Sitting of 16 May 1889

MOTIONS.

  HOURS OF ADULT LABOUR (EUROPE AND UNITED STATES).
  Address for—
  "Return showing the Laws enacted affecting the Hours of Adult Labour in Europe and in the United States of America, with the actual hours now worked in the several Countries, and such information as is attainable as to the enforcement, or otherwise, of such Laws."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

  HERRING BRAND SURPLUS APPROPRIATION (SCOTLAND.)
  Return ordered—
  "Of the Appropriation of £1,500 expended annually from the accumulated Herring Brand Surplus in Scotland for the extension of telegraphic communication to fishery districts, specifying the name of each Port to which telegraphic communication under this provision has been extended."—(Mr. Duff.)

  POOR RATES (SCOTLAND)
  Return ordered—
  "For the last year available of the rate per pound of the Poor Rate in each Parish in Scotland."—(Mr. Donald Crawford.)

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.;
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 149]
  Bill, as amended, to be taken into consideration upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 230.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  MR. BONSORI rise on this occasion to move an Amendment, and to take this the first opportunity I have had to renew the protest which I made when the Budget was introduced as to the alteration in the standard on which beer is taxed. That standard was fixed at 1057 in 1880, and it is now proposed in the present Bill to alter it to 1055. I feel, Sir, that this is a disturbance of trade, which is not justifiable, and I hope that if this Bill is carried in its present form, we shall have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the standard will be a permanent one, and that we need not anticipate another disturbance in this direction. I should also like to say one or two words on the question of the beer tax, if I may be allowed to do so, in moving this Amendment. There is a general idea abroad that the brewing trade are absolutely objecting to this increase of duty. Sir, that statement is unfounded; the brewing trade have taken exception to the form in which the tax is proposed, and they have also taken exception to the permanent character of the tax, but they have not objected to a tax of a national character for purposes of national defence. Mr. Courtney, I think I need not go into the technical question as to what a quarter of barley produces in the form of beer. That is a question which has once for all been set at rest by the recent deputation of the brewing trade to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  299
  The question before us is simply the question of obtaining Revenue. We have no objection to assisting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to build up a Revenue, and to make his balance even, but the brewing trade do feel that they ought not to have imposed on their profits, as a permanent tax, an additional income tax of 6d., for the general purposes of reducing the burdens of other traders, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that this tax is an additional tax for a special purpose. That, Sir, is the complaint of the brewing trade, which I wish to put before the public, and that, Sir, is the contention which I am here to support. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an assurance that it is not his absolute intention to impose a permanent tax. The brewing trade feel that they are practically the collectors of the revenue, and they hope that should a surplus, or any large amount of money, come into the Exchequer, that this tax will be considered in future Budget arrangements as an additional, and not as a permanent, tax. In short, I ask that the standard to be fixed should be permanent, and this additional tax temporary. I beg to move the omission of words from the Clause so as to leave the existing standard of specific gravity in beer unchanged.
  MR. GOSCHENI cannot complain of the observations which have fallen from the hon. Member behind me, and I am glad to perceive from his remarks that there is no objection on the part of the great brewers to pay this tax for a special purpose, and that what they object to is the idea that it is to be a permanent tax imposed upon them. Now, let me recall to the recollection of the Committee the arguments which have been advanced against the proposed duty in its present form. A few evenings since I alluded to a controversy between the brewers and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1880 and the following years with reference to the standard of gravity, and I pointed out that it was held by the Inland Revenue that owing to the standard having been paid at 1057 instead of 1055, the increased amount which was expected to be derived from the tax had not been realized. On the other hand, the brewers contended
  300
  that whether that increased amount had been received or not, they had practically paid more per barrel produced than they paid in the days of the Malt Duty. Now, it is almost impossible to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the brewers are right in that argument or not, on account of the difficulty of finding the necessary statistics. I am afraid that this controversy cannot be settled by any appeal to statistics, and I therefore fall back upon the paramount consideration which I used in introducing the Budget, that whether the brewers were right or wrong in their contention as regards 1881, I desired to derive an additional revenue of £300,000 from beer to meet the necessities of this year's Budget. Well, Mr. Courtney, I then believed, and still believe, notwithstanding the contention of my hon. Friend, that 36 gallons of beer at a gravity of 1055 is a more correct equivalent of two bushels of malt than is the same amount at a gravity of 1057. The brewers may be right or they may be wrong in thinking that 6s. 3d. on two bushels of malt is too high a tax, compared with what they used to pay before 1880, but I believe it can be proved to demonstration that, whatever may be the proper duty on two bushels of malt, that duty ought to be charged on 36 gallons at 1055. But I understand my hon. Friend does not wish to raise this point now, but wishes to ascertain whether the addition to the Beer Duty is to be permanent or only temporary. Now it might have been contended that, as the need for this revenue was created by an expenditure which will be completed in seven years, therefore it would have been right to impose the extra duty for seven years only. But I believe the brewing interest prefer to have it as it stands at present rather than to have it imposed for seven years, and I am bound to say I think they are right in their contention. If it were put on for seven years it is clear that they would not have the slightest chance of its being taken off before the end of that time, whereas if it is put on without any stipulated limit of time, the matter may be brought up again whenever it appears to be possible to make a remission of duty. The Government do not at all consider that by the change now made they are stereotyping the rate of duty at its present amount

