opposition to him. This question is so large and complex that it is difficult to give a full view of it except in lengthened debate; and, therefore, I must beg the indulgence of the House if I do not at present take a full view of it. I have already expressed my thorough sympathy with the speech made by the hon. Member. The hon. Member has spoken most properly of the presentation of ac-

  1095
  counts of Local Expenditure, as one of the first objects to which we should look, and an object which may be prosecuted without making it dependent altogether upon the settlement of other questions, however important and however difficult. I entirely agree with him in that matter; but I would at the same time point out that we must not expect, I am afraid, to do all that is to be done in this respect at a single stroke. In the first place, some progress has been made, and, of course, it is the duty and the aim of the Local Government Board, under whatever Government, to keep this subject still in view, and lay the foundation of a good system of local account, with the view of enabling Parliament to obtain a clear knowledge, and, if necessary, sufficient control over Local Expenditure. It is right to point out that in this matter we are dealing not only with England, but with Scotland and Ireland as well, and that, as regards the presentation of accounts for those countries—and Scotland in particular—we are, I believe, less advanced than with regard to England. The subject must and ought to be prosecuted for the three countries, because unless you do so you cannot either consider duly the relation between Local and Imperial Expenditure, or obtain that aggregate view which the hon. Member is most desirous to obtain of the total Expenditure of the country, whether Imperial or local. The Resolution of the hon. Member states—
  "That the annual consideration of the measures imposing taxation should be accompanied by a Ministerial Statement of Local Taxation and Finance, so as to afford the House an opportunity of reviewing, as a whole, the requisitions made on the nation for local as well as Imperial purposes."
  I am sure that the hon. Member does not mean that the Local and Imperial Budget should be comprised in a speech embracing both subjects, because they are in the Department of two Ministers; and, in the second place, everyone knows, especially in the case of the larger and complex Budgets, it could have no effect except to confuse, if subjects so wide and diversified were combined. What I take to be the general object of the Motion is that there should be a Ministerial Statement on the subject in the course of the Session, and that it should be as closely following in
  1096
  point of time the Financial Statement as possible. We are indebted to my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), who, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, took notice of the rapid growth of Local Taxation and Local Loans, and laid down officially in this House the proposition that this Annual Statement ought to be made. This deserves very serious consideration; because, unquestionably, the subject of Local Loans is formidable from two points of view—first of all as indicating a vast increase in the scale of local expenditure and the dangerous tendencies to enlarge and increase it; and, secondly, as constituting a new drain upon the credit of the nation, which threatens to become serious, and which under given circumstances of time, for great Imperial purposes, may be a great public evil. There is, therefore, not only a local, but also a central interest to the nation and the Exchequer in the due presentation of this subject. With regard to the loans likely to be required from the Exchequer for public purposes, that has become a regular part of our system. But there is some difficulty in laying down the proposition that the statement shall always be presented at the same period of the Session as the Financial Statement, because it may happen—and it may happen this year—that the amount which may be required in the course of the year depends very essentially upon legislation that is actually under consideration of the House, and which the House may not be able to dispose of until a more advanced period of the Session. However, this Statement, however desirable, is only a part of the question, because it does not include loans obtained by local authorities from sources other than Imperial, and I am very glad the local authorities should borrow on their own credit. I am quite certain that that will confer a much stronger sense of responsibility, and secure a much closer attention than would be the case under the slippery and perilous idea that they could go to a central source to borrow and draw upon the nation. I believe the doctrine laid down to be thoroughly sound, and I hope it will receive assent from all quarters. I need not say that it is the intention of the President of the Local Government Board to make a Statement of the kind to which the hon. Member alluded, and at as early a period as he can. The

  1097
  hon. Member knows the exceedingly abnormal circumstances of the present Session, and he knows under what difficulties the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), in the time of the late Government, laboured with regard to the fulfilment of their intentions in this respect. The hon. Member said that he hoped I would not say that this was a matter which must await the settlement of the great question of local government. I shall not say that. I do not think it is necessary that all progress in this important business should be postponed until the question of local government has been settled. At the same time, having said that I fully believe that great good will arise from an endeavour to improve the system of local accounts and accelerate the presentation of local accounts, and bring their presentation to a convenient period of the year—while believing that great good will arise from that, and also from the simple fact of an authentic official Statement in this House and a discussion by the House upon it—I am bound to say that I do not think it would be possible for us to cope with all the difficulties of the case without taking into consideration the serious difficulty we stand in as to the general despatch of our Business. Let us take the Indian Financial Statement. That is a question of a very formidable nature indeed, loss directly relating to our own pockets; but it is a great Imperial question, and may have some possible relation to the Expenditure of the country. It was the full desire that that Statement should be made from year to year, at a period of the Session when it would be in their power to secure for it full attention; but notwithstanding that, under all Governments alike, it has been found impossible to draw the attention of the House until the year is exhausted. Sir, I feel convinced of this—we shall make no effectual provision for the satisfactory general discharge of our public duties until we recognize these two facts—fundamental facts—first of all, that we are in a great arrear of Public Business; and, secondly, that the system under which we live involves us almost daily in the very large waste of Parliamentary time. Under these circumstances, the enormous arrears of Business, and the enormous waste of time make a most formidable combination. submit to the judgment of the House
  1098
  an idea which may lead to something useful. We have a very valuable Committee sitting annually upon Public Accounts, and the effect of that Committee is to speak with great authority upon a difficult and intricate subject, which would not command much general interest in Parliament if it were made the subject of debate, and yet which it is of very great importance to examine. I am by no means sure that it is not worthy the consideration of the Gentlemen who are interested in local expenditure whether we might not be able to effect something useful by establishing a Committee of weight and authority which should have for its duty the regular review of Local Expenditure and Accounts, and the presentation to the House from time to time of the results of their employment. I do not venture to give on that subject any positive opinion; but I think it a hopeful matter to prosecute, and one worth examination. As regards the general question of Local Expenditure, it is, perhaps, of such magnitude that we cannot satisfactorily dispose of it now. I hope, however, we are approaching the time when these matters will no longer be dealt with as questions of rival interest between the Local and Imperial Exchequers. As long as they are so dealt with, in my opinion, we shall do nothing but mischief. There is, undoubtedly, a fatal tendency in the system of what are called "Grants in Aid" both to relax the principles of economy in the country and to increase the country's aggregate expenditure. What we have to do is to strive honestly and impartially to keep down the aggregate total expenditure of the country. Whether it be local expenditure or Imperial, that is the interest, and that is the duty of Parliament. Next to keeping down the total expenditure, our duty is to see that the taxation by which it is to be met is freely and fairly apportioned; and in apportioning taxation what we have to do is to make a double examination—first of all of the way in which the taxation falls as between property and labour; and, secondly, of the way in which it falls as between real property and personal property. These two questions are totally distinct one from the other, as to the allocation between the two kinds of property; but as long as these questions are debated simply as questions of rivalry between the local and the Central Ex-

  1099
  chequer, we lose sight entirely of that. I only say that I do not believe those great questions can be satisfactorily disposed of until the question of local government has been thoroughly dealt with. The questions of improving the local accounts, and the Parliamentary supervision and moral influence to be brought to bear on the local expenditure, I hope, will go forth quite independently of the settlement of these greater questions, desirable as that settlement may in itself be. I think we all must feel that those who, like the hon. Member who proposed the Motion, and who spoke in this House in the interests of general economy and thrift in Local Expenditure, are really rendering a valuable and important service to the State.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) on the encouragement he had received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had it in contemplation to continue the practice of making an Annual Statement to the House on subjects such as they now had before them. By the Local Loans Act, the Local Taxation Returns Act, and the Auditing Act—three Acts passed by the late Government—the foundation had been laid for a useful series of measures on the questions under consideration. He deprecated many of the remarks that had been made as to the tendency of local authorities generally to get into debt; but the best way at present to check the tendency would be by paying careful attention to the Private Bill legislation. It was by no means the case that all the local authorities were running a race to get into debt. Of £120,000,000, by far the greater part had been raised by half-a-dozen great towns, in whose case there was no cause for alarm, as their rateable value was quite sufficient to meet any pressure. The House and the country were very much indebted to his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) for the earnestness and ability with which he pressed forward the principles of the Local Loans Act; and he hoped his right hon. Friend opposite, when he came to make his Annual Statement, would make it under more favourable circumstances than had fallen to his own lot when at the head
  1100
  of the Local Government Board. The suggestion that a strong Committee, having power to review these questions, should be appointed, was an important one; and his hope was that such a Committee, when formed, would have more attention paid to it than the Committee on Public Accounts, which received less recognition in the House and the country than its merits deserved.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he thought that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution ought to be satisfied with the Prime Minister's speech, which he thought would strengthen the hands of those local authorities who desired to economize.
  MR. S. LEIGHTONsaid, he hoped that in future, as the persons who paid the rates and taxes were, for the most part, the same, the two Budgets would be laid before the House as nearly as possible at the same period of the Session. It was a very rudimentary condition of finance which omitted from calculation the money required for the Public Services, because that money was derived from special burdens on a special class of property. When, for instance, £1,500,000 was paid for national education out of the rates, that sum should be stated, together with the sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer demanded for national education out of the taxes. So with the expenditure on the administration of justice, and all these other heads of Local Expenditure, which were partly defrayed by the Imperial, partly by the Local Exchequer. Otherwise the public were but partially informed of their liabilities. No proposal could be more disastrous than to relegate Local Taxation to a Grand Committee. For Local Taxation reformers desired that some Minister of first rank should be held personally responsible for burdens imposed on the ratepayers through the agency of the Government. They did not care for the irresponsibility of a Committee. The local expenses, of which complaint was made, were almost entirely due to the interference of the Imperial Government. In Shropshire they were now paying for police, highways, and other purposes, £40,000 a-year more than was paid in 1870. It was the same in every other county. Too much had been made in that debate of debts of local authorities for purely local purposes, such as towns' improvements.

  1101
  That source of expenditure, though deserving of the closest attention, was of a different character and origin to the expenditure for purely national purposes. It was to the latter department they wished to direct attention. The speech of the Prime Minister meant delay and procrastination, and, therefore, was not satisfactory to him.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that, speaking from his own experience, he must characterize the charge of extravagance which had been brought against the local authorities in dealing with subventions as not being well founded. The enormous amount of Local Loans of which they sometimes heard had, for the most part, been incurred for sanitary improvements under the direction of the Local Government Board. It was true that local self-government tended to develop great diversity of views among local authorities; but, on the whole, it was much to be preferred to centralization.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—RECIPRO CITY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MAC IVER,who had given Notice of his intention to move—
  "That Customs Duties should be replaced upon such Foreign importations as come into unfair competition with the industries of Great Britain and Ireland,"
  said, that he intended, after introducing the subject, to defer the Motion until Mr. Ecroyd, the new Member for Preston, elected in the place of the late Mr. Hermon, had taken his seat. His conviction was that the victory achieved by Mr. Ecroyd was due to his support of such views as those which were set forth in the Resolution, as well as to the disgust which the country felt at the policy of a Government who talked of retrenchment, and had asked for £85,000,000 to carry on the government of the country, being the largest sum ever asked for by any Government, and, while always preaching peace, had troubles on hand in every quarter of the globe excepting Australia and America. He wished to take that opportunity of adverting to the practice which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had resorted to of writing letters. The right hon. Gentleman had written letters that
  1102
  were certainly not polite letters, letters certainly that a statesman scarcely ought to have written, and letters which he (Mr. Mac Iver) much regretted, because he was not insensible to the respect which was due to a Gentleman with grey hairs who had spent a long life, however mistakenly, in the service of his country. At one time the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Reciprocity agitation as only fit for fools and simpletons. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman had even called those who took up this question a set of lunatics. In his own case, the right hon. Gentleman had gone so far as to call him something which made him out to be a liar. Then, again, at a meeting at Birmingham, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was good enough to describe him—at least, he thought the reference was to him—as a wretch. Such language did him no harm, and if it pleased the right hon. Gentleman to continue such language, it could only recoil upon himself. The last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman used language which they must regret was in reference to the late Mr. Hermon, whose speech lie finally wound up by describing as "confused nonsense." Mr. Hermon rather felt those words; and it was his intention, had he lived, to have seconded the Motion which stood on the Paper for this evening. After Mr. Hermon's death he had written to Mr. Ecroyd, expressing his readiness to place the Motion in that Gentleman's hand in the event of his return for Preston; but he had received a reply stating that Mr. Ecroyd would not be able to take his seat that night in consequence of being called upon to address a meeting at Bradford at the invitation of Mr. Shepherd, President of the Chamber of Commerce, and on a requisition signed by 10,000 working men of Bradford. As he saw the junior Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) in his place, he would take the opportunity of putting to him the following questions, which had been suggested by a correspondent:—
  "If there is no distress in Bradford, how comes it that the poor rate is now 3s., whereas recently it was only 2s.? Is it correct that your own firm has one mill standing idle, and the other working only four days a week?"
  He might remark that the speech of Lord Beaconsfield, in reply to Lord Bateman, had been most unfairly quoted

  1103
  in reference to views such as were held by Mr. Ecroyd and himself. Lord Beaconsfield's words were not directed against proposals such as those of his (Mr. Mac Iver's) Resolution. He (Mr. Mac Iver) was a humble follower of Mr. Ecroyd, and was prepared to give his adherence to everything that Gentleman had written on the subject of Free Trade versus Protection. He wished the House to understand that he had stood by his guns, and that he deferred that Motion in order that it might at a later day have full justice done it by Mr. Ecroyd. He might say, however, that he had letters from Birmingham, Bradford, Sheffield, Dewsbury, Wakefield, Manchester, and other towns—to name which would occupy too much time—in support of the views he entertained. This reminded him of what had once been said to him by Mr. Hardcastle, who, he regretted to say, was no longer a Member of the House. Mr. Hardcastle had said to him, after he had made a speech in the House on this subject—"First people begin by calling you a fool; next they begin to say there is something in your argument; and the third step is success." He thought he saw success before them at no very distant period. The House would remember that on many occasions he had addressed Questions to the Government with reference to our commercial relations with foreign countries; but the answers had been of a very vague nature, without any information. All that could be ascertained was that the Government were giving the matter their consideration or making representations. With regard to the surtaxe d' entrepôt and the shipping bounties, he thought he had some reason to complain of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Under Secretary did not know anything whatever of the subject, or, if he did, he had no business to answer as he did. The French, by means of their bounty system, were rapidly acquiring a useful Navy. They offered a premium that amounted to 12 per cent per annum upon all ships constructed in France; and even if the vessel was constructed in England or elsewhere, and was of French ownership, they still gave, for the sake of getting control of the property, what was practically a handsome dividend. That was all managed, as everybody knew by the Foreign Office, and the
  1104
  arrangement was in direct violation of the Most Favoured Nation Clause, or else it showed that the Most Favoured Nation Clause was worthless. He should be very glad if the Under Secretary could show that he was right and he (Mr. Mac Iver) was wrong; but, unfortunately, he knew he was not wrong. The French Government could not get rid of the bounty system for at least 10 years, and he should like to know what reply the Government would get from France in answer to their representations. With regard to the surtaxe d' entrepôt, England happened to be in the geographical position that a clause which nominally affected all other nations only affected her. England was, or ought to be, the depôt for supplying France with foreign importations. That was formerly a very useful and important trade; but it had been practically put a stop to by the tax upon indirect importation. If the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would press home the question as he ought to do, in justice to our shipowners, merchants, and brokers, and insist that importations of goods for foreign countries through England should be taxed the same as if they had been directly imported from foreign countries, there might still be a chance of his succeeding. There was a suspicious look in a good many of our Free Trade negotiations. He could not help thinking that some of the growing willingness of France to negotiate with England arose from one of three causes, or, perhaps, to a combination of them all. Firstly, they saw that there was a growing dissatisfaction among all classes of the community of England, and that it was by no means as certain as Frenchmen used to think that they would be allowed to continue to plunder us as they pleased. He thought, in the second place, that France wanted to conciliate public opinion in this country upon the Tunis Question. They must feel that there was a very wide difference between the friendly suggestions of Lord Salisbury and what they had actually done; and they could not help feeling that if a Conservative Government had been in power there would have been strong remonstrance against the unprovoked attack on a portion of the Ottoman Empire. A third reason was that, in common with the rest of the world, France could not be blind to the blunder of Her Majesty's

  1105
  Government, and to the probability that could not be far distant when Her Majesty's present Advisers would be out of Office. The only hope as regarded securing better commercial arrangements with France was that something like a business-like tone should be introduced into the negotiations now pending. He asked the House to remember that the exports from England to France of raw materials from 1863 to 1879 amounted in value to 60,000,000f., while the imports of raw materials during the same period from France to England did not amount to one-third of that stated value. Our exports to France of articles of luxury were a mere trifle, while our imports from France of like goods amounted to 5,274,000f.; while of manufactures generally, our exports to France, as compared with our imports from France, were as 37,000,000f. in value to 72,000,000f. He had only, in conclusion, to say that the proposal he had placed on the Paper was based upon principles advocated by Adam Smith and strongly supported by John Stuart Mill. Adam Smith, in Wealth of Nations, said—
  "The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods is when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures in their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties and prohibitions upon the importation of some or all of their manufactures into ours. There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods."
  And the following remarks were made by John Stuart Mill in his Principles of Political Economy:—
  "A country cannot be expected to renounce the power of taxing foreigners unless foreigners will in return practice towards itself the same forbearance. The only mode in which a country can save itself from being a loser by the revenue duties imposed by other countries on its commodities is to impose corresponding revenue duties on theirs, only it must take care that those duties be not so high as to exceed all that remains of the advantage of the trade, and put an end to importation altogether, causing an article to be produced at home or imported from another and dearer market."
  The authors of these opinions were not
  1106
  Protectionists—the Protectionist theory of the old times had passed away, but not more completely than the theories of Free Trade. He thought the time had arrived when the country should reconsider its fiscal system in the light of present circumstances. The time had come when we should decide as businesslike men to adapt ourselves to our present position, by practising Free Trade as far as it was possible, and Protection as far as it was necessary.
  MR. STAGGsaid, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had not made to him his meaning particularly clear, and he thought others were in the same condition of mind with himself as to what the hon. Gentleman really meant. The hon. Member referred, in the course of his speech, to the triumph of his opinions as illustrated by the return of Mr. Ecroyd for Preston. He had the advantage lately of reading the arguments of Mr. Ecroyd, and he must say that they convoyed to him no more concise impression of what was intended by the present movement in regard to Protection or Reciprocity than the arguments of the hon. Gentleman who had spoken to-night. He believed Mr. Ecroyd wished to impose duties upon the food supply of the people of this country; and if that was the idea which the hon. Gentleman wished to place upon his banner to-night, and which he very wrongly attributed to the Tory Party as being adopted generally by them, he would find very little support in the country; and none whatever from thinking Members in the House. The hon. Gentleman said a great deal as to the French Treaty. He told them several times that this country was being persistently robbed by France; but he (Mr. Slagg) wished to ask whether it was robbery to buy a thing from France at a cheaper price than we could make it for ourselves? It seemed to him that was not robbery, but a distinct advantage. Because the French were too short-sighted in regard to political economy to buy from us on the cheapest possible terms, it did not seem to him at all to mend matters that we should refuse to buy from them as cheaply as we possibly could do. The hon. Gentleman had further said a great deal on the subject of the bargaining process that had taken place in our negotiations with France, and particularly with regard to