  301
  I believe we ought to regard the standard of 1055 as permanent, but there is, of course, nothing essentially permanent about the rate of 6s. 3d. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the brewing trade are afraid that the additional taxation now imposed upon them for a special purpose may be subsequently utilized in order to secure a reduction in the income tax upon other traders who have not been called upon to make a special contribution to the necessities of the nation in the present Budget. I think there would be force in the argument that it ought not to be used for such a purpose. I am most anxious not to fetter in any way the complete fiscal liberty of the Government, but at the same time, I think beer will have a fair claim for consideration side by side with other great articles of consumption, if there is a satisfactory surplus all round, and if the revenue from beer itself is satisfactory after this duty has been imposed. At the same time, I must not be understood to pledge myself with regard to any remission of taxation in the future, for it would be folly for the Government to tie its hands in regard to any great item of the revenue. I trust hon. Members will understand,however, that as I have said the Government do not look upon the Beer Duty as necessarily fixed at its present rate. Let me add that I am aware of the great interest taken in this matter by the growers of barley; indeed, I think they are, perhaps, more alarmed at the suggested increase of the duty than the brewers themselves. I am persuaded that their alarms are unfounded. I have explained to the Committee on a previous occasion the reasons why the barley growers will, I believe, be entirely unaffected, and I will not repeat them now. At the same time, it is certainly a matter which requires to be watched, because if it were found that barley growing in this country was grievously affected by any increase of the Beer Duty, the matter would be one for the serious consideration of any Chancellor of the Exchequer to whatever Party he might belong.
  MR. GLADSTONEI quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, except within very narrow limits, it is not as a general rule in the power of the Minister of Finance to bind his
  302
  successors with regard to the expectations he holds out as to the reform or remission of taxation. I do not speak at all with respect to any present circumstances, but say that I take that to be the case as a general rule. In regard to what has transpired, I feel it necessary to say one thing—namely, that there ought to be no relation whatever between the question of standard and the question of the rate of duty. The rate of duty may vary with varying considerations of public policy, but the question of the standard depends upon the relation between beer and malt. It is simply a matter for chemical and scientific knowledge to determine how much beer is represented by a certain quantity of malt, and how much malt is represented by a certain quantity of beer. The relations of beer and malt to one another depend in the smallest degree upon questions of policy, and therefore I may say I cannot regard the alteration of the standard as a proper means of obtaining additional taxation. If it is a true rectification of the standard, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in a condition to show, which he may be—I do not say he is not—that I made an error in the concession which I acceded to in 1881 in the alteration of the standard between 1855 and 1857, then by all means let that be set right But I object to treating the matter as if it were equivalent to so much additional revenue; the change ought to be made, if at all, upon its own merits. There was an analogous case in the days when we had a system of sugar refinery carried on in bond. The refiner was required to produce so many pounds of refined sugar from a certain quantity of raw sugar. The figures are immaterial; but let us suppose that a refiner produced 90 lbs. of sugar, he was allowed duty upon 100 lbs of raw sugar. That was a system very good in itself, and was quite right; but it would have been absurd for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, "I want more revenue, and therefore I will require the refiner to produce no longer 90 lbs. but 95 lbs. from the same quantity of raw sugar." The relations between raw and refined sugar depend upon the qualities of the article and not upon considerations of policy. I wish it to be understood, however, that what I have said is only a verbal criticism, and that, perhaps, my

  303
  right hon. Friend is able to prove that my original proposal was better than the final one. In that case I have no objection to make.
  MR. S. SMITHI am very glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to give any pledge as to a future reduction of the Beer Duty. All the temperance bodies in the country are very grateful to him for this addition to the Beer Duty. We think beer can very justly bear this additional duty; indeed, we think it might bear a much higher duty. Only the other day we had a debate respecting the Tea Duty, and in that debate it was clearly shown that the incidence of duty upon tea is much greater than that upon beer. I am told that the Beer Duty is only equivalent to ¼d. a pint. I, and many of those with whom I am associated, think that it might very reasonably and properly be doubled. We wish to reduce the consumption of alcoholic liquors as much as possible, and think that the best way to do that is to lay a heavy tax upon them.
  COLONEL DAWNAYIt seems to me that the difference between Liberal and Conservative finance is that the Liberals always place increased taxation upon their political opponents and the Conservatives upon their political friends. The result invariably is, that whatever Government is in office, the unfortunate Conservative Party goes to the wall. We were told last Session that one of the results of the Local Government Bill would be a great revision of taxation. We have had certain revisions, but one of the most substantial revisions which was promised was, at the last moment, dashed away from us. We were explicitly told by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Prime Minister that an equivalent would be found for the tax early in the present Session; but, instead of the equivalent being found, it seems that fresh burdens of taxation have been placed upon us. I suppose that other Conservative Members besides myself during the last Autumn Session praised the Chancellor of the Exchequer up to the skies at every horse show and every agricultural dinner for the boons and blessings he was about to shower upon the agriculturists; but all these boons and blessings seem to have disappeared in the
  304
  dim distance. I do not exactly see how we shall hold up our heads when we are asked in the coming autumn what we are going to get in the place of the van and wheel tax.
  SIR G. CAMPBELLConservative Governments are always exceedingly civil to the brewers—it is their nature to be—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been wanting in that civility. But I must add my expression of satisfaction that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not substantially yielded in this matter. I agree with the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) that the duty on beer is not half heavy enough. Apart from the temperance point of view, the taxation of alcohol in beer is inadequate in proportion to that in spirits and other alcoholic stimulants. Alcohol in beer is only taxed to the extent of one-sixth part of the alcohol in whiskey. It seems to me especially unwise and unreasonable that this matter should be treated as a brewers' question. I can understand that something should be said on behalf of the poor man's beer; but this is not a poor man's question—it is a brewers question. Brewers make an enormous profit, and, therefore, I rejoice at this tax upon an enormous monopoly which holds the country in drink and keeps the Conservative Government in power, but which is not founded on reason or right.
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENI was not able to gather from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was not his intention to re-impose the Beer Duty next year, but I cannot help thinking he must be very well aware of the great embarrassment caused the agricultural interest by the idea that the tax will be permanent. Between this and the time for the introduction of the next Budget I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will seriously consider whether there are not some other sources from which the money required cannot be more easily and properly obtained.
  MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)I certainly intend to give myself the luxury of supporting the Government on this occasion, and I quite agree with my hon. Friends that beer can stand a very much larger charge than it has ever done as yet. Beer imposes very great burdens upon us in the shape

  305
  of pauperism and crime, and therefore it ought to bear a large share of the taxation. Besides, the supporters of the Government have voted an increase of naval expenditure, and therefore it is right they should pay for it.
  BARON DIMSDALEI trust that when the immediate necessity for the beer tax ceases some measure of relief will be afforded, as it was by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian in respect of the malt tax at the close of the Crimean War. I can certainly assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in the barley-growing districts this tax has caused an immense amount of irritation, which it will take a good deal to allay.
  MR. BONSORasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR E. BIRKBECK (Norfolk, E.)who had given notice of the following Amendment:—Clause 3, page 2, line 7, after "eighty-nine," insert "until the sixteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety," said: I desire to explain the course I intend to take with reference to the Amendment which stands in my name. In the first place, let me say I adhere to every word I have said on two previous occasions lately on behalf of the barley growers of the Eastern counties. I protested against the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tax one of the most important products of the land to a greater extent than it is already taxed, and I have had most unmistakeble evidence, since my Amendment appeared on the Paper, of how strong a feeling there is in the country against the proposal. The agricultural interest contend that the barley crop is already most severely taxed in respect to the 6s. 3d. per barrel Beer Duty, and that not the repeal of the malt tax, but the transfer to the Beer Duty was an evil thing for the tenant farmers. It has undoubtedly led to a diminished use of English barley. If the repeal of the malt tax was so vital a question in the days of agricultural prosperity, how much more so must it be at the present time, when the agricultural interest is suffering so much? The statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made is, however, satisfactory to a certain extent. I gather he is prepared another
  306
  year, providing he has a satisfactory surplus, to re-consider the whole question of the Beer Duty. On my own behalf, and as a representative of a barley-growing district, I may say we are ready to accept the statement; we are ready to place implicit confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will do his very utmost in the future for a suffering industry, and help us to the best of his ability, that instead of increasing taxation on the produce of the land, he will act in a contrary direction, and relieve taxation as much as he can. On these grounds I do not move the Amendment that stands in my name.
  MR. GOSCHENI only just wish to say, in reply, that I appreciate the action of my hon. Friend, and I stand entirely by what I have said. I am always extremely anxious to avoid giving vague pledges, and I do not wish Members to go one whit in their expectations beyond what I am able to promise, but the hon. Gentleman may rely on my doing all that my words imply. In reference to what has been said by the hon. Member as to the irritation caused by this proposal, I am quite aware of it; but I adhere to the opinion I have frequently expressed that this irritation and alarm are not justified by the slight increase of duty proposed. I can assure the hon. Member that every Member of the Government is profoundly desirous of promoting the interests of agriculture, but I doubt myself if it can be shown that the interest of beer and those of agriculture are identical; and I can fancy that there may be circumstances in which agitations such as this, with regard to the Beer Duty, may make it more difficult to promote the interests of agriculture. With this I hope hon. Members will be satisfied to leave the matter as it now stands, and I trust that much of the irritation will vanish when it is seen that the duty does not affect the Eastern Counties, or any other barley-growing district in the way apprehended.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEI am very sorry that when so important a subject as that raised by my Amendments on this clause is being