  1107
  the Treaty of 1860, and he seemed to think there was something very wrong in that proceeding. He (Mr. Slagg) was not one of those who advocated the bargaining process in relation to commercial negotiations. He thought it was very much to be deplored, and it was only on the ground of the absolute necessity of presenting some concession to France by way of duties in order to induce her to make similar concessions to us that Mr. Cobden entertained the idea. Mr. Cobden did not look upon it, he was perfectly sure, in the light of making a concession to the disadvantage of England, for it was his intention not only to concede those duties to France, but simultaneously to concede them to all the world. At the close of the last Session the Prime Minister introduced into his Budget scheme a further concession on the Wine Duties in order to facilitate negotiations with the French in reference to further concession on their part. He was not sorry that that proposal fell through, because the fact that we had now nothing to offer France which she considered valuable as a concession really placed the subject on the true and pure basis of trade between the two countries. The bargaining process, he was happy to find, had now gone by altogether, so that the Treaty could never be reproached in the future with being accompanied by some process which was thought, in a measure at least, antagonistic to pure Free Trade principle. The hon. Gentleman again had said that we should be prepared to impose duties in our present negotiations with France. He (Mr. Slagg) entirely disagreed with that proposition. He thought it could not be shown that such a process would be of the slightest advantage. On the other hand, if it were possible to lower duties in the forthcoming negotiations, he should be very glad to do so, and the only retaliation which we could possibly make in the present situation was not in the direction of increasing duties further, but in the direction of lowering them. For instance, he thought it would be possible for us to make concessions in regard to the Wine Duties of Spain and Portugal, and thus to place those countries on a much more favourable footing than they occupy at the present moment. Such a step as that might possibly stimulate France to a better
  1108
  frame of mind in regard to her treatment of us. But the fact was really this—that the French did not any longer value a reduction of their Wine Duties. Having suffered from three or four bad harvests, they did not now produce as much wine as they could consume in their own country. He thought they had given up the idea altogether of providing this country with a lower class of light clarets, and we could dismiss altogether the notion that the French valued such concessions. The argument of the hon. Member was not new with regard to suffering industries and robbing the population of this country. It was heard whenever any particular industry was in a condition of temporary depression; and economists, such as the hon. Member for Birkenhead, seemed to have no other resource in their mind for the amelioration of a suffering industry than to rush to some form of taxation. Who paid the duties that were to be imposed? The hon. Gentleman did not go into that question. If he could assure him that the exporter paid the duties on their arrival on this side, he (Mr. Slagg) would go with him heartily; for he could not imagine a more delightful thing than to force the foreign exporter to pay the taxes in one's own country; but if such a thing were possible it would have been found out long ago. Not only England, but every other country, would have been in the game. They knew, however, as a matter of fact, that the consumer pays every farthing of the tax. He often noticed that the professors of Protection or Reciprocity stopped short at one very important point. They did not state upon what they were going to impose their duties. His task would have been very much easier to-night if the hon. Gentleman had told him precisely the method in which he intended to apply those duties; but the hon. Gentleman left that entirely to the imagination of his hearers, and certainly Reciprocitarian imaginations were very active indeed in the absence of facts and arguments. Would the hon. Gentleman impose a tax upon cotton? He, as a Lancashire Representative, would strongly resent any idea of that sort. He knew perfectly well it would handicap them in every market in the world, and they would then have to compete in third markets with their neighbours, the French, who were now

  1109
  nearly abreast of them in that industry. Would the hon. Gentleman put a tax upon iron? The loom-makers, so far as his own district was concerned, would certainly not stand that. They had a keen competition already with other countries. They supplied machinery for the whole of the world, and it would be out of the question to impose a tax upon this material. It seemed almost a waste of time to ask if his hon. Friend would impose a duty upon corn? They knew the agricultural industry of this country was suffering very seriously indeed from foreign competition; but in what respect would a protective duty help it? Could it be shown that it would have the slightest effect in lessening the burdens on agriculture? What was becoming more and more apparent every day was that agriculture required freedom of land, free sale, and easy transfer. There was a peculiar danger, a peculiar impropriety, in pushing those retrograde notions forward at present. They were on the eve of negotiating a Treaty with the French, and if they allowed them to think it was the opinion of a large number of English economists that it was a good thing for us to impose duties on articles we import, we had no excuse to ask them to remit duties. To make such a proposition at the present time, he thought, would work serious mischief. Again, as to robbery, he did not assume that the trade was done between one country and another without profit. Merchants did not go on importing for a series of years without making something out of it. What had been the result of their commercial relations with France? In 1859 their exports to that country were £4,000,000 and their imports £16,000,000. They had increased since then, and their total trade with France was now over £53,000,000. Surely that was a very great advantage to everyone who had dealt in the articles concerned. But there was another point on which he might dwell for a moment, and it consisted in the very great importance of trade in the political relations of the two countries. In the old days of Lord Palmerston everyone would remember that their political relations with France were of the most suspicious character. He was sure that he was not wrong in attributing to the Treaty, in a very great measure, the friendly and
  1110
  sensible tone which had since sprung up, and anything which threatened to destroy that Treaty was to him (Mr. Slagg) a great political as well as a commercial mistake. In relation to what they were about to do with France, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman when he said that they should allow no Treaty to be made which was worse than the Treaty now existing. The present Treaty had largely increased their commercial intercourse and developed good relations between the two countries. To that extent it was a success, and he maintained it would be wrong for this country to put its name to a Treaty which should be in the slightest degree worse than the present Treaty. They were led to suppose last year, in the correspondence between M. Léon Say and Lord Granville, that the new Treaty would be based on an amelioration of the existing Treaty; and he thought that all commercial bodies would support him in saying that they should decline, in the interests of Free Trade, to negotiate unless they actually secured some improvement on the old tariff. The hon. Member said that Mr. Ecroyd would soon be among them, and that he would give them his views. He hoped he would. He should like to have a discussion on the whole question of Free Trade. It seemed very sad to have to make the statement; but there were evidences, which could not be ignored, that these retrograde doctrines were taking hold in some quarters of the community. He believed they came entirely from those interests which had suffered a temporary depression from foreign competition. When competition assailed them through exports from foreign countries a most wholesome stimulus was really applied to their industries. Improvements were introduced, economies were practised in every direction; and, as a thorough Free Trader, he welcomed imports of all descriptions as being a benefit to the consumer, and also as being an excellent stimulus to the manufacturer. When it was found that by no process of ingenuity or economy could he compete with the foreigner it was time for him to declare that the industry in question was no longer fitted for the country, and betake himself to some other more profitable and congenial occupation of his capital.

  IMPORT DUTY ON FOREIGN BARLEY AND MALT.—OBSERVATIONS.
  COLONEL BARNE,who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the desirability of placing a duty upon the import of foreign barley and malt,"
  said, he was quite aware that in the present composition of the House of Commons his views on this question would receive no large amount of support; but, as sure as the sun would rise tomorrow, so sure would this subject be brought prominently forward during the next very few years. The artizans had now found out the fallacies which were imposed upon them by Cobden and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) 30 years ago; and they were beginning to ask what was the use of having a cheap loaf when they had no money to buy it with? The supporters of the system of Free Trade contended when it was adopted that all the other nations of the world would follow our example; but America and France and Germany were too astute to take that course, and the consequence was that there was not an industry in the country which was not being undermined by foreign competition. He ventured to say that the negotiations which were pending for a new Treaty with France would entirely break down, because we had nothing to offer in return for concessions. The majority of the people of this country were and ought to be producers, and there could be no doubt that it was in the interests of the producers to prevent foreign competition. There was hardly a trade in England that was not suffering from foreign competition. The other day he observed from a paragraph in The Standard that at a meeting in Birmingham with reference to the proving of firearms, it was stated that, whereas 10 years ago 36 per cent more gun barrels were proved there than at Liège, that state of things lead been re-reversed, Belgium now proving as many more than England; whilst, moreover, we had been importing fowling-pieces, and paying away to foreigners money which, by having the article made at home, we ought to keep in our own pockets. At the present time our imports exceeded the value of our exports by £60,000,000 per annum, a state of
  1112
  things that evidently could not continue. A Return published in 1878 showed that 14,000,000 cwt. of barley was annually imported into this country. Now, he did not ask for a foreign import duty on wheat, not wishing to tax the food of the people, but he would rather tax their drink, in which object he thought he might claim the support of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) was, unfortunately, not in his place; but he wished to call attention to a letter written by him on April 15 of the present year to the effect that the home trade was bad mainly or entirely because the harvest had been bad for the last few years. Of course, if there had been good harvests trade would have suffered less; but foreign competition was so strong that British agriculture would have suffered a good deal in any case. It no longer paid to grow wheat, and the fanner's only chance was to get a fair price for his barley. In introducing the Bill before the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer had congratulated the brewers on the low price of barley. [Mr. GLADSTONE: On the high price.] But the farmers were unable to get a high price for it this winter, and the right hon. Gentleman must have been exceptionally lucky if he had himself been able to do so. The accounts from the agricultural districts were very distressing, and it seemed probable that of the £400,000,000 which, according to Mr. Caird, the tenants had invested in the soil, at least half was lost. In order to preserve to the farmers their last resource, he suggested that an import duty of 5s. a quarter should be put on foreign barley and malt. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, in the letter he had just quoted, had expressed his opinion that the chief reason against a return to Protection was that we should have to confess to Protectionists abroad that we ourselves had been wrong and they right, and that Protection would be henceforth the justified policy of all nations. It might be doubted, however, whether it was worth while utterly to destroy the trade of the country in order to save the political credit of the right hon. Gentleman and his Party. If we had hitherto been wrong, we ought to put our pride in our pocket, and, fol-

  1113
  lowing the example of other nations, levy an import duty on foreign produce.

  THE PROBATE, LEGACY, AND SUCCES SION DUTIES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, that if the Forms of the House had permitted, he intended to have proposed—
  "That no alteration of the Probate, Legacy, or Succession Duties can be satisfactory that does not at the same time provide for the imposition of the same duties upon freeholds as those imposed upon leaseholds."
  The changes made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been just or equitable, although, now, useful alterations were proposed. Neither the late nor the present Government had taken upon themselves to look into this subject thoroughly, and to consider the enormous amount of freehold that was, at present, exempt from Probate Duty. He brought the subject before the House, not because he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be expected to make an alteration in the Budget now, but to impress on the House that the country was not satisfied with the present arrangement. He hoped the duties would be placed on a fair, equal, and just foundation.
  MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that, although the subjects of the speeches delivered that evening were of very great interest, yet they were entirely incongruous the one with the other, and the only feature they possessed in common was that no practical issue or decision could result from them. He appealed to those other hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper to forego them, and allow the House to go into Committee. It was of very considerable importance that the Government should be allowed to proceed with the practical proposals which were in the Tax Bill of the year. He did not say there was anything unreasonable in discussing any of those matters; but the House would see that the Government were greatly strained and pressed; and, as the time was now at hand when the change in the Probate Duty was appointed to take place, great inconvenience would arise, both in regard to that matter, and also in regard to the Income Tax, if there should be any longer delay in proceeding with the Bill. It would likewise be undesirable to be compelled to
  1114
  postpone the Irish Land Bill in consequence of the necessity of passing this measure. He therefore ventured to express the hope that after the discussion that had arisen the Government might be permitted to have the Motion put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.

  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  PART I.—CUSTOMS AND EXCISE AS TO CUSTOMS.
  Clause 2 (Import duties on tea).
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he could not allow this clause to be passed without entering a protest against the continued imposition of the exorbitant duty upon tea, which he considered to be one of the prime necessaries of life. The tax at present stood at 6d. in the pound, and the sum levied amounted, he believed, to between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 sterling. He protested against the tax because he believed it to be an unequal and unjust tax, which pressed most heavily upon the working classes of this country. He would ask the Committee to consider what the tax was. It was a tax producing nearly £4,000,000 upon an article the annual value of which, when imported into this country, did not amount to £12,000,000. It was practically, therefore, a tax of from 30 to 40 per cent upon a prime necessary of life. He understood that one of the great principles which had been introduced into the fiscal arrangements of the country was that no taxes should be levied on actual necessities, but, as far as possible, should be confined to luxuries. He maintained that all Customs duties were paid ultimately by the consumer, and this tax—a tax amounting to between 30 and 40 per cent upon the cost of the article—was paid principally by the working classes of the country. He knew that it was too late to raise the question except by way of protest; but he certainly did protest against the luxuries of the most luxurious age of the most luxurious country in Europe passing practically untaxed, while one of the necessaries which entered largely into the consumption of the working classes was taxed

  1115
  to the extent tea was. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would next year be able either to see his way to a reduction of the National Expenditure, which he (Mr. H. Fowler) considered to be excessive and altogether unnecessary, to such an extent as to enable him to dispense with this imposition, or that he would grapple with the question; and if it was still necessary to raise £4,000,000 a-year in the shape of Customs duties, the sum would not be raised upon one of the prime necessities of life.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend will be aware of the reason why this imposition appears in its present form. Instead of the Tea Duty being enacted as a permanent duty it is put in the form of an annual Vote, so that Parliament may be able to maintain a control over it. That is the sole reason why it comes before us to-night. With regard to the duty of 6d. in the pound upon tea, I agree very much in what has been said by my hon. Friend. There is only one word which I object to—namely, the observation of my hon. Friend that this duty has remained unnoticed. That is certainly not the case. When I came into Parliament the average duty upon tea was 4s. a pound. It was then reduced to 2s. per pound, and now it has gradually got down to 6d., which I am sure my hon. Friend will not deny is a much more satisfactory state of things than when the duty stood at 4s. per pound. With respect to the question of economy, my hon. Friend seems to think that it is in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine what shall be the nature and scale of the Expenditure of the country. I wish it were in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to determine the scale of the Expenditure of the country, I might then hope to give some satisfaction to my hon. Friend. But there are other things to be taken into consideration! which stand in the way, and reduce within very narrow limits indeed what the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his able and efficient coadjutor the Secretary of the Treasury can do.
  MR. GORSTremarked, that it was very easy for hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House to make vague general protestations of their desire to secure economy in the National Expenditure. He should like to put the zeal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton
  1116
  (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to a practical test. In a short time, perhaps in the course of a month or two, the Irish Land Bill would have passed through Committee, and the House would go into Committee of Supply. When that event arrived, he would invite the hon. Member for Wolverhampton to attend in his place and point out to the Committee how the expenditure could be reduced, not by £3,000,000, but even by £1,000,000. If the hon. Member would point out to the Committee of Supply how it was possible to reduce the expenditure, either in the present or in future years, by the sum of only £1,000,000 sterling, he would render a great deal more service to his country and to his constituents than by making these vague, general, and meaningless harangues.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, there was one word to which he must take exception in the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H.Fowler)—namely, the part in which his hon. Friend described tea as a necessary of life. It appeared to him (Sir George Campbell) that tea would be more correctly described as one of the luxuries in which the masses of the people indulged. There were, however, a great number of the luxuries of the rich untaxed while the tea of the poor was taxed, and he hoped the time would soon arrive when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be able to get rid of this tax, and give to the country a free breakfast table.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would move that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. He thought it was unwise to tax either tea, cocoa, or coffee; and he should like to know to what extent these and other dutiable articles were produced by our own Colonies? He was of opinion that we committed a great injustice in placing heavy taxes upon the produce of our Colonies, in addition to which we indicated to those Colonies that we were not sincere in our dealings with them. He failed to see, while the country professed to maintain Free Trade principles, why we should impose duties in England, either upon tea from our Indian settlements, or upon coffee from the Colonies, no matter whether they were regarded as necessaries of life or as luxuries. When the Government proposed to tax the produce of the Colonies they did a great deal towards indicating to the rest of

  1117
  the world that the present occupants of the Treasury Bench were not sincere in their endeavour to promote the cause of Free Trade. How could we hold ourselves up as the pioneers of Free Trade when we taxed the produce of our own Colonies? How could we reasonably go to foreign countries and ask them to reduce their tariffs in our favour on our home productions, when we set them the very bad example of placing a heavy tax upon our own Colonial produce? Upon these grounds he would appeal, not to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, but to another hon. Member who sat on the Liberal side of the House (Mr. Macfarlane), to show that he had the courage of his convictions, and join with him (Mr. Mac Iver) in moving the rejection of this clause. He did not anticipate that his appeal would have much success, because, unfortunately, Liberal professions and Liberal principles were widely different from Liberal practice and Liberal politics; and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who composed Her Majesty's Government were not always ready, when in the possession of power, to carry out the policy they had indicated to their constituents when out of Office. He thought he was fully justified in moving the rejection of the clause upon two grounds—first, that the duty pressed heavily upon the people of this country; and, secondly, because, so long as we continued to impose it, we afforded a proof to other countries that we were not sincere in the professions we made in regard to Free Trade.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not necessary that the hon. Member should move the rejection of the clause. It will be quite sufficient to negative it.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERwished to say a word in reply to the remarks which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The hon. Member had been kind enough to address a lecture to him (Mr. H. H. Fowler), as, indeed, he was often in the habit of doing to young Members of that House. He was quite ready to answer the challenge of the hon. and learned Member, and he would tell him how not only £1,000,000, but £3,000,000 of annual expenditure, might have been saved. It was caused entirely by the warlike expenditure of the last Administration.
  Clause 3 (Alteration of Customs' duties on beer).
  MR. HICKSmoved, in page 2, line 16, after the word "of," to insert the words "not exceeding." He did not believe that the insertion of these words would have any practical effect upon the Bill; but he thought they would make the meaning of the clause more clear to all those who were interested in the operations affected by it. If the Government objected to the Amendment he would not press it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 16, after "of" insert "not exceeding."—(Mr. Hicks.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member admitted that the insertion of these words would not affect the meaning of the Bill. He (Mr. Gladstone) would therefore much rather adhere to the language of the clause, which had been drawn up in the most convenient form.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. HICKSmoved, in page 2, line 17, to leave out "six shillings and sixpence," and insert "eight shillings." Without wishing to detain the Committee for any length of time, he thought it was desirable he should show why the proposed duty of 6s. 6d. should not be accepted. It might, perhaps, appear to hon. Members who had not carefully examined the subject that this was a trifling and unimportant alteration, and an increase of taxation; but it was not so in reality, and the object of his Amendment was to provide that the duty on foreign beer should remain as it was at present. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that last year, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his second Budget, he used these words—
  "The Malt Tax is a well understood farmers' grievance, and the circumstances of the present time have made Her Majesty's Government consider it their special duty to examine, as well as they could, the position of the cultivators of this country in relation to the law of the country. We have exposed them to perfectly unrestricted competition, and the effect of that competition has, undoubtedly, become more severe during the last two or three years."
  Having admitted the grievance, and having pointed out the difficulties in which the cultivators of the soil were

  1119
  placed, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to remove that grievance by substituting for the duty on malt a duty on beer, and making the latter duty some 15 per cent more than the Malt Duty was originally. The duty on malt was 21 s. 8d., and it was proposed to substitute a Beer Duty of 25 s. How that increase of taxation was to benefit the farmer, or how the right hon. Gentleman could suppose that it would be to his advantage, he (Mr. Hicks) was at a loss to conceive. But whatever the position of the cultivators of this country was last year, at the present moment their position was undoubtedly worse. They had had a series of bad harvests, and the price of barley had gone down. Yet, in the face of these facts, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward now and asked the House to reduce the duty on foreign beer. He (Mr. Hicks) appealed to the Committee to reject the proposal in justice to the cultivator of the soil, in the interest of those who were desirous of brewing real beer for the consumers of this country, and also in view of the present financial position of the country. It was now something like 35 years ago that they started on a voyage in search of Free Trade. Since that time, it was true that they had had free imports into the country; but he had not yet been able to discover anything approaching to Free Trade. The more they had opened their ports the more foreign countries had opposed them. Their free imports were met with hostile tariffs. The more they preached Free Trade the more foreign countries laughed at them, and not only set up tariffs against them, but also imposed bounties on their own produce in order that it might be able to compete with ours. Nevertheless, under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer came forward and asked the Committee to reduce the duty on foreign beer. At the present moment the duty on foreign beer of a specific gravity up to 1,065 degrees was 8s. a barrel, and he was informed that that was really a very low duty. It was now proposed to reduce the duty from 8s. to 6s. 6d. per barrel on beer of a specific gravity up to 1,057 degrees. This meant a reduction of 18 per cent with a still further reduction, which would ultimately reach about 45 per cent upon beer of a less specific gravity. It was further proposed to make this re-
  1120
  duction at a moment when there was no country in Europe that would admit English beer into its ports or towns at a less duty than 8s. per barrel. In France the duty was 7s. 6d. per barrel with a municipal tax of 6d.; in Germany the duty was 8s., and in Portugal the duty amounted to no less than 120 per cent upon the value. And yet, in the face of the present depressed condition of the agriculture and trade of the country, we were asked to reduce the duty on foreign beer. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, he had no hesitation in asking the Committee to reject this proposal. He proposed to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out 6s. 6d. and insert 8s., which was the present duty. He was informed by the Clerk at the Table that he was perfectly in Order in making this proposition, seeing that the Amendment did not involve any increase of duty; but if there was any doubt about the matter he would move the omission of the clause.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry that I cannot accept the Amendment, and I have to point out that it is contrary to the Rules of the House, in a technical sense. The Rules provide that no proposal shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown for the increase of taxation, and the proposal of the hon. Member undoubtedly does involve an increase of duty, because the present duty, as he has truly said, is 8s.; but then it is 8s. on beer of a specific gravity up to 1,065 degrees, and he proposes that it shall be 8s. on beer up to 1,057 degrees, so that at this rate there would be an increase of duty on beer above a specific gravity of 1,057 degrees.
  MR. HICKSbelieved that he was strictly in Order in proposing the Amendment, the object of which was to retain the present duty of 8s. per barrel not only upon beer of a specific gravity of 1,065 degrees, but upon all other descriptions of beer of a less specific gravity.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The clause reads "The worts of which before fermentation shall be of a specific gravity not exceeding 1,065 degrees."
  MR. HICKS: Not exceeding.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes; but to fix the duty at 8s. upon beer up to a specific gravity of 1,057 degrees would be in effect to increase the tax.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will be quite in Order in objecting to the reduction of a tax; but it is not in his power, as a private Member, to propose any increase of taxation. Therefore it is not competent for him to move the Amendment.
  MR. HICKS: Can I move the omission of the clause altogether?
  MR. MAC IVERbegged to move that the last six lines of the clause be omitted.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks) applied to line 17, and it is not competent for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) to go back further than that line.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would propose, then, that line 17 be struck out of the clause. He believed he should be quite in Order in moving that Amendment. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire had not given to Her Majesty's Government the credit due to them for their consistency. It was only appropriate that a Government which proposed to tax our own Colonies should, in the next clause, propose to reduce the taxation upon the beer of foreign countries. He thought the Government deserved such credit or discredit as might be due to them for the consistency with which they were acting in the matter.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 17, to omit the words "and so in proportion for any difference of gravity."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOThoped that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) would not persist with the Amendment. At the same time, he was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government should have given some fuller and clearer explanation of the reason why this reduction was proposed, and why, when there was so small an amount of difference in the specific gravity, he should propose a reduction of duty on foreign beer. The Committee knew perfectly well that it was a change which was against the British farmer and the British producer; and it was upon that ground he asked the right hon. Gentleman to give them some more explicit reason than he had yet stated why he thought it wise and right at this particular time, when there was
  1122
  depression all over the country, especially in the agricultural interest, that favour should be shown to the foreigners. At the same time, whatever the reason might be, he hoped his hon. Friend would not move the rejection of the clause. He could not help thinking that it would be absurd to persist with the Amendment, because he was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister must have good reasons for making the proposition.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the effect of the Amendment would he that foreign beer, imported in worts before fermentation, of a specific gravity not exceeding 1,057 degrees, would pay a duty of 6s. 6d., while foreign beer with a greater specific gravity would pay nothing at all. As that would be the result of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I may fairly appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) and other hon. Members near him not to support it. What I am doing now is simply following the uniform practice upon all occasions when we have had to deal with Excise duties upon commodities imported into this country. The Excise duties remain for the moment unchanged, or only partially changed, so as to leave in them a good deal that is of a protective character. I have proceeded on the principle that, as we cannot propose the repeal of these duties, it is desirable to ascertain and fix an exact equivalent as far as we can. Then comes the question as to the amount of disadvantage, if any, at which the British manufacturer stands in consequence of the Excise restrictions. The home manufacturer pays a duty of 6s. 3d., and we place an additional duty of 3d. upon the foreign manufacturer, in order to counteract any disadvantage at which the British manufacturer may be placed. I believe that the difference which is imposed, as I have said, in consequence of the Excise restrictions is an ample addition. I do not say that it is an extravagant addition; but it is an ample addition to cover the small additional charge imposed on the home manufacturer.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he was prepared at once to accept, in absolute indifference, and with entire good humour, the sneer of the right hon. Gentleman, and he did so for this reason—that he thought there was not a Gentleman on

  1123
  the other side of the House, or on any side of the House, who would not understand perfectly well that the object of the Amendment he had submitted was that the proposal of the Government to reduce the duty on foreign beer should not be allowed to take effect. If there was anything technically wrong in the form in which he had put the Amendment, he did not think it formed any ground why he should be laughed at, or spoken of with ridicule and scorn. He believed there were many people throughout the country who would be of opinion that, even if he were wrong technically, he was perfectly right in raising his voice in objection to the proposal of the Government to reduce the taxation upon foreign beer. He failed to see what advantage the British farmer was to obtain from the abolition of the Malt Tax. What the Prime Minister was asked for last year was the abolition of the Malt Tax, coupled with something else to safeguard the interests of the farmers; but what the right hon. Gentleman had given them was the abolition of the Malt Tax, coupled with increased foreign competition. There were many persons in the country who thought that in the change thus brought about the right hon. Gentleman had done an ill service to the agricultural interest of the country, and so far the views which they held had not been fairly represented. He believed that very few hon. Members even upon the other side of the House agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was just, right, or reasonable to cheapen the materials for the brewer. The Malt Tax enabled those only to brew who could afford to use good barley; but now any kind of inferior barley could be malted as well as rice and maize, and, in addition, beer might be made out of sugar and a variety of other things. All these changes would benefit the foreigner, and would prejudicially affect the interests of the British agriculturist. He could not believe that this state of things would be long permitted; and, if he was wrong in the technical form in which he had moved the Amendment, he asked permission to place it in a form that would be verbally accurate, and he did not think it would be wanting in support.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. MAC IVER: No, Sir, I do not.
  MR. WARTONcomplained that any
  1124
  alteration of the kind now proposed should be made at all. Whenever a change of the kind was proposed, the reason for it should be clearly stated. But, whether that were so or not, it did seem rather hard that when hon. Gentlemen brought Amendments forward they should be subjected to jeers and laughter, and told that there was some mystery about the matter which defied amendment. In the first place, directly the hon. Member for Birkenhead proposed one Amendment, he was fold by the Chairman that he was too late, as the Committee had already got past the point where the Amendment came in; and when he submitted another he was told that it could not be accepted, because it was wrong in technical form. Personally, he believed there was part of this clause which even the Premier himself did not understand—namely, the meaning of the word "mum." They had already been told by the right hon. Gentleman that he did not understand what "mum" was; and why, therefore, should he have included it in the present Bill?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the discussion; but as far as I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead is moving to omit the last words of the clause. My hon. Friend, at this moment, is endeavouring to make an Amendment to the clause, when, in point of fact, what he means to do is to vote against the clause as a whole. As I understand my hon. Friend he means to object to the alteration of the Customs' duty on beer. [Mr. MAC IVER: On foreign beer.] On foreign beer; and, therefore, if my hon. Friend looks at it in that way he must see that what he must do, in order to give effect to his wish, is, by-and-bye, when the clause is put as a whole, to vote against it as a whole. If he resists it as a whole then the duties will be left as they are; and that is a more regular and intelligible course to take than to amend the clause by striking out these words, which would have the curious effect pointed out by the Prime Minister. It is perfectly consistent with the views expressed by my hon. Friend that he should object to the clause as a whole. I do not know whether I should be in Order in taking this opportunity of asking the Prime Minister if he will be kind enough

  1125
  to tell us what, according to the experience of the last few weeks, has been the progress of the Beer Duty? If I remember rightly, in the speech which he made, I think, upon this day seven weeks, I understood that his calculation upon the exchange of the Beer Duty for the Malt Tax had resulted, in the last financial year, in a disappointment of about £670,000. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, the Beer Duty, as I understood from the speech of my right hon. Friend, was estimated in the last year to yield £3,690,000. It actually yielded £3,485,000, showing a deficiency of £205,000; while, on the other hand, the malt drawback, estimated at £950,000, cost no less than £1,319,000. Therefore it has cost £674,000 more than was estimated last year. Of course, one cannot judge merely by the result of 10 months or so; and there are, no doubt, reasons which would account for the Beer Duty not bringing in as much as was expected from it. But I wish to ask whether, during the seven weeks since the statement was made, the progress of the Beer Duty has been such as to confirm the anticipations of the Prime Minister? Or, to put it otherwise, does the right hon. Gentleman adhere still, in its entirety, to the Estimate which he gave in the Budget speech, as to the probable progress of the duty? I am not putting the question captiously, but will be glad to be informed what has been the result for the period which has elapsed since the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was made. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) seemed still to be troubled about the word "mum." But the word is very easily explained, and its particular application to the present state of things easily understood. A solution has been given to the House by a high authority which explains why the word is particularly applicable now, and why it has practically gone out of use for so many years. "Mum" was a kind of beer made without barley. It used to be made of wheat, ground beans, oatmeal, and a great many other things; and, as the English people were in the habit for many years of drinking beer made from malt and hops, the word has fallen into disuse. We have, however, changed all that, and now drink beer made from maize, rice, and oatmeal—or exactly the mate-
  1126
  rials from which "mum" was made; and it is important that the word should again take its place in our tariff.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have listened with interest to the ingenious explanation which my right hon. Friend has given. It is perfectly true that people are at liberty to make beer of maize and rice; but we always call it "beer." The word "mum" is retained partly out of pious reverence for the wisdom of our ancestors, and partly for fear that if we omitted it some ingenious man should establish a demonstration against us which might result in a law suit. With regard to the state of the Beer Duties, when I demurred to the statement that our Estimates were disappointed to the extent of £670,000, or thereabouts, all I intended to convey was that it would lead to nothing but confusion to mix up two matters which have no connection with each other—namely, the excess in the drawback and the deficiency in the Beer Duty. The question that has been put with regard to the Beer Duty of the present year I can answer plainly, if not satisfactorily. We are in possession of the figures relating to the first month only of the present year, and, according to them, there has been a falling short of the Estimates to the extent of about 6 per cent. I have very great confidence in the opinions of persons more practically acquainted than myself with this subject, and I believe that they hesitate to form their judgment at present as to how far the deficiency in the Beer Duty for that month is ascribable to any special cause. Probably, before the close of the Session we shall be enabled to judge better; but there is not the least disposition at present to recede from the relative amount of the Estimate.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, if the terms of his Amendment were technically wrong he preferred to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Drawback on exportation of imported beer).
  MR. STORERasked if the drawback referred to in this clause applied to stores shipped for the use of sailors on board ship?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is not connected with ship's stores; it is drawback on beer imported and then exported.
  MR. STORERsaid, if that was the case, it clearly applied to beer taken as ship's stores for the use of sailors; and, that being so, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not accuse him of desiring class legislation, when he came to ask for allowance for agricultural labourers.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 5 amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Reduction of Customs duty on silver plate).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Clause be omitted."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain the grounds upon which he moved the omission of this clause. The right hon. Gentleman, among other reasons given for putting the clause into the Bill, said that it would lead to a considerable importation of silver plate from abroad; and he especially alluded to the great talents which Her Majesty's subjects in India possessed for the manufacture of silver. He had, of course, been much interested in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; and he could say from his own knowledge that these Indian workers in metals were both skilful and cheap in their work. Therefore, he had reason at the time to hope that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would lead to a very large increase in the trade of manufactured silver between India and this country. But, so far as ho could now gather, a deputation from the trade in this country had waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and placed before him reasons which had induced him to omit this clause from the Bill. This omission, he confessed, he regarded with some jealousy, for, as the matter originally stood, he had looked forward with hope to some good resulting from the abolition of the duty on silver. He could perfectly well understand that those engaged in the trade in this country were anxious that the duty should be retained, because, as the law at present stood, they enjoyed a complete monopoly. At his request, the Secretary to the Treasury had stated to him the conditions upon which plate could be imported
  1128
  from abroad; and it seemed to him that the system in operation was absolutely prohibitory of the importation of foreign manufactured silver. It was true that silver articles manufactured in India could be imported on payment of the duty. But it was also true that the goods in question must be taken to the Tower to be stamped, and he was correct in saying that the system was entirely prohibitory. No doubt, a good many articles in silver entered the country from India that were not afterwards stamped; but he fancied the explanation of that fact was that the difficulties of the process were so great that the practice of getting the stamp was not resorted to; but these small pieces were smuggled. It appeared to him that the persons engaged in the trade who had approached the right hon. Gentleman were in the enjoyment of protection of the largest and strongest description; and, therefore, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would state to the Committee, before they agreed to his Motion, the grounds upon which he moved the omission of the clause.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, this question, like all others relating to duty, was extremely difficult and complicated. But the difficulties attendant upon the drawback were far greater, relatively to the subject, than any he had been acquainted with, because it was expected that drawback should be paid on goods that had long passed out of the Government possession. He had entertained considerable doubts as to the validity of the claim for drawback, and especially for full drawback. The clause, however, did not provide for any drawback at all. The Government had only proposed to substitute a very gradual method of reduction of duty, and the representations which had induced him to think he should not persevere with the clause were not so much connected with the trade as with the interest of the workmen employed in it. There was a temporary diminution in the purchasing power of the people, which affected in a very considerable degree the production of plate; and he owned that he shrank from applying to that trade a measure which, for a series of five or six years, would have had a more or less paralyzing effect upon it. It had therefore been decided to allow the matter to stand over, feeling that he could

  1129
  not be responsible for the difficulty likely to be created by a peculiar proposal made at a peculiar time.
  MR. RITCHIEpointed out that if the proposed method of dealing with the duties on silver plate was not definitely abandoned the paralysis alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was likely to afflict the silver trade at the approach of each Budget. The right hon. Gentleman, when he gave Notice that the clause would not be proceeded with, led the House to understand that he did not altogether give up the idea of dealing with silver plate in the manlier at first proposed. The result of that communication was that this process of gradual extinction of the duty was held over all manufacturers of plate in terrorem, and that it was impossible for them to conduct their operations in the same way as they would do if they supposed that their trade would be dealt with in the same way as other trades under similar circumstances—that was to say, that the drawback would be allowed if the duty were taken off. On the approach of the Budget Statement all manufacture would probably cease, because those engaged in the trade would not care to go on with their manufacture under the anticipation that the process now postponed might be applied. Therefore, he hoped the Committee would be allowed to understand that the measure was not merely postponed but abandoned.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be contrary to usage to give a pledge that under no circumstances would the question be re-opened.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKregretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not speak positively with regard to the question of duty on plate, because it was a very serious matter for the constituency which he had the honour to represent, and which was very largely interested in the trade, that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be kept hanging over their heads. It would, he thought, be well if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the possibility of doing away with the duty once for all, for the matter was a very small one, and interfered much with the trade, which afforded occupation to a number of poor men. He had a strong sympathy with his constituents under these circumstances, for there was great com-
  1130
  petition in these days, and the trade of watch and clock making was leaving them altogether. Hon. Members should not treat this subject with levity. It was very easy to tell men to be contented, and buy in the cheapest market; but they answered—"We have nothing to buy with." It was a sad thing for those who were dependent upon the trade for their daily bread to be kept in suspense; and, for the reasons he had urged, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman, having once made the proposal, would carry it into effect by altogether abolishing the duty on silver plate.
  MR. ONSLOWwished to say a few words on this subject, because he had been a Member of the Committee which sat to consider the question of hall-marking. He believed he was the only one who had recorded his vote in favour of the retention of the duty, and he did so because all those who gave evidence before the Committee were of opinion that there was no necessity for its abolition. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had spoken of the great stimulus that the removal of the duty would give to the Indian trade in manufactured silver. If that result would follow, he should, for that reason alone, wish the duty to be abolished; but, having carefully gone into the facts, he was unable to see that the change would be attended with one iota of benefit to the Indian manufacturer. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) had alluded to the falling off in the trade amongst his constituency; but he pointed out that that was due simply to American competition. American gilt and silver work came into this country free of duty, while there was evidence that our work was very heavily taxed on reaching America. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give way to this foolish idea of Free Trade, but retain the duty on silver plate, which was supported by everyone connected with the trade, and which he did not believe was in any way connected with the falling off of trade in this country.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, the position was in no way mended by what the right hon. Gentleman had said. The trade was at present paralyzed by the want of knowledge as to what would be done in the future. As a final settle-

  1131
  ment of the question, he ventured to suggest that, in conformity with the principles of Free Trade, the duty on silver plate should be absolutely abolished, so far as concerned the production of this country and the Colonies; but that it should remain upon the silver plate of foreign countries, drawback being allowed on exportation. This arrangement was one which was, at any rate, not likely to be disturbed by hon. Members sitting on that of the House. It was most desirable that the question should be finally settled, and he pressed that view of the case strongly upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause struck out accordingly.
  Clause 8 (Alteration of duties on spirits imported).
  MR. THORNHILL,in moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice, pointed out that the two chief commodities of trade in the West Indies were sugar and rum. As was well known, the West India trade had been already injured by the foreign sugar bounties; a fact which, he believed, the Prime Minister had admitted to the deputation which waited upon him recently in connection with that subject. He ventured to say that if the additional 2d. per gallon was to be charged upon rum the West India Colonies would be still further injured. It would do a very considerable amount of injury to the Jamaica planters. It was said that a countervailing duty could not be placed upon sugar, because it was contrary to the "Most Favoured Nation" Clause. That might be so; but he felt that, in the present case, if, as the arrangement with regard to Spirit Duties proposed, an extra 2d. per gallon wore charged upon rum, while, at the same time, 1d. was taken off French brandy, the French nation would again be benefited, as it was in the case of the sugar bounties. One of the reasons foe the proposal to increase the duty on rum was that it was regarded as a manufactured spirit; but he held that it was not so, in the sense in which the term was applied to gin. It was made entirely from molasses, and was coloured with its own natural spirit. Whisky now paid 10 s. per gallon, and 2d. per gallon
  1132
  under the Excise regulations; gin, as a manufactured spirit, paid 10 s. a gallon, and 4d. a gallon under the Excise regulations. But if the Bill became law, whisky and gin would remain under the duties respectively of 10 s. 2d. and 10 s. 4d., while ruin would be placed in the same position as gin, and pay a duty of 10 s. 4d. per gallon, and the reduction of ld. on brandy would make the duty on that spirit 10 s. 4d. instead of 10 s. 5d. per gallon. He contended that rum was not a manufactured spirit, and that it ought not to be placed in the same category as those which were. In conclusion, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the question of increasing the duty on rum, with a view to helping the West India Colonies, which had suffered so much already from the system of foreign sugar bounties.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, after line 6, to insert "Rum of and from any British Possession.. 10 s. 2d."—(Mr. Thornhill.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am truly sorry I cannot accede to the proposal of the hon. Member who has just sat down; but the tariff which now exists does not draw any distinction, in point of duty, between the British Colonies and foreign countries producing rum. One and the same rate is charged—namely, 10 s. 2d. if the rum comes from the country of its production; 10 s. 5d. if it comes not from the country of its production. I cannot, therefore, be expected to agree to the setting up of any distinctive and differential duty on behalf of the Colonies. The hon. Member says that gin is a manufactured article and that rum is not. Now, it is quite true that gin, which is the great English spirit and that with which rum chiefly competes, goes through a double process—first, the process of distillation, secondly, a process of rectification. I may, however, compare rum, not only with gin, but with other spirits. Brandy, for instance, does not undergo the double process of distillation and rectification. It is a more valuable article than rum. But I will take another article imported into this country, which is not of the same value, but of much less value than rum—namely, the potato spirit which comes in from Germany. Rum is also a manufactured article. The

  1133
  truth is, I entirely sympathize with the producers of this article, in the Colonies especially, because they have enjoyed a factitious advantage. They are to be sympathized with, when that factitious advantage is withdrawn. This advantage has been enjoyed by the Colonies for some years past—since the distinction between British and foreign rum has been abolished—not on the ground that rum is entitled to a protection, but on the ground that Sykes's hydrometer, which was used by the Department, does not enable them to ascertain, precisely, the amount of alcohol in a gallon of rum. It is the new process—the process of distillation which is substituted for that of Sykes's hydrometer—which enables us to ascertain the exact amount of alcohol, which will leave us no ground for apology, in point of consistency, if we were to exclude this one special duty on rum coming from the British Colonies. I am, therefore, afraid I must adhere to the proposal as it stands.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of supporting the Amendment, for he thought the proposal was a very fair and just one. He, however, wished to point out a great inconvenience suffered by the trade. Rums and brandies, and all these foreign spirits, might come in at a greater strength than they ought to come in at, and might pay a less duty than they ought to pay. But he desired to remind the right hon. Gentleman of a great inconvenience that traders were put to. At present it took them two or three days to get their goods out of the hands of the Government officials, and the result was that they experienced great difficulty in transacting their business. They ought to get the goods tested in a day at the most; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that greater facilities should be allowed to the trade in this matter than they at present enjoyed.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that, owing to the hum of conversation around him, he had not been able clearly to follow the observations of the hon. Member opposite; but he had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he did not ask for a differential duty, but only complained of disadvantages which would be experienced under the Bill. Mr. Walpole, in 1878, had reported that, as compared with foreign spirits, the British distiller was at a disadvan-
  1134
  tage of 1¾d. But the present Bill proposed to impose a difference of 4d., more than half of which was, therefore, clearly a Protection duty. No doubt if they compared rum with rectified spirits that would disappear, because the rectification of spirits was equivalent to 2d.; but what the West Indian Colonies said was that the spirit they produced was a plain, and not a rectified spirit, and that by treating it as the Government proposed to treat it now they would be placing it at an unfair disadvantage. The question was one of great difficulty, no doubt, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give it his most careful attention. He was quite sure, and he thought the West Indian Colonies could feel assured, that Her Majesty's Government would consider their representations most carefully, with every wish to do justice in this matter. Perhaps the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment would not think it necessary, under the circumstances, to divide the Committee, but would rest satisfied with the assurance that the Government would consider the matter, which was one of the greatest moment to the West Indian Colonies, which they all knew were suffering very severely, in other respects, at the present time.
  MR. RITCHIEwould only say, in support of the appeal made by the hon. Baronet, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not said anything as to a comparison of the duty on rum and whisky. Rum was equally a plain spirit with whisky. Rum when it came in had to pay 10 s. 4d., whilst whisky had to pay 10 s. 2d. The produce of our Colonies—rum, which was an important part of the produce of our Colonies—would be placed at a disadvantage, as compared with whisky, though not, perhaps, as compared with brandy.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment had not explained why rum should pay a less duty than other spirits. They had heard a great deal lately about giving fair play to the home producer; but he thought the home producer would have fair ground of complaint if foreign spirits paid less duty than the articles of home manufacture. It would be impossible to place a distinctive duty on rectified and unrectified spirits, for if that were done the home producer would be placed at a

  1135
  great disadvantage. As to what had fallen from an hon. Member with regard to the inconvenience to the trade in testing spirits in the warehouse, that difficulty was being removed. In future all spirits would be tested at once, on importation. The amount of spirit would be at once found out, and no delay would occur.
  MR. RITCHIEhoped the observations of the noble Lord would not be allowed to pass without comment. Gin was the only spirit which was rectified and compounded. It had to be compounded to make it suitable to the English taste. It had been clearly pointed out, in the official Papers, that the cost of the excisable restriction amounted to 1¾d., which, added to the lO s., would make l0 s. 1¾d., or, say, 10 s. 2d. But, beyond this, gin had to go through a process to make it suitable to the English palate; and that process, it had been computed, made another 2d. per gallon, which, altogether, made 10 s. 4d. But there was no other spirit—neither whisky, rum, nor brandy—which had to be compounded. All those spirits went into consumption as they were imported. With regard to whisky, the restriction amounted to 2d.; therefore, in calculating the amount of duty on whisky it should be put down at 10 s. 2d. The duty on rum was 10 s. 4d., whilst that on whisky was only l0 s. 2d. Rum was a plain spirit as well as whisky, and brandy, also, for the matter of that—although he was more concerned about articles of British production—was placed at a great disadvantage.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that brandy was no more a rectified spirit than rum. Gin was the chief competitor with rum, and gin was a rectified spirit. As to whisky, though it did not undergo such an expense in comparing it with rum, yet there was a considerable indirect expense. It was plain that if there was any force in the argument for reducing the duty on rum, it ought to be reduced on brandy and other spirits.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he knew many people who were very much interested in the West Indies. In Jamaica, a vast quantity of estates had been thrown out of cultivation lately; and as to Demerara, there were many merchants and traders there who were only just able to carry on business. They had been carrying on their busi-
  1136
  ness and cultivating their estates almost at a dead loss; and he felt convinced that if this Bill passed in its present form they would be rendered still more incompetent to compete with the foreigner. All he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) and his friends could do was to express their regret that the right hon. Gentleman could not help them in this matter.
  MR. THORNHILLsaid, that in the course of the debate ho had heard the traders of the West Indies spoken of as foreigners. He did not consider them such, but looked on them as he looked upon all the Members of that House, as British subjects. It was very hard on these traders that they should be treated in the manner proposed by the Bill. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) seemed to have some strange antipathy to the West Indies, for he was always doing what he could to injure them. The noble Lord had gone out there some time ago, and, although he (Mr. Thornhill) could not say what happened there, since he had come back he had always done what he could to disparage and to hurt the place. If things went on as they were now for very long he was afraid that the West Indies would go to the wall altogether.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member desire to withdraw the Amendment?
  MR. THORNHILL: Yes, Sir, I withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Mode of testing in case of obscuration).
  CAPTAIN AYLMER,in rising to move the omission of the words "or otherwise," said, the clause hung very much on the one they had just been discussing, the question arising as to the increase there would be on the Rum Duty owing to the new method of measuring the quantity of spirit. A very heavy sum was involved. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) said £180,000 a-year; but he (Captain Aylmer) was inclined to think that the change would produce nearer £300,000 or £400,000. The difference between Sykes's hydrometer and measuring the spirit by distillation was certainly 1½ per cent, and that would raise the estimate by a very large sum. He honestly believed that

  1137
  the right hon. Gentleman, instead of getting £180,000, would secure £400,000. He did not grudge the Government this amount; but he found that there was very considerable dissatisfaction felt with the wording of the clause. Spirits used to be tested by Sykes's hydrometer. That method was to be replaced by distillation; but where that did not suit the officers of Customs, resort might be hail to other means. He did not think that the trade of the country should be left to such an uncertain state of things. The method of testing should be either by Sykes's hydrometer or by distillation; but there should be no "or otherwise" in the clause, to leave it open to the discretion of the Customs officers to experimentalize if they felt inclined. The words "or otherwise" were extremely vague, and were very much objected to by importers of spirits into this country.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, so far as the meaning of the clause was concerned, the words in question were not of the slightest importance. He hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Amendment, because the effect of it, if passed, would be that if any new and improved method of testing spirits were discovered they would be unable to avail themselves of it. The object in view was merely to make an accurate examination or test. As to the sanguine estimate of the hon. and gallant Member of the result of the new method of testing spirit, he must decline to accept it. He would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that when estimates came from private Members which turned out to be extravagant nothing more was heard of them; but such was not the case when a Chancellor of the Exchequer indulged in extravagant speculation. The spirit which would be affected by the new method of testing was brandy more titan rum. There had been a great deal of concealed strength introduced in brandy owing to our defective method of testing, going as high as 13 and 14 per cent, instead of the modest 4 per cent allowed. Instead of this being, in the main, a tax upon Colonial produce, he believed it would be a tax upon the article brandy.
  MR. GORSTdid not think the objection of the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer) had been answered. His argument was that the importer should have the article he imported tested by law, and that it
  1138
  should not be left to the discretion of any official as to the kind of test which should be applied. The Government wished to substitute distillation for Sykes's hydrometer; but the clause would leave it open. No doubt, in most cases, officers of the Customs acted in a fair and honest manner; still, it would not be satisfactory to importers to be left in the hands of these officers, knowing that at any moment a new kind of test might be tried.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he did not understand the reason advanced for the Amendment. The clause gave the Government officials every power to ascertain the amount of spirit to be taxed, and, surely, nothing should be done to weaken that power.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman estimated the gain to the Revenue at much less than he did; still he believed that the figure he had quoted would turn out to be right. Great annoyance had been occasioned in several quarters in this matter. Last week there were two or three questions put as to the measurement of malt, and it was said that the Customs measurement had been exceeded by 10 per cent by the railway carriers, and then that the brewers, who had bought it, had exceeded the railway carriers' measurement. All these different measurements must be a source of great trouble to those who had to trade in these articles. Let there be one law. If the Government, at some future time, discovered a better means of measurement, let them then suggest it—let them wait, if necessary, until next year. To show how inconvenient the proposed scheme might be, he would point out that one Excise officer might say—"I prefer to try my own experiment," and another, even in the same place, might say—"I do not believe in your experiment; I will try my own." Many people, from different parts of the country, had complained that the Bill, as it stood, might bring them to loggerheads with the Government officials.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he had been long connected with the trade and commerce of this country, therefore he thought he had a right to speak on such a question as this. He considered it was the duty of the Government, in regard to the Customs, to lay down a plain law to guide merchants; and, therefore, he

  1139
  thought that "or otherwise" ought to be expunged from the clause. If those words were retained they would not know where they were. The matter was really worth attention, and, in considering it, they must not altogether lose sight of the position of the Customs officials, who were the moving springs. He did not find fault with any plain rule laid down; but he certainly would not care about leaving the decision of his business affairs to the discretion of Government officials. He did not object to Sykes's hydrometer, which was a good old fixed rule, and he did not object to the test by distillation; but do not let them have these words "or otherwise" retained. The striking out of these words would not do the Chancellor of the Exchequer any harm, whilst it would please many hon. Members very much.
  MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that although, in the testing of spirits, distillation was of great value, it was supported by other methods. Weighing was one; but there were also other methods which would render it very inconvenient to omit the words. The hon. Member behind him (Sir Andrew Lusk) did not seem to understand the position of affairs. This test was not intended to be a guide to merchants at all, but to the Revenue Department. However, to satisfy hon. Members, he would consent to the modification of the clause by the insertion of words to the effect that the Customs officers might use "other methods which were approved of by the Treasury." That would give Parliament a responsible authority, to whom it could look in case of supposed improper proceeding.
  CAPTAIN AYLMER: On that understanding I will withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WARTONthought that the importers of spirits would suffer great injustice and inconvenience by the abolition of the long-established method of testing spirits. The importers were used to the hydrometer, and could employ it in testing spirits themselves; therefore he thought it should be retained in use. There had been some startling revelations with regard to malt lately; and it had been shown that the officers of the Excise, in the zealous
  1140
  discharge of their duty, and, perhaps, with the desire to get into favour in high places, had overcharged wherever they could. There would be no check against overcharge if the clause remained as it was, because the importer of spirits would have the means in his hands to do it. The importer could not take samples and chemically distil them, as the Government official could. The importer could use the old-fashioned hydrometer, but not the new method of testing; therefore he charged the right hon. Gentleman with attempting the "obscuration" of the matter, according to the marginal note to the clause. He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Premier for, in speaking on Sections 8 and 9, using the words "substitution of distillation in place of the hydrometer." This was honest language; but it was not the language of the clause, which was—
  "In any case where, by reason of the presence of colouring, sweetening, or other matter, the accurate strength of any spirit cannot be immediately ascertained by Sykes's hydrometer, or in any case where an officer of the Customs may deem it necessary, a sample of spirit may, under the direction of the Commissioners of Customs, be examined by distillation or otherwise, and the strength so ascertained shall be deemed to be the true hydrometic strength of the spirit."
  That seamed to imply that distillation would only be used in some cases—where it was necessary. He was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his frank employment of the word "substitution," which showed what his real intention was. It was this—to give the officer power to take away the use of the only means the importer had of checking the accuracy of the official test.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Time and place of landing goods inwards).
  MR. WIGGINsaid, he was informed by persons connected with shipping that the Custom House officers left duty on the wharves at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. This resulted in a considerable loss, and shippers complained that 4 o'clock in the afternoon, especially in the summer months, was much too early to cease work. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider it possible to extend the hours of attendance of Customs officers.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would make the subject one for inquiry.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 (Persons may be searched if officers have reason to suspect smuggled goods are concealed upon them. Rescuing goods. Rescuing persons. Assaulting or obstructing officers. Attempting the foregoing offences. Penalty).
  MR. ANDERSONfound there was no such clause in last year's Bill, and he wished to know whether it was proposed to extend the powers of Customs officers to search people when they came ashore from vessels? He had supposed they possessed the power of search already, and if so this clause was quite unnecessary. If not, they were to be given fresh power, and he confessed he had some suspicion about it. At any rate, the matter required to be guarded in case the suspected person happened to be a female. It would be rather awkward to give complete power of personal search in case of a female.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, this clause was inserted to make the law perfectly clear.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, there ought to be some guarding clause in case of females. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh; but it might be a serious thing for some of themselves some day, when they might happen to be travelling with lady friends. It was a well understood thing in old days that ladies were the greatest smugglers; laces and such things to them were quite irresistible in the way of smuggling. He did not suppose they would be much tempted by cigars and ardent spirits; but it was known that females who did smuggle had, for the purpose, represented themselves to be in an interesting condition. He did not suppose the Committee would have any sympathy with a female who did that, or was caught in the act; but it might happen that ladies who really were in an interesting condition might, on an erroneous supposition, be subjected to the very grossest insult. He would, therefore, suggest that a few words be added to the clause to make that impossible—for instance, such words as—"But if the suspected person is a female, such search shall be in private and by a female searcher."
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend had examined into the matter. If he would turn to the Consolidation Acts he would find full provisions for the prevention of abuse.
  MR. WIGGINnoticed that the penalty to be inflicted was not to exceed £100. Would a person bringing over a few cigars be liable to such a penalty?
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, as the clause was drawn it seemed obligatory to impose in each case a penalty of £100. Might he ask whether the clause had been drawn with any regard to the Summary Jurisdiction Act? He hoped that Act, which dealt with all the questions of penalties, had been taken into account.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKthought the clause might be allowed to pass unaltered. He did not expect the powers of search given to Customs officers would be abused; and he was informed by those who knew something of the attempts at fraud that the clause would meet all the difficulties of the case.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the penalty was the same as that in the present Customs Act. The penalty was fixed at one amount; but there were general provisions for its reduction.
  MR. WARTONobserved, that the rule for reduction was that in no case should it be more than one-fourth.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that, having served on the Committee on the Summary Jurisdiction Bill, he knew that that was a point raised and much discussed. What he wanted to know was whether the penalty of £100 would be subject to the same powers of reduction as the penalties inflicted under other Customs and Inland Revenue Acts?
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, everyone who had had any dealings with the Revenue officers knew they were most domineering in their actions. They were always inclined to say, if the magistrate would not grant the penalty they asked—
  "Then we will ask for a case; we have our authority from Somerset House."
  An hon. MEMBER said, if his recollection served him aright, there was a great difference of opinion in the Committee on the Summary Jurisdiction Bill. The Customs authorities contended that where the statute said the penalty should be £100 or £200 the magistrates should not have the power of lessening it. There was a great

  1143
  fight, and the Committee agreed unanimously against the Customs. When they came down to the House of Commons the Government was in a rather awkward position; but the result was that the Customs eventually gave way. The magistrates, therefore, were to have the power in all cases under the old Customs Acts not to impose the full penalty; they might impose a less penalty than £100 if they wished. It was the deliberate decision of the House of Commons; and, that being so, it was only right it should be maintained in an Act passed immediately afterwards. If there was any new departure upon the point, the right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, explain it.
  MR. GLADSTONEthought it would be improper to establish a new rule.
  MR. WARTONasked if the Attorney General would say whether the old rule relating to reductions was still in force—namely, that there should be no reduction below one-fourth.
  SIR P. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, if they passed the clause as it now stood, it would override the Summary Jurisdiction Act. If the question could be considered on Report, the present difficulty would be removed.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCIIELL)promised to look into the matter and see how it stood.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 14 (Certain sections of this Act incorporated in 39 & 40 Vic., c. 36).
  MR. GLADSTONEmoved to add at end of page 7, line 2—
  "And section nine of this Act shall apply to the Isle of Man, so far as relates to all spirits charged with duty by reference to hydrometer strength."
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that the Isle of Man was mentioned in the earlier clauses of the Bill; and, no doubt, the consent of the authorities of the Island had been obtained. But the jurisdiction of the isle of Man was so peculiar that the Committee ought to have some assurance that the authorities there had consented to the insertion of these words.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Isle of Man had consented to the insertion of the proposed words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  As to Excise.
  Clause 15 (Brewer's licence. Annual value of house exceeding ten pounds and not exceeding fifteen pounds).
  MR. HICKSproposed, in page 7, line 8, to leave out the words "exceeding fifteen pounds," and insert the words "occupying a house charged to the inhabited house duty." His Amendment was almost identical with that on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer), and he would not have ventured to stand before him if he had not had the hon. Member's consent to do so. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced the second Budget last year he made use of these words—"If the person who takes out a licence resides in a house under £20, he shall hear no more of the Malt or Beer Tax." But when the Bill came before the House, instead of the word "house" they found the words "house, premises, and land." The effect of that alteration or difference between the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bill was that a man who lived in a £19 house escaped, while a man in the country who occupied 10 or 12 acres of land had to pay the duty. That was so manifestly unjust that the right hon. Gentleman altered the clause, reducing the amount from the original promise of £20 to the lower figure of £10. He now proposed, however, seeing the injustice he then committed, to alter the figure to £15. Now, he (Mr. Hicks) submitted to the Committee that there were only two fixed sums at which houses were known in this country. There was the £6 house, the occupier of which was relieved from the payment of rates himself, but who paid them through the owner; and from that till they got to the £20 house, which was assessed to the Inhabited House Duty, they knew no difference in the value of houses. In his opinion, it was very much better they should continue the figure which was understood and known rather than take a figure—£15 or any other figure—which would have to be inquired into in every case. The difference between £15 and £20, in most country parishes, would affect a very small number of houses; but the one case was thoroughly well known, and

  1145
  the other was not. He begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 8, to leave out the words "exceeding fifteen pounds," and insert the words "occupying a house charged to the inhabited house duty."—(Mr. Hicks.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'exceeding' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. STORERhad to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. It was identical with his own, and also with that of the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton). He need not urge any considerations in support of the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's words in introducing his Budget last year were so much to the point, and were so well supported, that he would see the justice of conceding the point. The extension which the right hon. Gentleman proposed from £10 to £15 did not remove the burden from a great number of the large farmers. These men were entitled to consideration, and the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had created great dissatisfaction, especially in those parts of the country where it was considered no distinction should be made between men following the same occupation. There was no class legislation in England; and no men, besides farmers, occupying houses far removed from public-houses, would avail themselves of the privilege suggested. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make the remission proposed, for he must know that the position of the farmer, in respect to the public brewer, was certainly not at all to the advantage of the farmer. It was only a small boon they asked; but it was one which would give great satisfaction, and one which could be given without any great injury to the Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had explained that the private brewing of the country only amounted to 1 per cent of the whole; and he (Mr. Storer) hoped their friends, the brewers, would not object to the Amendment. It would not injure them, but it would do away with a great feeling of annoyance, because it would prevent the necessity of any valuation at all. There would be the House Duty at once, and no one who paid it would be subject to the tax. The proposal now made would include every farmer; it would give gene-
  1146
  ral satisfaction, and, therefore, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take it into his serious consideration.
  MR. DUCKHAMthought it would be far better to have a graduated scale of licences to the farmers of the country, according to their rental, say a 6s. licence when the rent did not exceed £50 per annum, and a further 6s. for every additional £50.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEhoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to accept the Amendment. He had very little to add to what had been said; but, as it was the right hon. Gentleman who last year had proposed to exempt houses under 10 years, he was a little surprised at the proposed limitation. The working of the Act would be such that it would apply principally to farm-houses; and very few tradesmen, wheelwrights, blacksmiths, and small householders would take advantage of the exemption. So far as his experience went, the Act would be confined almost entirely to the occupiers of land and to people in the rural districts. He wished to know how the annual value of £15 was to be arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman said it was to be ascertained by such means as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue thought fit. A case had arisen in Shropshire the other day in which a farmer, who had neglected to fill up his paper, was summoned before the magistrates in reference to an annual value of £10. Three Excisemen were called as witnesses for the Inland Revenue, and their evidence was accepted as to the value of the house, instead of the evidence of some practical land-valuer or auctioneer in the neighbourhood being taken. The House knew what the £6 house was, and what the Inhabited House Duty was; but they did not know what the £10 or £15 house was; and he urged the right hon. Gentleman to accede to this Amendment, or to lay down a little more clearly than he had done in the Bill the means by which this £15 value was to be ascertained, instead of leaving it to the Excise officers to assess the value of houses in a country of which they had not the slightest knowledge in the most arbitrary manner, and without reference to the Commissioners, and in opposition to the evidence of land agents. Unless the annual value was more clearly defined he believed the Bill would do great injustice.
  MR. HENEAGEpointed out that now the offices and gardens and courts were added to the house, so that while, practically, the tax was raised from 6s. to 9s., the value of the house was raised, and what was a £10 house last year would be a £12 house in the current year. He could not help thinking that, if there was to be a change, it should be that of a £20 house. Everybody knew what a £20 house was, and he thought that such a change would greatly facilitate the collection of taxes and save expense. He strongly supported the Amendment.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, that, speaking with some knowledge of the assessment machinery in rural places, there was no mode of estimating a house value between £6, the Small Tenements Act limit, and £20, the House Duty, because the land was always valued with the house; and he therefore appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to take the £20 limit. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman might say he must look to the loss to the Revenue. He did not think there need be any perceptible loss to the Revenue, and he would be willing to see a higher Licence Duty. He quite acknowledged the concession the right hon. Gentleman had made of the £15 house; but he thought that would give a great deal of trouble to the Excise officers in getting at the value, and cause considerable friction and inconvenience.
  MR. WATNEYsaid, he regarded this as only a question of the amount to be obtained from the private brewers, and he thought it should properly arise on sub-section 2 when they came to the word "exemption." He would suggest that the Government should leave out of the clause the words, "Not exceeding £20." He supposed that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken did not propose to increase the duty on private brewers from 9s. to 12 s.; but, if they did, he could quite understand their objecting to what he was proposing. If they did not, then he thought it would simplify matters if they rated all occupiers of houses above £10 at 9s., and then they could take the question of exemptions afterwards on sub-section 2 of Clause 16.
  MR. D. DAVIESsaid, he would remind the Committee that this clause worked unsatisfactorily last year. The
  1148
  argument was that the house must be valued without the farm, and then it would not be worth above £10; but he knew of a case in which a house had cost over £1,000 to build, which was let at a few hundreds, and which the tenant wished him to say was not above £10 annual value. He had, however, pointed out that the house could not be taken in that way, but must be treated as a dock would be treated, which would be of little value without a ship in it. There wore some tenant farmers paying £400 rent in Montgomeryshire who escaped the tax by putting their houses under £10. That was very unfair, and he should like to see fair play, so that if one escaped another should escape—some sliding scale under which everyone would pay in proportion to rent. It seemed to him that the man who could stretch his conscience most got off best.
  MR. R. H. PAGETthought that the proposal was worthy of attention, but that it hardly came under this clause. It should come under Clause 16, by which annual value and the way in which it was arrived at was dealt with. But, with regard to this clause, he desired to point out the disadvantages which would be involved by this Amendment. There had, no doubt, been difficulties in ascertaining the value of houses; but this proposal would increase the difficulties, and if the houses of £10 and £15 were singled out, that would place the Excise officers in a position of practical antagonism towards the people. The £20 house was known, and did not require any valuation. As the law stood, a house of £10, apart from offices, yards, or gardens, was subject to valuation from £10 or £15; but this clause proposed to make a change, by which there would be a valuation for these appurtenances; and so a house hitherto valued at £10, and liable to 6s. duty, would be liable, to an increased duty of 3s. with the yards and gardens belonging to it. The result would be to increase taxation on that particular class of house, and because yards and gardens were introduced now for the first time, the £10 house of last year would be a £11 house, and, instead of paying 6s., would pay an additional 3s. There might be such an intention, but he did not know that it was generally understood that that would be the operation of the Bill; but that would be its effect. He admitted that the limit of

  1149
  £15 was a concession in the other direction; but he wished the Government to consent to go a little further. The right hon. Gentleman had made one step in advance; but he wished him to go from £15 to £20. In that way great difficulty and trouble would be got rid of, and he did not think the loss to the Revenue would be serious. He did not know that there was any intention to increase the Revenue by inflicting charges on private brewers; but the words "value of the house" would have that effect in many cases. He thought the right hon. Gentleman might rightly be asked to consent to the Amendment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I regret that I cannot consent to the terms of the Amendment. What is it that is asked? It is well known that the number of farmhouses which are charged with the House Tax is very insignificant; and it is asked that while all the rest of the community shall be taxed, all farmers, except those who are charged with the Inhabited House Duty, shall be free from any duty at all. I really must say that that is a demand which I think is unjust in itself, and most grossly unjust to all brewers engaged in trade, and paying duty for every gallon of beer they produce. What we have done is this—the purpose in view was to effect a great leap of relief for the agriculturists in the country. ["No, no!"] If it was not so, all the Representatives of farmers for the last two generations have been engaged in assuring us that it was. The purpose in view was to effect a great act of liberation, as has always been held by the Gentlemen who represent the agricultural interest; and, secondly, to set free a great trade. But we had to deal with this great difficulty about private brewers, and it was only the fact of private brewers being reduced to narrow limits that enabled us to cope with that difficulty. So we arranged that at a very low rate of Licence Duty persons inhabiting small houses, whether farmers or not, should be allowed to brew without being called to account for their materials; the certainty being that those persons would make use of but simple materials, so that neither the loss to the Revenue, nor the interference with the general trade would be serious. But it became necessary to re-consider the definition of farm-houses, because they could not be got at unless
  1150
  we included with them the appendages described as offices, courts, and yards. That would have been a restriction of the liberty and privilege given by the Act of last year; but we have prevented that. We have done more than prevent it. We have made an extension, because the raising of the rent from £10 to £15 is a greater relief to the farming householder than is any disadvantage he may sustain by reckoning offices and courts into the valuation of the house. But a still stronger reason was the state of arrangements in some towns where there are a large number of artizans in certain places, who are engaged in private brewing; and to meet their views and to somewhat improve the position of the farmer we introduced this change, and raised the amount from £10 to £15, with a slight alteration in the amount of the Licence Duty. Whether these changes will be good, or whether I may be obliged to abandon them, I cannot say; but I think they are good changes. I am not speaking of the mode of ascertaining the annual value—upon that I shall be prepared to make a concession. I am speaking now simply of the change to £15, which is an extension of the privilege given to the private brewer; but really to ask us to go to £20, and limit that to the Inhabited House Duty, especially when it is accompanied by a demand on behalf of the labourers, is to establish an exemption which is the most unjustifiable in its extent and character that I have ever known to be suggested. Pray recollect that this duty is levied on what may be called a necessary of life. It is levied on the whole community; and to ask that one great class, who, I think, will enjoy great benefit from the alteration of the Malt Tax to a Beer Duty, shall have a legislative title to manufacture and consume beer for themselves, their families, and their workpeople, without paying any tax, is a proposal to which I am bound to say we cannot, under any circumstances, accede.
  MR. STORERregretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to giving what was asked. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten that he proposed this last year; and what was now asked was nothing more than what he originally proposed. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had been got at by the Excise officers.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That was for house and land.
  MR. STORER: The words were—
  "With the taking out of the licence we propose that if a person resides in a house under £20"—
  MR. GLADSTONE: That was in the Bill.
  MR. STORER,continuing, said, if things continued in their present state the Revenue would derive very little advantage, because there would be no farmers and no arable land, and no beer would be required. Year after year the land was going into grass, and beer was not required. Another consideration he would urge was, that the right hon. Gentleman spoke as if it was a very horrible thing that other people should have to pay for a Beer Licence at public-houses, while the farmer should be exempted. In no other country in the world was the farmer taxed for what he brewed. In Germany and in America the beer was not taxed until it came to sale; the private brewers were perfectly free; and in strict justice they ought not to be taxed here. It was no wonder that the land was given up, and such reports as now came from every county in England had never been heard. before. The land was going absolutely out of cultivation, and could not be let at any price; and, under all the circumstances, he thought the farmers were entitled to more consideration from the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MAC IVERbegged to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. He did so for this reason—the Prime Minister, a short time ago, made some charges in regard to the Representatives of the agricultural districts, which had no foundation whatever, and at that hour of the morning—1 o'clock—it was impossible to discuss such charges in the manner in which they deserved. The charge he referred to was that hon. Members on that side of the House had not been sincere in advocating the repeal of the Malt Tax. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman which of the Representatives of the agricultural districts, who sat on that side of the House, had asked Her Majesty's Government to introduce into this country foreign brewing materials free of duty? It could only bring new competition to bear upon the farmers, and for a very
  1152
  long period they had been weighted quite heavily enough. He must say that from the first day on which the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Budget, there was a circumstance which had struck him as very suspicious, and it was the extremely good terms upon which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be with the Representatives of the brewing interest in all parts of the House. He (Mr. Mac Iver) was of opinion that the great brewers were the only persons whose interests had been seriously considered in the Government proposals, and, no doubt, they were ready and willing enough to agree to them. They were ready enough to support any form of taxation which might suit Her Majesty's Government, if Her Majesty's Government in return would allow them to continue to make even larger gains than they had hitherto been in the habit of realizing. It was absurd to say that the agricultural interest had been studied at all. On the contrary, it had suffered materially from the way in which the Government had dealt with the question. 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. Mac Iver.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman has not a shadow of foundation for what ho has said in regard to my having made charges against the Representatives of the agricultural interest in this House. I made no charge whatever against the agricultural interest; but what I said was that hon. Members who represent it in this House always expressed a desire to get rid of the Malt Tax. Notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, I hope that hon. Members will kindly agree to go on with the Bill. It is of very great importance that we should make some progress with it.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONwould appeal to the hon. Member for Birkenhead not to persist in his Motion for reporting Progress.
  MR. HENEAGEalso expressed a hope that the hon. Member for Birkenhead would withdraw the Motion. He was satisfied that what the hon. Member was doing now was not for the advantage of the British agriculturists.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 34: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 208.)
  MR. STORERmoved, in page 7, after line 9, to insert—
  "Or by a brewer who shall be the occupier of a house of an annual value not exceeding four pounds, the duty of … ls. 0d."
  The object of the Amendment was to endeavour to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister some compensation upon the brewing of small quantities. Under the present arrangements, the brewers of small quantities got no benefit whatever. It was the practice on many farms to allow many of the labourers small quantities of malt during harvest time—perhaps a couple of bushels—which they converted into beer. The right hon. Gentleman proposed, however, to charge these small brewers l½d. a-gallon more than the regular brewers would pay. It was most unfair that the man who only brewed a very small quantity should be placed in that position, even if he brewed four or five bushels. That was not an uncommon quantity in this country; but, nevertheless, it was proposed that he should pay just as much as a Duke or a Marquess who undertook private brewing. In reality, it was a tax upon the farmer himself, who, in most cases, would have to pay it himself, in which case it would amount to a heavy burden upon him. He believed that the labourers had quite as much feeling upon these subjects as other people, and the point which concerned them most was that this could only be regarded as an additional duty upon a necessary of life. At harvest time they expected to get a little more beer. He was free to confess that they frequently consumed a great deal too much; but he saw no reason why they should be placed in an exceptional position, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to do something in their behalf. His proposal was to reduce the duty upon small houses, principally inhabited by the labourer, to 1s. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would prefer to make the concession in another way, by imposing the duty on brewers of small quantities—say, up to four bushels.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, after line 9, insert "or by a brewer who shall be the occupier of a horse of an annual value not exceeding four pounds, the duty of … 1s. 0d."—(Mr. Storer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GLADSTONE: An alteration of this kind is an alteration which I could not undertake to accept, and I am, therefore, bound to say that I cannot agree to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member. No doubt, the brewing affected would be confined to very limited quantities; but I do not think we should undertake to keep alive any practice of the kind on so small a scale. If, as the hon. Gentleman states, it is only a question of brewing a few gallons of beer for the labourers during harvest time, there can really be very little hardship in the proposal contained in the clause, and in requiring such small occupiers to go to the brewer for the few gallons of beer they may happen to want. The merely occasional act of brewing a few gallons of beer we cannot take into account by establishing a different system of licence for such cases.
  MR. H. DAVEYwas sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to making a concession in the direction of the Amendment. The receipts from licences issued to cottage labourers must be exceedingly small; and if cottages under £5 in annual value were relieved from payment of duty altogether, he did not think there would be much loss to the Revenue. The way in which the imposition of the duty would operate was this. There were a number of farmers who gave their labourers malt at certain seasons of the year, which the cottagers brewed in their own cottages. It was not worth their while to pay 6s. a-year to brew this small quantity of beer, and the consequence was that they would have to refuse the malt the farmers were willing to give them. The malt now given was regarded by the labourer as an addition to his perquisites; but if he had to pay the licence for brewing, it would not be worth his while to brew, and the result would be that he would lose the malt and get nothing in exchange.
  MR. HICKSremarked, that, if he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer correctly, the right hon. Gentle-

  1155
  man said that if the persons in whose behalf the Amendment was proposed only brewed a small quantity of beer, it would be no grievance to them to say that they should not continue to brew their own beer, but that they must go to the brewer for the few gallons they wanted. Now, he (Mr. Hicks) would suggest that it would be a very great grievance to deprive the labourers of the privilege of brewing their own beer, and compel them to go to the brewer. He understood that the Bill of last year was to benefit the agricultural interests by allowing the mixing of other materials with barley in the manufacture of beer. But the labourers, who had been used to good beer, would not regard such compounds as beer at all, and would regard it as a great grievance if they were compelled to have recourse to beer brewed in that way. He hoped the Committee would support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer).
  MR. GLADSTONE: I cannot believe that the case which has been so benevolently represented to me by my hon. Friend behind (Mr. Davey) is really likely to occur, and that the farmer who proposes to give in kind a certain boon to his labourers will, because the law interferes with the application of the boon, not only withdraw the boon, but provide no substitute for it. I must say that the Amendment really favours the truck system, and that it is far better the labourer should be paid in money. I certainly cannot see that it would be right to say that the Legislature ought to go out of its way in raising the taxes of the country to make arrangements to encourage the farmers in paying their labourers by the truck system.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONhoped that his hon. Friend the Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer) would not press the Amendment. Probably, in the course of a short time, the whole question of the re-adjustment of these duties would, as a matter of convenience, have to be considered. If he was in Order, he would venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman to take an early opportunity of explaining what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the concessions he alluded to.
  MR. STORERsaid, the arrangement between the farmer and the labourer for having beer was entirely different in its
  1156
  character to the truck system referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a time when all the labourers in the country lodged in the farm-houses, and received then not only their drink but their meat, and the term "truck" had never been applied to that practice. Notwithstanding all that had been said of relieving the farming interest in the present state of depression, the farmer's interest had boon injured in every way. His labour bill had been doubled by the operation of the Education Act; and at that moment there were men on the farms doing the work that used to be done by boys. Such matters might appear very trifling to hon. Members opposite; but they were such as aggravated the depression which existed in the agricultural interest, and made it impossible for farmers to work their farms at a profit. The question raised by the Amendment which he should press was one of more importance than the right hon. Gentleman was aware of; and unless he was inclined to meet the case in some way, it would not be advisable for him to extend the county franchise.
  MR. BIDDELLthought that cottage brewing would be admitted by everyone who looked into the matter carefully to be a great help to temperance. He therefore suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider the propriety of reducing the licence in the case of houses which came under the Small Tenements Rating Act from 6s. to 3s., and from this change he believed there would result no loss of Revenue.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Provisions with regard to brewers other than brewers for sale).
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think we need not ask for so rigid a rule as is laid down here, with regard to fixing the annual value of houses. I am content to take it that the arrangement shall be as proposed by the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer)—namely, that there shall be an appeal to Quarter Sessions, whose decision shall be final.
  MR. WATNEYsaid, before that point was reached he begged to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the exemption in sub-section 2. The discussion had been of a rather irregular kind. He pressed upon the right hon.

  1157
  Gentleman the unfairness of the exemption proposed in the case of private brewing. It had been stated that the brewers were benefited by the substitution of the Beer Duty for the Malt Duty; but he need only say upon that point, that under the new arrangement the brewers were paying 3s. per quarter more than they did formerly. For his own part, he should be very glad to go back to the old state of things, and he was quite unable to see how his agricultural friends could say that the brewers had been benefited. With regard to the exemptions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said last year that it was necessary to exempt certain classes, and he then fixed the limit at £10 rental. But by the clause as it stood it was now proposed that everyone who lived in a house of £15, or, in other words, paid 5s. 9d. a-week rent, should not be called upon to pay Beer Duty. That, he thought, was a very bad rule for the Committee to lay down. He was aware that great pressure would be put upon the Government to extend the exemption as originally fixed; but this, he contended, was owing to the fact that the Government were wrong at the beginning in laying down any exemption at all. There was no fairness in the proposal which allowed an artizan paying 5s. 9d. a-week rent to brew beer without paying duty; and it moreover raised a very dangerous precedent which was not to be found in connection with any other kind of taxation. He had never heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was in favour of the reduction of the Tea Duty, contend that persons living in houses under £10 should be exempt. Who were the largest consumers of beer in this country? They were not gentlemen, but mechanics and others, who paid 4s. or 5s. a-week rent; and the position taken up by the Government was that they were to pay no duty on the beer they drank. Therefore, although the proposal had gone so far, he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to put a stop to this dangerous mode of dealing with taxation. The Act of last year allowed any farmer living in houses of £10 rental and under to pay part of his wages in beer; and it was now proposed to bring in those under £15 who brewed for domestic use. But it was difficult to see how the arrangement could be carried
  1158
  out. Was the Excise officer to be continually running about houses within the limit to see whether the occupier was brewing for his own use only? Again, how could the Excise officer see that no beer was given away? It was utterly impossible that he could do so. On the other hand, a farmer might be willing to give a pint of beer to a poor man, but would be unable to do so, because he had not paid duty, owing to the exemption. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to fix the exemption at £10, as it now stood, which included cottage brewing, and so remove further pressure upon himself. Although he spoke as a brewer, he pointed out that the question of exemption did not affect the London brewers; but, regarding the proposal as wrong in principle, he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words from "the," in line 19, to "use," in line 23, inclusive.—(Mr. Watney.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Member will see that I cannot, with any propriety, agree to strike out this sub-section. The hon. Member must, I think, have become aware of that during the discussion which has taken place in the last two hours.
  MR. WATNEYagreed that his contribution to the discussion came very late; nevertheless, he felt it his duty to make a strong protest against the proposed extension of the exemption from duty. Having done so, he was not unwilling to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. STORERpointed out that under the Act of 1880 it was provided, in the case of houses below £10, that a person brewing other than for sale should only brew beer for his own domestic use, or for the consumption of his own farm labourers. If that provision was not now extended concurrently with the present extension of exemption, the effect would be that a man living in a house of an annual value between £10 and £15 could only brew for his own use, and not for his labourers; while the man who occupied a house under £10 value would be able to brew for his labourers. It was, he thought, unjust

  1159
  that what was given to one class should be denied to the other. With regard to the arguments of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Watney), he considered it very extraordinary that the hon. Member should come down to the House and ask for the maintenance of the brewers' monopoly after the farmers' monopoly had been done away with. It was to the interest of the public that there should be a little wholesome private brewing, for he had known occasions when the farm labourers objected to have brewers' beer—they would not have it at any price. The Amendment advocated by the hon. Member would tempt labourers into the public-house; and it was certainly not in the interest of the cause of temperance that they should go there. He had heard it in evidence, that on one occasion a man who had not had more than two pints of beer came out from a public-house quite drunk. No one ever heard of a man being drunk on home-brewed beer, because it was much more wholesome than the other. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to his proposal to allow those who lived in houses of between the annual value of £10 and £15 to brew for the labourers engaged on their own farms.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is really very doubtful whether we ought to allow the man at £10 to brew without payment of duty; and it is quite impossible to extend the clause of the Act of last year, as suggested by the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Storer).
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked whether the term "domestic use" would include labourers living in the farm-house?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he could not accept the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman as a substitute for the Amendment standing in his name.
  MR. GLADSTONE: They are not mine. They are the words of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire, which I am quite willing to move, if he likes to leave it in my hands.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose that the clause should remain as it stood, and to add certain other words.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No. I propose to take the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire.
  MR. HICKSsaid, he could not agree to that. The clause introduced an entirely new principle in the mode of taxation. As the law stood at present, those who were supposed to be liable to pay Inhabited House Duty had their cases heard by the Commissioners of Taxes in the district in which they lived. They went before the Commissioners at the instance of the Surveyor of Taxes, who appeared on the part of the Crown, the person said to be liable appearing in his own defence, and the Commissioners acting as Judges. By the present clause it was proposed to take that jurisdiction away from the local authorities, and hand it over to the Revenue Commissioners at Somerset House. But it was suggested that the person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should have an appeal to the Quarter Sessions. But had the Committee any idea of the cost of an appeal at Quarter Sessions? Why, in the case of a person occupying a £10 house, it would, in proportion to his means, amount to a very serious tax. He could not understand why the Committee should be called upon to pass words that would effect an alteration in the way in which taxes were levied in this country. If it was the intention to alter the existing law, let it be done in a plain and open manner, and not by the introduction of words which left people in ignorance of the real change effected. He maintained that the value of the house should be ascertained by the Commissioners of Taxes for the district or division in which the brewer resided.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 35, to leave out all words after "by" to the end of Clause, and insert "Commissioners of Land and Income Tax for the district or division in which the brewer resides."—(Mr. Hicks.)
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the Commissioners of Income Tax were the very persons to deal with this question, as they had to deal with houses now assessed for the House Tax. It would cost the parties nothing to appeal to them; whereas if they went to Quarter Sessions, there would be a great expense.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would be quite contrary to the views of the Government that there should be any dis-

  1161
  advantage in point of cost of appeal. He would take care there should be no ground for the objection just stated by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks), so far as expense was concerned.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, it was very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say there would be no expense; but he did not think he could prevent it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HICKS: No, Sir; I have not withdrawn my Amendment, and do not intend to do so. I hold the appeal should be to the Local Commissioners, as at present.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would substitute the words "Commissioners of Land and Income Tax" for "Court of Quarter Sessions," as desired by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks).
  MR. HICKSthought the right hon. Gentleman was not aware of the position in which the matter stood at that moment. For a great many years he (Mr. Hicks) had been a Commissioner of Taxes in his own district, and during that period he had, from time to time, been called upon to decide whether houses were or were not liable for Inhabited House Duty. All he asked was that the annual value should be ascertained by the Commissioners of Land and Income Tax.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 37, to leave out the words "and their decision shall be final," in order to insert "But an appeal shall be from their valuation to the Commissioners of Land and Income Tax for the district or division in which the brewer resides, whose decision shall be final."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  COLONEL MAKINSasked if the right hon. Gentleman would insert in a subsequent clause of the Bill a definition of the term "annual value?" A great deal of importance attached to this point. In other Acts of Parliament a clear definition was given to the effect that annual value was the rent which a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay, taking one year with another—and so forth, in the usual form. His object was to ascertain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the annual value referred to in the clause was subject to the ordinary interpretation, and, if not, whether
  1162
  a clause would be brought up for the purpose of defining the term.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It will be subject to the general rule.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Goods liable to a duty of customs or excise may be warehoused in a customs or excise warehouse).
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to add, at the end, the words—
  "And the provisions of section one hundred and fifteen of 'The Spirits Act, 1860,' for remission of duty on spirits accidentally destroyed shall be held not only to the taking them out of store and putting them on board ship, but to any accident happening during the conveyance of such spirits from the store to the ship."
  The object of the Amendment was to remove a great grievance, for, at present, though the duty was remitted when the spirits were destroyed in loading at the store, or in putting into the ship, it was not remitted if the goods had been removed even half-a-dozen yards from the store. Several cases of this kind had been brought under his notice recently by his own constituents. However, as the Treasury thought getting rid of the grievance might lay open the door to fraud, and as lie was unwilling to occupy the time of the Committee at this hour of the morning (2 a.m.), he would not press the Amendment.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he was informed by several hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House that the Prime Minister had agreed that Progress should be reported after Clause 16.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I said exactly the reverse.
  Clause agreed to.
  PART II.—TAXES.
  Clause 20 (Grant of duties of income tax).
  MR. GREGORYdirected the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the deduction of Income Tax on the Indian Four per Cents, which appeared to be at the rate of 6½d. in the pound for the past year.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, he had called attention last year to the case of owners occupying their own land who paid In-

  1163
  come Tax under two Schedules. They paid under Schedule A as owners, and also under Schedule B as occupiers. The grievance to which he had drawn attention had become very much aggravated since last year, when he had pointed out that there were many thousand acres of land in the country lying unoccupied and thrown upon the owners' hands. The amount of unoccupied laud, unfortunately, had largely increased since last year. He had had a Return got out for the year 1880, and he found that there were 20,000 acres in the county of Bedford unoccupied; and although the owners received relief under Schedule B by the Act of last Session, which extended to owners occupying their own lands the power of appeal previously conceded to occupiers, there was no power on the part of the Government to give it under Schedule A. He should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take this matter into consideration, and to see if he could not give the owners the same relief under Schedule A that his Predecessor in Office had given under Schedule B. He did not suppose it would ho possible, or, at any rate, convenient, to import any words into the Act to bring about the alteration; but the case for the relief being given was so clear that he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take the matter in hand. It was perfectly well known that there were hundreds—probably there were thousands—of owners who paid last year Income Tax in respect of land which was unoccupied. There were many clergymen whose glebes were unlet, and although they obtained relief as occupiers, there were no means of obtaining relief as owners. Another hardship in connection with this case was the assessment on which the Income Tax was levied. Legally, it was not the case; but, practically, it was made upon the Poor Rate assessment, which was a relative basis. It was a basis fixed with regard to the relative value of property in each parish or Union. On that basis the assessment in one case might be 100 per cent over the true value, whilst it might not be unjust to the occupiers as between themselves. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter, also, into consideration. With regard to the taxation of unoccupied land, he would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1164
  that this was the only case in which a person was called upon to pay a tax upon an income which was really no income at all.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONmoved to report Progress. This was a very large question, and, no doubt, many hon. Members wished to speak upon it. There was a great deal of distress existing in the country, and the law as it stood at present was felt to be a great grievance—to pay Income Tax under Schedule A upon income that had never been received. Therefore he trusted that, in dealing with the matter, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make them a plain statement. The question was a most difficult one, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not insist upon its being considered now.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Baldwyn Leighton.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry the hon. Member has thought it desirable to make the Motion. There are few Members here to whom the effort of sitting through this Committee is greater than it is to myself; but there is a very solemn obligation resting on me, and that is to do nothing which can in any way interfere with the progress of the great measure which is now before the House—the Irish Land Bill. I hope hon. Members will consent to sacrifice their convenience a little further. This question is one which it would be impossible to settle in a cross-Table conversation here. There has been no Notice given with regard to it, and it is clearly a matter of great complexity and difficulty. [Sir BALDWYN LEIGHTON: The question of Schedule A?] Yes. The question of Schedule B was comparatively simple, and that has been settled; and with regard to Schedule A, I am perfectly ready to consider any statement which may be made to me with regard to the circumstances referred to by the hon. Member (Mr. Magniac). I do not say it is not perfectly fair—looking at the present state of things in the country—to bring the matter forward; but I am sure it would be impossible, without a great deal of consideration, to make such an examination of the question as it deserves and requires. When we consider that we are to adopt prin-

  1165
  ciples, not only applicable to the peculiar circumstances of the present time, but applicable to all circumstances and to all time; and when we consider that there is a large quantity of land in the country held for the purpose of sport and not for the purpose of trade, we at once see how difficult the question is. It will require great consideration to do justice to it, and I am sure it would not be possible for us at present to settle it on a new basis.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLhoped his hon. Friend would stick to his Amendment, and not be intimidated by the clamour around him. This was an important Bill, and when, at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock, a Motion was made to report Progress, the Prime Minister and the Government coolly proposed to the Committee to go through the Bill, because they had another legislative measure which must come on on a particular day at their command. ["Oh, oh!" "and" Divide!"] Hon. Members might go on with these interruptions as long as they liked; but he would point out to them that they were only wasting time. There never was such a demand made upon the House before—that because the Government had a legislative measure of greater or less importance to pass, therefore the House of Commons was to be kept sitting until 3 or 4 in the morning in order to pass another Bill, and no proposal to report Progress was to be considered. Never before had a Prime Minister endeavoured to pass off such conduct on an Opposition. For the sake of principle—[Laughter.]—hon. Members seemed to think there was no principle involved in dealing with the finances of the country at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning; but what would have been said of the Conservative Government if it had attempted to do this? For the sake of principle, and as a protest against the voting of money in Money Bills at a quarter past 2 in the morning, he hoped the Motion would be pressed.
  MR. WARTONfelt it to be his duty to support the Motion for reporting Progress. He felt the appeal—the almost personal appeal—of the Premier, who said that, though it was extremely inconvenient for him to sit up, he would sit up to any time if necessary. But he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it was not necessary for him
  1166
  to sit up. They were to have a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and were promised an exciting day in the discussion of the Irish arrests, in which the constituents of many hon. Members took a great deal of interest. The Prime Minister had given the opportunity for the discussion; but they did not know whether the matter could be disposed of in the five hours which would be available at the Morning Sitting, and whether they might not be asked to sit up all night to-morrow, as they were doing now. Of course, he did not know whether they would sit up all night to-morrow; but he was looking on this as a matter of principle, and, consequently, contemplated that which possibly might occur. If the Government chose to bring in a large number of Bills, more than they could conveniently carry, they must take the consequence. If they were to pass the great Land Law of Ireland, somehow modified to suit the feelings of Members in different parts of the House, well and good; but the Government should give up some of their Bills. The sooner they gave up the Bribery Bill, the Ballot Bill, and the Bankruptcy Bill—the sooner they gave up the "three B's" in favour of the "three F's"—the better. It was too much to expect of hon. Members that they would put themselves to inconvenience to pass a whole host of measures which were not required by the country. Hon. Members opposite had objected very much to what they called the "Imperialism" of the late Government; but there was a worse word, which could be aptly used in connection with the present Government, and that was "imperiousness."
  MR. DODDSsaid, there were a considerable number of Amendments yet to be disposed of, but all of them had reference to those parts of the Bill relating to Probate and Legacy Duty, and he was sure it would not take longer to dispose of them than the time it would occupy the Chairman in reading them. The Amendments were mere formal matters, and he saw no reason why the Bill should not be gone through in another 10 minutes. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No;" but he said. "Yes." He challenged contradiction when he said that there was not one Amendment which, unless it were for the purpose of wasting the time of the Committee, would take more than five

  1167
  minutes to dispose of. He hoped the Motion for reporting Progress would be withdrawn.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, the answer of the Primo Minister entirely corroborated what he had said, because the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the question of the payment of Income Tax under Schedule A was so important that it could hardly be discussed across the Table of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, no.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that.
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend has entirely misunderstood me. This is a proposal to introduce an entirely new method of dealing with the Income Tax; and the question is, whether the owners of land shall be excused for paying the tax in regard to that part of their property which is unoccupied, and for which they do not realize anything. This is a large and difficult question, which will have to be carefully considered. There is no proposal before me; and what I say is, that I cannot undertake to discuss the question, under the circumstances, at the present moment. The matter may be opened up on some future occasion, and we may have to ask the House to deal with it. With regard to the statement of the noble Lord as to my supposed declaration with reference to reporting Progress, what I really said was that, so far as I was aware, there was no question after Clause 16 that was a contested question.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, the Prime Minister had misunderstood the remarks which had fallen from him. He had made a definite proposal, and it was one which need not delay the passage of the Bill for one minute. He had requested the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not deal with Schedule A as his Predecessor had dealt with Schedule B. He hoped the Government would consider the matter, and, if possible, do something without delay; but if, at the beginning of next Session, he found that nothing had been done, he would himself make some proposal on the subject.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was responsible for some of the Amendments to subsequent clauses of the measure; but he could not flatter himself that they would all be agreed to. If he thought
  1168
  they would, he should be easy in his mind; but he was afraid that some of them might lead to discussion. He did not wish to delay the Bill for a moment, and he therefore hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Motion. He, for one, was willing to go on with the Bill.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think it a great crime on the part of the Committee to move to report Progress. The Government had wasted three months of this Session with the Coercion Bill, and if the Prime Minister now found it necessary for him to keep up during a large portion of the night to pass this Bill, he must remember that he had only himself and the Chief Secretary to blame; and when he appealed to the House he must remember that there was a section it was quite in vain to appeal to. It was quite in vain to appeal to men of his (Mr. Healy's) way of thinking, anyhow; and, so long as they could not get a civil answer from any Member of the Government, it would continue to be in vain. So long, moreover, as their countrymen continued to be arrested it would be in vain. These arrests would never be forgotten in Ireland—never.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEbelieved a great many hon. Members wished to express their opinion of the clause of the Bill at which they had arrived. The clause dealing with Schedule A was a most important one, especially to people in the country. He had every sympathy for the state of health of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he was sure most hon. Members would agree with him in thinking that he ought to be in bed. He (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) fully, also, sympathized with the right hon. Gentleman in the sense of duty which induced him to ask them to continue the discussion of the Bill to-night; but, at the same time, he must point out that the argument on which the request for continued sitting was based had no effect whatever on that (the Opposition) side of the House. They did not see the force of these measures before the House.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwould make an appeal to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman saw the position in which the Committee was now placed—he saw that it was absolutely impossible to go on with the Bill. The question was, was it wise to

  1169
  persevere? The right hon. Gentleman did not come down to the House very often during the time the late Government were in power; but if he had he would have seen what little support the Government got from the Opposition. It was now nearly half - past 2 in the morning, and, considering that they had to come down again at 2 in the afternoon, it was unreasonable to ask them to proceed with the Bill. His only anxiety was to promote the Business of the country, and he certainly did not think that the way to promote Business was to remain there wrangling at half-past 2 in the morning.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, there was another point made by the Prime Minister beyond those which had been mentioned by previous speakers, which appeared to him a very weak one. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the Committee to do nothing to interfere with the great Irish Land Bill. But the great Irish Land Bill now before the House was not a good measure. It was very complicated—no doubt, a good measure for the lawyers; but for the people of Ireland—
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is in Order in mentioning the provisions of that Bill?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order in mentioning the provisions of the Irish Land Bill.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had said all he had to say on that subject. The hon. Gentleman near him (Mr. Healy) had mentioned another matter to which he (Mr. Biggar) wished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant and the Prime Minister. The hon. Member had referred to the conduct of the Chief Secretary towards the Irish Members; and he thought that if the right hon. Gentleman were to get a caution from the Prime Minister with regard to his general behaviour and his duty, the House would be able to get along more smoothly, and Irish Members would be more inclined to assist the Government. At present they were in this position. It was nearly 3 o'clock in the morning; they had to hear the opening speech of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) with regard to the Irish arrests, and they had to come down to the House at 2 o'clock in the afternoon to continue the discussion. All
  1170
  this was rendered necessary—as the Irish Members alleged—through the misconduct of the Chief Secretary. All these difficulties had arisen through the action of the Government; and an appeal of this kind, therefore, certainly came with a bad grace from the Treasury Bench. The question before the Committee in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill was one of considerable difficulty, and he failed to see on what grounds the Government could ask them to go into the discussion at this hour. The thing could not be done. He had had some little experience in the last Parliament of matters of this sort, and he had never seen any good to anyone come out of an attempt on the part of the Government to force on Business at such an hour, against the will of a large section of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONEagreed to Progress being reported, finding a section of the House—though, he believed, a very small section—determined to impede the progress of the Committee. He tendered his most sincere thanks to hon. Gentlemen who had offered to sacrifice their own convenience on this occasion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.— [BILL 126.]
  (Mr. John Holms, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. J. Holms.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Healy.)
  MR. J. HOLMSappealed to hon. Members to allow the House to go into Committee on this Bill, which had already received the sanction of the House.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken wanted to put the House off the scent. Irish Business of urgent importance had to be brought before the House to-night, and Irish Members had been waiting for hours. Two hours ago they would have been justified in asking that other Business should cease.
  MR. R N. FOWLERsaid, he believed this Bill was not opposed, and he hoped the Motion for going into Committee would be acceded to.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 80: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 209.)
  MR. BIGGARbegged to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. HEALYrose to second the Motion, but
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member for Wexford, having already moved the adjournment of the debate, was out of Order in seconding the present Motion.
  No other hon. Member rising to second the Motion, it was not put.
  Original Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 79; No 1: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 210.)
  Main Question "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Healy.)
  MR. BIGGARsaid, there was room for an enormous deal of alteration and amendment in the Bill. It was a Bill that ought not to have passed the second reading, as it did, without discussion. He supported the adjournment, in order to have an opportunity of looking the Bill over.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORhoped the Government would not put the Committee to the trouble of a division. He should vote against them if they did. Eleven hours from the present time there was to be a Morning Sitting, when Members from Ireland were to bring before the House a most important Motion, dealing with the whole question of the Irish Executive, and some of them required a little preparation.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that this was a purely formal matter. The Bill had previously been assented to, and the names to be submitted were those of gentlemen of high position in the City of London. The selection had been
  1172
  made without reference to politics, but solely with reference to their practical knowledge of the City of London; and he appealed to the House to allow the Motion to pass.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsympathized with hon. Members who desired not to be detained; and if this Bill had been allowed to go through Committee, instead of occupying half-an-hour, it would not have occupied a minute.
  MR. CALLANappealed to the hon. Member for Cavan to allow the Bill to go on.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him there was something very peculiar under this Bill; and he thought they ought to have the names before them before going on with it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 78: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 211.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
  MR. O'DONNELLhoped the Government would concede what was asked. He observed that when the Liberals were in Opposition the iniquity of the Land Tax was a fertile theme of indignant denunciation; but now the House was told that this Bill could be passed through without oven the preliminary communication to the House of the names of the Commissioners to be appointed. It was not creditable on the part of the Liberals to treat the question in that manner; and he hoped the Government would accede to the request, and hasten on to the Motion which the Irish Members had at heart. It did not show a great amount of courage on the part of the Government to persist in forcing opposition to the Irish question at such an hour in the morning. He did not wish to carry his opposition to the length of endeavouring to throw out the Bill; but he thought it should be brought on at another time, and that no further opposition should be advanced against the discussion of the Irish Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think everyone is aware that we might now have been hearing the hon. Member for Long-

  1173
  ford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) but for the Motions which have been made. No one doubts that if the usual course had been adopted, the Bill before us would have passed as a matter of course. It has been very late for some hours for the hon. Member to bring forward his Motion, but he will be able to speak in reply afterwards; and if the hon. Member who has just sat down thinks I intend to take an advantage I will state that, wishing myself to be prepared to take part in the debate to-day, I shall go to bed.
  MR. HEALYthought that as the spirit of contention had left the House they might proceed more quietly. He pointed out that at half-past 2 the right hon. Gentleman on the opposite side had moved that the Speaker should leave the Chair; and he stated that the Irish Members were determined, when matters of this kind were brought on at that hour in the morning, to oppose them. There was not the slightest necessity for the Government to go on with this measure, and it was they who delayed Business. Whenever an appeal was made to the Irish Members under such circumstances, they would be obliged to remind the Government that they had wasted three months of the Session in legislation of a most invidious character; and when Motions of this kind were made at 2 o'clock in the morning, he should exhaust his rights as far as he could in opposition.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 77: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 212.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
  MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had informed him that he would be obliged to go home and postpone his Motion, if he (Mr. Healy) persisted in dividing the House. If he could see his way out of that difficulty he would stop all night; but if Motions to take such measures at that time were made, he should pursue the same course as he now had.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MOTIONS.

  MOTION OF CENSURE.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY,in rising to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the action of the Irish Executive in arbitrarily arresting a Member of the House without reasonable ground; in proclaiming a state of siege in Dublin; in imprisoning the Rev. Mr. Sheehy and many other men of high character and good conduct; and in affording the use of the armed forces of the Crown for the wholesale execution of wanton and cruel evictions is an abuse of the exceptional powers conferred by Parliament; and is calculated to promote disaffection in Ireland;"
  said, he thought most Members of the House would agree that hardly ever had anyone risen to address an Assembly like this under conditions of such great disadvantage. The main object one might have in stating a case of this kind was almost entirely frustrated by the lateness of the hour and the thinness of the House, and by a natural objection to keeping too long an unwilling audience; while the Minister of State to whom he wished particularly to appeal had been in such a hurry to get away from his duties that he had gone home to bed, and left the House to manage affairs as best they could without him. Under those circumstances, he should not make a lengthy statement of the case he had to urge against the Government. The points he wished to state were those set forth in the Motion. The Irish Members contended that the arrest of Mr. Dillon was an act of unspeakable discredit to the Government, and an act which would discredit the Government so long as they remained in power. They had heard some extraordinary casuistry not long ago with regard to the complaint that the Government had arrested Mr. Dillon in order to remove out of their way a political opponent who was coming to oppose them in the House. It was well known to all his Colleagues that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had announced in Dublin his intention to come to the House to expose the results of the policy of the Government in Ireland in enforcing evictions by the aid of military and police. He said—"We shall make an attempt in the House of Commons next week to expose the policy of the Government;" and those who

  1175
  knew the hon. Member knew that when he said "we are going" to do something, he was not likely to mean that he was going to send someone else to do it, and to remain away himself. It was, indeed, a matter of perfect notoriety that he was hurrying to the House of Commons. They were asked by the Prime Minister to prove that; they were bidden to produce their legal evidence; and the Head of the Government, who invented and applied the principle of reasonable suspicion, called upon them to give legal proof that Mr. Dillon had used the words ascribed to him, and had announced the intention which those words would imply. It was a discreditable act on the part of the Government to arrest a political opponent in order to remove him from an important discussion, and they charged the Government with having arrested him without any reasonable ground whatever. They had the word of the Chief Secretary that one of the Judges had declared that Dublin was in a state of exceptional tranquillity; and that because two speeches were made at a meeting by persons whose names it was, apparently, not worth his while to mention, a City containing 200,000 or 300,000 persons was deprived of its liberty. This was another of their charges against the Government. They charged them with having acted discreditably, unjustly, and most unwisely in the arrest of a Catholic clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Sheehy, and other men of good conduct and high character. These arrests were increasing every day. Only to-night they had heard of one other case of arrest; but in arresting a Catholic clergyman the Government had taken a new and an ill-omened departure. Never—at all events, in the time of living man—never, since the worst and most evil days of English rule in Ireland, was a Catholic clergyman arrested on such a charge—nay, on no charge whatever put into tangible form, only on "reasonable suspicion"—and confined in prison. He should have liked to ask the (Thief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, if he were here, whether he would pledge himself, when he came to enter on the defence of the Government, to give distinctly the nature of the charge on which this clergyman had been arrested—not to escape by reading the technical terms of the Warrant, which
  1176
  conveyed nothing to anyone's mind, but to give them an idea as a statesman, if he had any notion of what the duties of a statesman were, of the offence they were prepared to charge him with before Parliament and the country. The right hon. Gentleman had told them more than once that these arrests were not intended to put down the Land League; and only the other day the Prime Minister had repeated that statement. The Prime Minister had said there was no intention on the part of the Government to put down the Land League, or to put down popular agitation; and he added that neither priest nor layman had been arrested by the Government because he was a member of the Land League, or because he was a supporter of the Land League, or because he had taken part in any popular agitation, even though that agitation might, sometimes, have gone beyond the bounds of that which the Government considered reasonable and consistent with public safety. Well, they had this distinct declaration, that for no speeches made on behalf of the Land League, and for no support given to it, but for something different and much more grave, this Roman Catholic clergyman had been arrested and consigned to imprisonment. See the immense importance of this. Was this clergyman charged with a crime? Were they to understand that the Government believed they could make some charge against him so serious as to amount to actual criminality, and yet, having the knowledge they believed themselves to possess, the public were to learn actually nothing of the grounds of the arrest? Did any hon. Member of the House really believe that the Irish public would for a moment think that the Rev. Mr. Sheehy was guilty of anything like an offence? He had not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Sheehy, but he knew many who were well acquainted with him, and he knew how high his character stood. No priest stood on better terms or higher with his people, and no accusation that the Government could make would, for a single moment, prevail against him. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had noticed the significant fact that immediately on the arrest of Mr. Sheehy his place in the local division of the Land League was taken by another Roman Catholic

  1177
  clergyman. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) wondered whether that fact conveyed to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the difficulties of the situation he was creating for himself. He wondered whether he was prepared to go on arresting clergyman after clergyman. For he could assure him—or he would if he were listening—that nothing was more certain than that the Irish clergymen would stand together, man to man; that they would be deterred by no menaces; that they would be stayed by no punishment the Government could inflict; that they would hold by their order, by their country, by their people, and their principles; that such arrests as that of Mr. Sheehy would make them more firmly resolved to stand by the people than they were before; and that the right hon. Gentleman had raised up an enemy of whose strength and enduring power and patriotic resolve to resist arbitrary rule he had no idea whatever. That was another of their charges against the Government. Then, he charged against the Government the issue of that most extraordinary, that most unparalleled secret Circular of which they had heard for the first time within the past few days. During the whole course of his experience ho had never known, he had never heard, of any such Circular being issued by an English Government. To.-night, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, on the spur of the moment, as soon as the Questions on the Paper were over, offered to answer a Question on the subject, he was fully under the impression that the document was a fabrication—he was conconvinced that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to rise, in order, triumphantly, to announce that the Government knew nothing whatever about the Circular. How great, then, was his surprise when he heard the Chief Secretary, in his place, admit his knowledge of the document, and declare that he had authorized its publication. What was this secret Circular which had been distributed for the guidance of the Irish police? It said—
  "This document is not to leave the hands of the County Inspectors to whom it is addressed, and must be kept under lock and key. Any orders given to insure the instructions in it being carried out must be communicated verbally"—
  He supposed the word meant was
  1178
  "orally," the Chief Secretary appearing to be under the impression that things were not written as well as spoken. "verbally."—
  "when practicable, to sub-inspectors, head, and other constables, as emanating from the County Inspectors themselves."
  That was to say, the Chief Secretary deliberately authorized the issue of instructions which amounted to nothing less than the conveying of false statements to their officials. He would not road the whole of the Circular now. No doubt, there would be abundant opportunity at the next Sitting of the House to comment upon it; but those who read it through would see that it was a most direct incitement to the police to become "reasonably suspicious." It expressed wonder and anger that the police had not suspected a great many more people; it showed the Inspector General at a loss to understand how the police officers could declare that they had no "reasonable suspicion" of all their neighbours; and then it appealed to these officials, at the end, in words that sounded more like those of a military proclamation than of an address to a civil force, to wipe out the disgrace upon their efficiency owing to their lack of suspicion, and to be energetically "up and doing," striving to redeem their honour by the arrest of as many persons as possible. They were reproached and denounced for not having suspected more liberally the people amongst whom they lived. One was reminded, in this matter, of the lines of the Elizabethan poet—
  —"Have you eyes,
  And can you not suspect? Peer closely in—There's not a neighbour, be he ne'er so good, But cunning looks shall spy some speck or stain To justify accusers."
  These were the last words of the Circular—
  "The Inspector General can only express an earnest hope that the energies of both officers and men will be used to wipe out what must necessarily appear to those unacquainted with the difficulties they have to contend with to be a reproach to their efficiency as preservers of the peace and detectors of crime."
  Now, there were only two explanations of that Circular—either the one that was obvious on the face of it, that the police were to be goaded on, bullied on, to new suspicions and new arrests; or that the Government had reason to believe that the police, so long loyal to the rule of the Crown, could no longer be relied on

  1179
  when it became a question of a struggle between the landlord class and the peasant class, from whom the constabulary had, for the most part, sprung. He wished the House had an opportunity of seeing that document translated into French. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was a great proficient in the French language; and if he would give them a version in French, he doubted whether the consciences of the most docile supporters of the Government on the other side of the House would approve of such a Circular in the language of the Second Empire of France. He wished they had heard of something like it from Russia. With what virtuous indignation they would all have stormed at the baseness of that despotic Power, which stooped to paltry tricks of this kind to make its heavy hand more heavily felt throughout the country! That, then, was another of the charges they wished to formulate against the Government. But, more than that, they charged against the Irish Executive that their action—
  "In affording the use of the armed forces of the Crown for the wholesale execution of wanton and cruel evictions is an abuse of the exceptional powers conferred by Parliament, and is calculated to promote disaffection in Ireland."
  Events within the last few days had shown what a result had come from the recent policy of the Government—how nearly, indeed, they had brought them to that civil war which the Prime Minister told them, some time ago, they had come within measurable distance of—how an agrarian war, in which class was against class, had been forced on the country. They had, lately, had scenes of desperate violence in Ireland; and it was remarkable that in one case the blood which, otherwise, would most certainly have been shed, was prevented from being shed by the heroic exertions of two or three members of that order to which belonged the Rev. Father Sheehy, whom the Government had now committed to gaol. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, when he came to make his defence, to tell them what he had got by his coercive measures in Ireland. He could not say that he had been allowed to impose them without warning. There was not an Irish Member—at least, on
  1180
  that side of the House—who spoke during all those long debates on the coercive measures who did not tell him that the inevitable result would be to increase fourfold the crime and outrage in Ireland. The result they had foretold was now manifest. The right hon. Gentleman had taken away many of the most influential leaders of the people; he had forced many classes into the hands of conspiracy; he had given a new charter and lease of life to midnight organization. Speaking with a most complete sense of the meaning of the words, and the responsibility attaching to them, he could not help saying that no greater calamity ever happened, in our time at least, than the fatal resolve of the Government to open this Session with the Coercion Bill. Then, indeed, whatever good genius the Administration had seemed to have deserted it. He used plain expressions, because he did not think it worth while to waste the time that would be needed for the purpose of qualifying the terms used to describe the policy of the Government. He described that policy in the language it deserved. The Irish Members had been admonished several times in the House that they ought to be courteous and civil in their dealings with the Government. The Prime Minister himself had admonished them more than once. The right hon. Gentleman, if he might be allowed to say so, was the Sir Anthony Absolute of the House of Commons. In a tempest and torrent of invective he reminded them of the necessity of keeping cool and collected; in a wild burst of excitement he told them they must keep their tempers; and, metaphorically, flourishing his staff round their heads, he vowed that nothing they could say should put him into a passion. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) should bear the right hon. Gentleman's admonition in mind, and never speak of the policy of the Government in, terms stronger than the barest and baldest description. These, then, were the charges they had to make against the Government. He had stated them in the barest form. They would be enlarged upon to-morrow in terms more effective than any he could use, and he hoped the Chief Secretary would give something like a clear and distinct answer to each of the charges. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he really had a settled policy

  1181
  with regard to Ireland; whether he knew where he was going; whether he knew where he was drifting, yielding more and more to the suggestions of the officials of Dublin Castle; and whether he had ever asked himself what was to be the end of the strange and hateful policy into which he had launched? If he were here, he would have asked him to tell them candidly one thing more. They had heard many times from those who knew the officials in Dublin Castle that an opinion had long prevailed, amongst some of them at least, that there was a certainty, sooner or later, of an armed insurrection in Ireland. What he wanted to know was this. He did not accuse the Chief Secretary of any suggestion of the kind, he did not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would harbour the thought for one moment; but would he tell them whether in the minds of some of the officials of Dublin Castle there did not lurk the idea that it would be a better thing for all purposes and for all people to force on this crisis, so as to have the means of crushing it down with arms? He should urge an answer to this question. He did not believe that the Chief Secretary had any such idea, nor that the Prime Minister harboured it; but he wanted to have the question answered—whether there was not evidence which made it seem that such an idea did linger in the minds of some of the officials of Dublin Castle, and that the policy they now saw put in force was the result of an attempt to bring this crisis to a head, in order that force might be used to crush out every effort and movement on behalf of a distracted people? He should press for an answer to that question; and, perhaps, some Colleague of the now slumbering Chief Secretary would inform him, to-morrow, that the suggestion had been made, and that a direct reply was earnestly desired. At this hour of the morning he should not detain the House any longer. It had been with the greatest unwillingness that he had detained them this length of time; and he would now merely say that this was the case which he had stated, and which his Friends would support to-morrow. He would conclude with one parting piece of advice to the Government—though he did not think they would take much heed of it, as coming from his side of the House and from one of his political creed. His
  1182
  advice was this—they were distinctly drifting more and more to wreck of some kind; and the sooner they made up their minds to throw their Jonah overboard the better.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the action of the Irish Executive in arbitrarily arresting a Member of the House without reasonable gound; in proclaiming a state of siege in Dublin; in imprisoning the Rev. Mr. Sheehy and many other men of high character and good conduct; and in affording the use of the armed forces of the Crown for the wholesale execution of wanton and cruel evictions is an abuse of the exceptional powers conferred by Parliament; and is calculated to promote disaffection in Ireland."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  BOARD SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) TEACHERS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HERBERT MAXWELL, Bill to confer upon Teachers of Board Schools in Scotland the right of appeal from the decisions of School Boards in cases of removal from office, ordered to be brought in by Sir HERBERT MAXWELL and Mr. ORR EWING.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Four o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Irish Jury Laws, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Fugitive Offenders (91).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* (79); Bridges (South Wales)* (83).
Third Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Clay Lane)* (69); Inclosure Provisional Order (Scotton and Ferry Common* (64); Regulation Provisional Order (Langbar Moor), now Commons Regulation Provisional Order (Langbar Moor)* (63); Regulation Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor), now Commons Regulation Provisional Order (Beamsloy Moor)* (62); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (65); Inclosure Provisional Order (Wibsey Slack and Low Moor Commons)* (71), and passed.

FUGITIVE OFFENDERS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving that the Bill be now read a first time, said, that in 1843 an Act was passed to furnish means of following fugitive offenders who had committed crimes against the law, either in the United Kingdom or in British possessions, to any place to which they might flee within British Dominions; but that Act was limited to treason and felony, and it also did not contain some provisions which experience had shown to be necessary for accomplishing the purposes it was intended to effect. This Bill was intended to provide more effectual means for arresting fugitive criminals, and returning them to the proper place of trial. It was not limited to treason and felony, and it contained a series of clauses applicable to the Colonies, which provided that criminals escaping from one British possession to another might be followed, and sent back to that from which they came. He would only add that the present measure was the result of careful consideration of the subject, both by the late and the present Government, after communication with the different Colonies; and he felt sure, when their Lordships saw its provisions, they would agree that it was a useful and necessary measure. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving the first reading of the Bill.
  Bill to amend the Law with respect to Fugitive Offenders in Her Majesty's Dominions; and for other purposes connected with the trial of offenders—Presented (The LORD CHANCELLOR); read la. (No. 91.)

IRISH JURY LAWS.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,in rising to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Irish jury laws as regards trial by jury in criminal cases,"
  said: My Lords, before I endeavour to state to your Lordships the reasons which have led me to believe that an inquiry into the Irish Jury Laws is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, I wish to make one preliminary observation. I wish to disclaim the idea that I am here to induce your Lordships to affirm, or to affirm myself, that the system of trial by jury in Ireland has broken down in consequence of recent events. I wish to do no more than satisfy your Lordships that these events have shown that there is cause for an inquiry into the working of statutes of comparatively recent origin, statutes which were much discussed in this and the other House of Parliament, and which, as I shall be able to show, were not regarded by many of the highest authorities as affording a final settlement of this important question. I wish also at this stage of my observations to make an admission which may save trouble to many noble Lords who may follow me. I wish to admit at once that if there has been, as I shall show that there has been, a considerable failure of justice in Ireland, if, as was recently stated by the Prime Minister, out of every 33 persons guilty of agrarian crime in that country, one only is brought to justice, while 32 walk abroad unpunished, I wish, I say, to admit that this failure of justice, if we are to have regard to the number of cases in which it has occurred, is to be explained much more by the fact that it is often difficult or impossible to obtain evidence outside the Court than with reference to any proved delinquencies of the juries themselves. This obvious that you may have 12 immaculate jurymen; but you will fail in obtaining a conviction if, o wing to the state of public feeling, evidence as to the facts is not forthcoming. Upon this point, however, I will venture to observe
  1034
  that, scandalous as may be the deliberate suppression of evidence by those who are in a position to give it, and deplorable as is the failure of justice thus occasioned, the failure is more scandalous still, and the affront to justice more public, and therefore more mischievous, in those cases where evidence has been obtained, but where, from the ignorance or perversity of the jury, the criminal has escaped the punishment due to him. Recent legislation has dealt with those cases where evidence sufficient to secure a conviction is not to be obtained. The inquiry which I ask your Lordships to institute will determine whether there are not other cases in which some remedy is called for to deal, not with the impossibility of obtaining evidence, but with the miscarriage of justice—the returning of improper verdicts, or perhaps of no verdicts at all, owing to the character and surroundings of the persons who, under the present law, are admitted to the jury-box in Ireland. I will not attempt to discuss the origin of the jury system, or to trace its development. I will confine myself to what may be called its modern history in Ireland, which may be said to begin from a period dating back about 10 years. It was in the month of May, 1871, that the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan), whom I am glad to see in his place, brought this subject under the notice of your Lordships' House. He complained of the existing jury system, and he founded his complaint, in the main, upon two facts. First he complained of the procedure, and then he complained of the existing qualifications for service on the jury. The noble and learned Lord showed to your Lordships that the procedure under which juries were selected was open to objection, upon the ground that the selection was entirely in the hands of the sub-sheriff, and that there were reasons for believing that these officials had in some cases made an improper use of their discretion, with the result that public confidence in the institution of trial by jury had in particular districts been considerably shaken. With regard to the qualifications of the jury, the noble and learned Lord was able to show that the old qualification—a freehold and leasehold qualification—was an obsolete one, and that under it a very limited number of persons were liable to be called on to serve. The noble and

  1035
  learned Lord introduced to your Lordships' House a measure dealing with these two points in the Jury Laws of Ireland; and he proposed, in the first place, to substitute for the old system of selection by the sheriff, a new system of alphabetical rotation of service, and a rating qualification which he fixed at £30. These proposals were very well received, and the Bill passed rather rapidly through both Houses of Parliament. In the Lower House the rating qualification was lowered to £20. Now, it must certainly be admitted that these changes in the law were attended with some good results. The supply of jurors, which had often been quite inadequate, became sufficient; the burden of service was more evenly distributed, and in particular the suspicion which had undoubtedly in some cases attached to the system of selection by the sheriff was got rid of—the suspicion, I mean, that in some instances the juries had been packed for political or other purposes. The Act of 1871, however, had consequences more far-reaching than these. To use the words of the noble and learned Lord, it revolutionized the character of Irish juries by opening the box to a class which had for generations been jealously precluded from any interference with the Courts of Justice. The Act did undoubtedly have this effect. Nor can it be denied that, if in the composition of a jury we are to have regard exclusively to the degree in which the panel represents popular opinion in the district from which it is drawn, the Act of 1871 was a signal success. It may, however, I think, be fairly questioned whether a jury panel is a good one in proportion as it represents the popular opinion of the moment and of the neighbourhood, and whether intelligence, independence, and integrity are not more necessary in the jury than strong local sympathies. At any rate, before the Act had been in force many months a general complaint arose that popular representation in the jury-box had been carried a little too far, and that while the Act had certainly provided an abundant supply of jurors, it had not been successful in securing the presence in the box of men of independence and intelligence, or in excluding persons who were very much the reverse of intelligent, and totally devoid of independence. This, at all events, is certain, that after the passing of the Act
  1036
  some very grotesque exhibitions of ignorance on the part of the new jurors, and some very scandalous failures of justice, attracted a large share of public attention to the question. These misgivings found expression in Parliament, and in 1873 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the operation of the new Act. That Committee almost immediately issued a preliminary Report, recommending certain alterations to which effect was given in a temporary Act passed in the same year. Under that temporary Act the qualification was raised, and illiterate persons were precluded from being appointed to serve on juries. That Committee was re-appointed in the following year, and it issued its final Report in 1874. In that Report it was recommended that the qualification should be permanently raised, and that special qualifications should be introduced with a view of bringing a better class of men to serve on the panel. There was also a recommendation that the procedure should be changed in some respects. The recommendations of the Committee of 1874 were not carried out until 1876, when two Bills were passed through Parliament giving effect to them. The qualification is now a freehold qualification of £10 and a leasehold qualification of £20, with a rating qualification of £40 for land, and varying from £20 to £6 for houses. There is, besides, a "special qualification" clause, under which Commissioners, members of public boards, and other persons holding quasi-official positions are liable for service. The noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) had charge of the new Qualification Bill, and he dwelt particularly on the fact that it was calculated to bring on to the jury a better class, whom he described as persons of "station and wealth," who up to that time had not been in the habit of serving on juries. The Acts of 1876 contain the present Irish Jury Law.
  I wish for one moment to pass from these Acts to the evidence given before the two Committees which sat in 1873 and 1874. That evidence contained the opinion of many able men on the subject; and it is impossible to read it without feeling that there existed in the minds of these authorities a very serious apprehension that any system founded on the principles of the Act of 1871 would fail to stand the trial of a period

  1037
  of exceptional difficulty and excitement. That feeling is founded on the anticipation that no merely mechanical selection of the panel under a system of alphabetical rotation would be likely to exclude from the jury-box persons unfit to serve as jurors. Now, when I use the expression mechanical selection of jurors, I am anxious to make my meaning clear, and to do so I will quote a passage from the evidence of Mr. Lefroy, the Chairman of the County of Kildare, who was examined by the House of Commons Committee in 1874. Mr. Lefroy says—
  "I think that the Act making the sheriff as he is now a mere machine is vicious in principle. I think the sheriff should have a certain discretion. I do not mean to say he should have an unlimited discretion, but a discretion with safeguards to prevent its being abused. I am sure it is essential for the due administration of justice, in Ireland especially, that the sheriff should not be bound to pursue the system that the present Act of Parliament suggests, of taking the jurors alphabetically from the jurors' book for his panel. I would in every instance impose on him the duty to return competent men. Now, according to the present system, the sheriff would be bound to return a man in alphabetical arrangement, though he might suspect or even know that he was connected with a Fenian Society."
  Turning to the general evidence taken by the Committees, I find that five learned Judges were examined before them, and that of these no less than four expressed opinions adverse to the new system, and in favour of a return, not, perhaps, to the old method of selection by the sheriff, but to selection of some kind for the purpose of excluding persons unfit to serve as jurymen. Ten Chairmen of counties were called as witnesses. Of these, all recommended some changes in the law, while five were in favour of recurring to the principle of selection. Upon another point the opinion of some of the witnesses examined deserves serious attention; several of them, gentlemen whose opinion is entitled to the highest respect, expressed their doubt whether any alteration of the qualification would enable you to obtain from the farming class jurors able and willing to do their duty in the trial of agrarian cases under circumstances of local or general excitement. Thus Mr. G. Bolton, Crown Solicitor for the County of Tipperary, says—
  "I would be very sorry to depend altogether on the farming class to supply proper jurors for such a county as Tipperary. In some cases it
  1038
  was sympathy with the accused, and in some cases the jurors were influenced by being canvassed by the friends and relatives of the prisoner. The common cry now with regard to jurors when they are being called to serve on the jury is—'Go in and free the boys!' I have been told by a very respectable attorney, who has large experience in defending prisoners at the Assizes, that this is a common phrase."
  Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Senior Crown Prosecutor for the County and City of Dublin, expresses similar opinions—
  "So far as my experience goes, in any case of agrarian outrage, or even in the case of a Faction fight or serious assault occurring between farmers or farmers' sons, and so on, there is very little use in prosecuting in a great portion of the South of Ireland."
  I will not trouble your Lordships with further reference to the evidence of these Committees. I do not think I shall misrepresent it if I say that it discloses the extent of the difficulties under which trial by jury operates in Ireland, and the general opinion of the witnesses that without safeguards not yet devised it was not likely to work satisfactorily in ordinary times, or to stand any exceptional strain.
  Now, I may be told that the Acts of 1876 were intended to introduce such safeguards; and I have to ask the House to consider how far they were successful in introducing them. My own impression certainly is, that while the difficulties with which we have to contend are greater than they ever were, the imperfections of the law remain the same, or have only been removed to a slight extent. What, my Lords, were the weak points disclosed by the investigations of 1873 and 1874? They were, I venture to think, those winch arose out of the merely mechanical formation of the panel, and out of the difficulty of excluding improper persons from the jury-box on the one hand, and, on the other, of attracting to it that better class of juror which the noble and learned Lord desired to enlist. The law has been altered; but I believe that I am justified in stating that, in spite of the sheriff's oath which binds him to return "due panels of persons able and sufficient, and not suspected or procured," the formation of the panel is still very much what Mr. Lefroy described it to be. I believe that it is still impossible to exclude from the jury-box persons entirely unfitted to serve as jurors; and I believe, further, that those "persons of wealth and sta-

  1039
  tion," of whom the noble and learned Lord spoke five years ago, still habitually fail to take their share of service on the jury. I should like to say one word in regard to the abstention of those "persons of wealth and station." How does it come to pass that those persons do not take their share in the public service? The procedure of than Jury Act contemplates the liability to service of every such person, and the imposition of a fine upon any person not in his place, when called on in the Court to serve. That is the theory; the practice, however, is very different. In the first place, from the limited number of those persons of superior position who are in theory liable to serve on petty juries you must deduct all who are liable to serve on Grand Juries or as special jurors. That weeds out a considerable number of the better class of jurors. As to those who are not taken far the Grand Jury, or for special juries, I fear we cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that such persons are, as a rule, not very anxious to do their duty as jurors, or to be shut up for hours in the box with farmers and tradesmen for their colleagues, and that many of them make up their minds to shirk service. The simplest way to do so is not to go to Court at all. In such case they are liable to fines, and take their chance of obtaining the remission or reduction of the fines, by sending some plausible excuse for non-attendance. But supposing such a juror does attend the Court. I am told that this is what usually occurs—the juror does not answer to his name when the list is called over; and if a sufficient number answer, a jury is formed and he escapes. If, however, a sufficient number do not answer, the names are called a second time, and fines are imposed on those who do not reply. Now, it is obvious that if the fine is not a very large one it would act as a deterrent only on the humbler class of persons, and that those in a wealthy position would run their chance, knowing almost certainly that by the imposition of a fine the sheriff would be successful in obtaining a sufficient number to make up a jury. Thus, by a sort of natural selection, the better class of jurors are saved from service, and the juries are formed of the residuum of less educated and presumably less qualified persons. This, I believe, is a not
  1040
  unfair description of the working of the Irish Jury Laws. We should then ask ourselves what sort of strain those laws are now subject to, and how they are standing it. I shall be very reluctant to enter at any length upon a discussion of the unfortunate state into which during the last few months Ireland has lapsed; and I am indeed relieved from dealing with it because, only a few days ago, the subject was discussed in this House at the instance of the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Midleton). During that discussion the Lord Privy Seal, a high authority on all that concerns Ireland, said—
  "Noble Lords opposite had not sufficiently weighed the difficulties which any Government in Ireland would have to encounter in dealing with the present widespread combination against the payment of rent. Those difficulties were, in fact, far greater than any which had arisen under the various other organizations which from time to time held sway in the country. The more sanguinary and dangerous Ribbon organization was limited in its area and its numbers; and when certain of its leaders were arrested, as under the provisions of the Westmeath Act, its pourer was broken. The present agitation was more far-reaching in its effects.… From causes lying deep in its history, the peasants and tenants of Ireland were very much in the habit of following each other blindly in any cause, good or bad, which happened to come to the front. The phrase—'We cannot go against the people' was one familiar to everyone acquainted with Ireland."
  That statement points to the existence of a widespread and dangerous organization, and of complete demoralization caused by it. We have an epidemic of crime—I think there were about 1,000 agrarian offences in the first four months of the year—an epidemic which has shown dangerous recrudescence during the last few weeks—crime of the kind which Sir George Cornwall Lewis characterized as exemplary or preventive crime—crime the effect of which does not begin and end in the criminal and his victim, but which is designed to enforce by its terrors the unwritten law set up against the law of the land. From that crime no class of society can escape. The noble Lord opposite dwelt upon that peculiarity of the present state of things, and pointed out that even the auctioneer at his desk, the trader at his counter, the schoolmaster at his school, the doctor in his dispensary, are followed up by this remorseless terrorism and the social ostracism, which has been successful in terrifying persons who have known

  1041
  how to hold their own against the mere fear of physical danger. From that state of things are jurors likely to escape unscathed? Can we avoid the conclusion that they, too—drawn, as they are, from the farming class, or from classes intimately associated with it—are liable to the same contagion, the same pressure and prejudice? I do not say this on my own authority alone; I can point to the utterances of Her Majesty's Ministers and of the learned Judges on the subject. I will take, for instance, the description given by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. On the 24th of January that right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The Solicitor General for Ireland has alluded to a very flagrant case. We all remember the outrageous and wicked murder of young Mr. Boyd. Even in that case, my hon. and learned Friend had to apply for the postponement of the trial at Waterford, because out of a panel of 205 jurors only 118 answered to their names. And why? Because they dared not come. There were affidavits produced giving the grounds of their fears. I do not expect hon. Members to pay much attention to my opinion on that point; but what did the learned Judge say at the time? 'These affidavits are not contradicted. No man professing to be acquainted with the state of feeling in this city has come forward and made an affidavit as to his belief that this apprehension does not exist in the minds of the jurors, that this sense of intimidation does not prevail, or in any manner to suggest that the statements of belief expressed in their affidavits are unfounded.' The learned Judge, consequently, felt he must postpone the trial, and it was postponed."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 1222–3.]
  My Lords, I pass from that to a statement made in your Lordships' House by my noble Friend below me (Earl Spencer) on the 1st of March. My noble Friend said—
  "I am afraid that the same terrorism exercised in the way described in the extracts which I have read has been exercised towards witnesses and juries, so as to render it very difficult to obtain evidence in regard to agrarian crimes, and the difficulty of procuring convictions by juries for those offences is enormous.… I have referred to the Judges, and I hold here a very interesting letter, which was written by one of the County Court Judges of a district in Ireland, and which, I think, illustrates very forcibly how completely the law has been paralyzed. The learned Chairman says—'I had to excuse two jurors who were summoned to attend the Quarter Sessions, and who did not attend on the ground that they could not with safety leave their houses; and one of them sent me a copy of a notice alleged by him to have been posted, warning the public not to give him accommodation in any town of the county … These several facts will prepare you for my opinion
  1042
  that in the present state of the county, particularly in the southern portion, the jurisdiction of my Court is paralyzed.'"—[Ibid., cclviii. 1925–6].
  Now, the testimony of Her Majesty's Ministers is confirmed by that of the learned Judges who have recently had ample opportunities of forming opinions upon the operation of the Jury Laws in Ireland. The first case I will mention occurred at Limerick on the 8th of July, 1880, before Mr. Justice Barry, who was, I think, Solicitor General when Lord O'Hagan was formerly Lord Chancellor. According to the newspaper report—
  "A jury having failed to agree to a verdict, and having been confined to their room for several hours, were called out shortly before the rising of the Court. Judge Barry asked them whether they believed a certain portion of the evidence. Several jurors answered in the affirmative. Judge Barry—Then you must find the prisoner guilty of perjury. Foreman—But we cannot agree, my Lord. Judge Barry—It is a great disgrace to you and the country. It is no affair of mine, but it might concern those who may find it necessary to amend the laws of the country. Foreman—We cannot help it; we cannot agree. There are some for and. some against. Judge Barry—The county of Limerick has become a bye-word in Ireland, owing to the failure of justice which takes place, owing either to men being incapable of understanding the evidence, or determined, for some reason or other, not to act on the evidence. Foreman—Some of the jury perfectly understood the evidence, others did not. Judge Barry—You are discharged."
  Here is another case to which I invite your Lordships' particular attention. Before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, at the Munster Winter Assizes, 1880, a prisoner was tried for posting threatening notices on the piers of the chapel at Tuna, County Clare. Notices had previously been posted and torn down by the police. The chapel was watched, the police being concealed at a distance of 13 paces from the piers, and directly opposite to them. The prisoner was seen to go up to the pier and stop there a short time. The police rushed out; one ran to the pier, and found a freshly-posted notice on it, another caught the prisoner, of whom he had not lost sight for a moment. The prisoner's hands had on them "something like the wet paste used in posting the notice." After an interval of an hour, the foreman intimated that the jury could not agree. His Lordship said—
  "I shall leave the jury in for some time, and if they cannot, or will not, agree, it would be,

  1043
  in my judgment, with the present panel of the City of Cork, a solemn mockery to try the case again. There is a power outside which is preventing jurymen doing their duty."
  On the last day of the Assizes his Lordship addressed the Grand Jury as follows:—
  "Our joint labours have not been productive of very large results, and I confess that in the course of these cases I felt myself very considerably disheartened on two grounds. First, I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that there have been very considerable failures of justice, and failures of justice that I do not hesitate to say have been produced by external influences operating upon some of the jurors. I expressly say some of them, for I think the great body of the jurors were most anxious for the performance of their duties. But no person of sense can fail to see that there were powerful influences operating upon the minds of others in performing their duties. Mr. Hall and gentlemen, this is a very sad thing; indeed, it is one of the most evil things that could happen for the country, for, after all, our civil rights and our criminal liabilities depend upon the fairness of the tribunal that we call the common jury. But the common jurors will not do their duty. If they will let themselves be operated on in the manner described, we have only to leave to those who are wiser than ourselves—the Legislature—to consider whether there should not be some alteration in the system of trial by jury in this country."
  I will take another case. The following is a report of what took place before Mr. Justice Lawson, at Monaghan, on the 12th March, 1880:—
  "Owen Mahon was charged with shooting an idiot. The jury came into Court, and the foreman informed his Lordship that they could not agree to a verdict. His Lordship—Can I assist you in any way, gentlemen. A Juror—We no of opinion that the prisoner did not intentionally commit the crime. His Lordship—There is no doubt in the world about it. If you come to the conclusion that the prisoner shot the deceased you would return a verdict of guilty, for if you believe the evidence it is ample proof of culpable negligence. Now, gentlemen, retire and consider the matter. A Juror—Would your Lordship give us a drink? His Lordship—I would do so Willingly if I could, gentlemen, but I am sorry I cannot. The jury then retired, and in about 10 minutes returned to the Court with a verdict of not guilty, and the prisoner was discharged. A Juror—We have been here three days, my lord, and we should like to get off altogether. His Lordship—Oh, the Assises are over, gentlemen, and if they were not over I would be anxious to have you try another case."
  At Limerick March Assizes, Denis Murphy was tried before Mr. Justice Barry for forcibly retaking possession of promises from which he had been evicted. The jury retired. After a considerable absence they returned into
  1044
  Court, when the foreman announced that there was no chance of an agreement. The report proceeded—
  "His Lordship—You say that there is no chance of an agreement, although the prisoner admitted that he had been put forcibly into possession, and that he has retained possession up to this month. Is that so? Foreman—Yes, my Lord. His Lordship—Well, I can only say it is another of the discreditable scenes that we have witnessed during these Assizes. It is now plain that what has been stated all over Ireland is perfectly true, that trial by jury has become a farce, and in the county of Limerick a mockery; and I, as a Limerick man, say with pain, with regret, and with humiliation, that the parties who come into the jury-box in Limerick are perfectly incapable of understanding evidence, or determined, while understanding it, to violate their oaths and not to act upon them. It must be for those who have the guidance of the Legislature of the country to consider this state of things."
  At the same Assizes James Walsh was indicted on a charge of having conveyed a threatening message regarding the giving up of a farm to a man named Pat Barry, residing near Foynes. The defence was, that the prisoner was obliged, as stated by himself, at the risk of his life to convey the message in obedience to the command of an armed party. His Lordship said that was no defence. The jury acquitted the prisoner. His Lordship said that had climaxed the extraordinary jury scenes which had taken place at the Assizes. Before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, in March, 1881, at Tralee, a prisoner was tried for remaining in forcible possession of a farm, and was acquitted. His Lordship, addressing the jury, said—
  "This is your verdict. All I can say is it is a verdict against the evidence and against your oaths, and if this is persisted in it will sweep away the present jury system."
  My Lords, I must apologize for the length of these extracts and of my statement; but I was anxious to convince the House that my case rested on no idle apprehensions of my own, but upon facts, to the importance of which we cannot shut our eyes. I have endeavoured to show that, from its very inception, the system of trial introduced by the Act of 1871 has been regarded with considerable suspicion by those best able to judge; that the better class of jurors have habitually abstained from taking their share of service; that the class admitted to serve is very much what it was before

  1045
  the Act of 1876; that under the arrangement by which the panel is selected mechanically and in alphabetical rotation there are no means of preventing improper persons serving; that a system of terrorism prevails in many parts of Ireland, and that the classes from which the jurors are drawn are peculiarly liable to that terrorism. Ministers of the Crown and Judges have called attention to the grievous miscarriages of justice which have occurred. I submit that I have made out a case for the appointment of the Committee for which I move. I will only add that in agreeing to the appointment of that Committee your Lordships will in no way be parties to the expression of opinion that trial by jury ought altogether to be superseded. I will not suggest to the House what alternative measures might be taken to deal with these difficulties; but I will enumerate, without discussing them, the expedients to which recourse might be had. There might be a further revision of the qualification of jurors; further steps might be taken to enforce the attendance of jurors of a superior class who now neglect their duties; it might be found desirable to intrust some official with the power of purging the jurors' list in the manner formerly adopted by the sheriff under the old Acts; recourse might be had more often to the use of special jurors; the venue might be more frequently changed when excitement prevails; the verdict of the majority might be taken, as is done in almost every country on the Continent in criminal cases. If it were demonstrated that steps of this kind are not likely to mitigate the existing state of things, the further question might arise whether the summary jurisdiction of existing tribunals might or might not be increased, or whether, in some cases, and in exceptional and temporary circumstances, they might not be superseded by tribunals constituted for the express purpose of dealing with agrarian crime. The Motion on the Paper ought to commend itself equally to those who are dissatisfied and to those who are satisfied with the existing state of the law. It is only just to the former that they should have the opportunity of giving expression to their criticism; and I have no doubt that the latter will be glad of the opportunity of defending and vindicating the system in which their belief is possibly unshaken. Both sides,
  1046
  I am sure, will have but one object in view—namely, to arrive at the truth. It is because I believe that such an inquiry will assist the public in arriving at the truth that I move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the operation of the Irish jury laws as regards trial by jury in criminal cases."—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he was glad his noble Friend had done full justice to the merits of the measure introduced by the Lord Chancellor for Ireland (Lord O'Hagan) for the reform of the Jury Laws in Ireland in 1871. Anyone who had looked into the matter, and knew the condition into which the system had fallen at that time, must recognize that the measure of his noble and learned Friend was a most important and valuable reform. The system had fallen into the greatest confusion and weakness. The qualification and numbers of jurymen in most parts of Ireland were quite inadequate to the necessities of the case; in some parts of the country those who were qualified were a mere handful of the population; and in that respect and many others the measure of his noble and learned Friend was a most valuable reform. But the inquiry which the noble Marquess now proposed related to a limited, though most vital, part of the jury system in Ireland—namely, the working of Irish juries under the present law in the case of agrarian crime and in a time of dangerous agrarian excitement; and the Government did not doubt that he had made out a strong case for such an inquiry. The Government were most willing that the inquiry should take place, and would give the noble Marquess all the assistance in their power in conducting it. He therefore thought it unnecessary to trouble their Lordships with many more words. Indeed, he thought it would be inconvenient for any Member of their Lordships' House, and certainly for anyone on the part of the Government, to give expression to their opinion on the Irish jury system in favour of any great change, or against the necessity of any change, in anticipation of this inquiry. He would not attempt to give to their Lordships any such opinion; but he would just remind them of this fact—that two Parliamentary inquiries had taken place since 1871, when the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in-

  1047
  troduced the subject. Those inquires had been conducted by two most competent Committees, in two successive Sessions, under two different Administrations, and presided over by two Chief Secretaries to the Lord Lieutenant—the Marquess of Hartington and air Michael Hicks-Beach. The qualification of jurors, in consequence of these inquiries, was raised, and the last pronouncement on the subject by the last Committee contained an important paragraph to the effect that, in the opinion of the Committee, it was indispensable to secure absolute impartiality in the formation of the jury panel. But although this was the latest pronouncement on the subject, there was no reason why, in the light of recent events, there should not be another inquiry. He only trusted the result of that inquiry might be to enable the Irish jury system to sustain better than it did at present the burden which it was called upon to bear.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he thought this was not a time for inquiring as to trial by jury in Ireland, as the Government had full powers, and there was a challenge to the array and as to individuals, and a change of venue might be ordered. The Association for the Amendment of the Law would meet in Dublin in October, and could obtain information and dispassionately consider the subject.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he would remind their Lordships of the fact which had been omitted by the noble Marquess, that out of 40 charges of murder there bad been only one conviction. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) stated, only a few nights back, that more crimes of a barbarous character had been committed in Ireland than had ever disgraced any savage country. It was therefore full time that something should be done, either through an improved jury system or in some other way, to improve the present unfortunate state of things. Crimes of a serious character were doubled within the last month; and, though there were large bodies of military and police in Ireland, they were not allowed to defend themselves, much less the law. The Government had passed Acts to preserve the peace in Ireland, but they were not enforced; and he was sorry to see that Mr. Parnell had shown he was more powerful than the Government, and
  1048
  could carry out his promises while they could not carry out theirs. The Primo Minister himself stated that crime occurred coincidentally with the Land League meetings; yet those meetings were allowed to continue, spreading terror throughout the country. If the Common Law of the land had been enforced, and had these illegal meetings been put down, Ireland would not have been in its present state. He feared it would be of little use to try remedial measures such as those proposed, which only robbed Peter to pay Paul; there must be a fair administration of the law. If the law had been enforced in Ireland as it was enforced in Great Britain, the present state of things in Ireland would not have existed. It was only weakness to be playing fast and loose in this matter. With regard to Griffiths' valuation, it was very unequal; it only took into consideration the value of the land, without regard to its locality. It put no special value on town parks, though their position often increased their value five-fold, or of land on the sea shore, where abundance of seaweed supplied the necessary manure. Yet, unequal as it was, it was the best valuation that existed. Under the proposed Land Bill all rents were to be settled by a Court, on application of tenants; and, pending such valuation, no proceeding for enforcing rent could take place. There were 600,000 tenants, and doubtless, under the Land League organization, these would nearly all apply. The Court, or Courts, would be blocked—decisions could not be given for years, and if they won the case rents would be abolished. Unless this were the intention of Her Majesty's Government, they must settle some basis of rent pending these decisions.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, he entirely agreed with the observations of his noble Friend (Lord Carlingford) as to the propriety of appointing a Committee. He also agreed with his noble Friend that, pending the appointment of the Committee, this was not an occasion for discussion. He would, therefore, reserve any observations he might have to make on the subject.
  On question, agreed to.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.