  307
  discussed there is such a very small House. I see there are only six or seven Members present to hear what I am saying.
  Attention having thus been drawn to the fact that there were not 40 Members present, the House was counted and 40 Members were found to be present.
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEI beg to move on Clause 5, page 2, line 27, after "Ireland," to insert "in respect of any person dying." I am satisfied that if hon. Members who have just come in would only stop and hear what is said, they would see the justice of the Amendments. Although I can only formally move the first on the Paper that Amendment is repeated seven times, and applies to other Sub-sections of the clause. The apparently harmless enactment of the clause is that in certain circumstances an executor or trustee shall deliver a statement of value, but the next clause says that this statement must be impressed with a stamp of 1 per cent ad valorem duty. The question is, what shall be the point of time which shall determine whose property shall be subject to the new tax? The object of my Amendments is to provide that it shall be chargeable on the property of those who shall die on or after the day named in the Bill. I find that in the 6th Clause my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted the principle that the death of the person is the proper time at which to ascertain whether or not the Estate Duty is to be paid. In this 5th Clause the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have exercised his ingenuity in discovering varieties of tests. The point of time differs in each of the Sub-sections. In former days it used to be very easy to obtain probate of the will or letters of administration within a few days after death. But since 1881, the reverse has been the case. It used to be possible to deliver the account some time after probate or administration had been granted. The account has now to be carried on before probate. In the first instance, the executor is bound to ascertain exactly the value of the estate at the time he makes his affidavit, and very often it is exceedingly difficult for him to do so. An unconscientious man will make a guess and swear to anything, and if the Bill passes in its
  308
  present form, there will be a large inducement to such men to swear loosely and thereby escape payment of the Estate Duty. I think it very much better that the general Revenue should suffer than we should do anything unfair or unjust, and it is manifestly unfair to say that 1 per cent shall be paid, say, if the executor happens to be abroad or for some other reason the application for probate is deferred over the 1st of June. When we turn to the next Sub-section, we find it deals not with the application for probate as does the first Sub-section, but with the case of probate having been granted. We are told that when the personal property does not exceed £10,000, but the deceased has been possessed of real property, and has exercised the power of disposing of it, and the value of the two together exceeds £10,000, although probate has been applied for before the 1st June, in the event of delay occurring at the Probate Office through redtapeism, the estate is to be mulcted in the new duty. If my Amendment is not adopted, there will be a distinct inducement to the clerks at Somerset House to cause delays, in order to obtain kudos by increasing the revenue derivable from the tax. Then, I submit, it is the date of the death of the man that should be the criterion, and not when the estate comes in. If this Sub-section is adopted, it will be a strong temptation to concealment. The 4th Sub-section follows on the same lines. Either some mistake has been discovered or the value of the property has turned out to be greater than has been expected. A conscientious administrator thinks it right to set the matter straight, and delay will be occasioned. In all these cases in fairness these ingenious varieties of time and tests which it is proposed to apply should not be accepted by the Committee. The test should be the same as in Section 6, dealing with the Succession Duty, and the time of death ought to be the period taken.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 5, page 2, line 27, after "Ireland," to insert "in respect of any person dying."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALI will not follow

  309
  the criticisms that have just been addressed to the Committee on the subsections, because they will have to be dealt with if there is any inaccuracy in the language at a later period. But it is not right to say that there has been any deviation from principle in dealing with these matters. When an additional duty is imposed it should be imposed with reference to some date or other, and the principle observed in this Measure is that where a duty is paid on the passing of an instrument the date of that instrument shall be looked at. Where, however, as in Clause C, the value of the succession is that which passes on the death of a person, then the date of the death of that person is the date to be taken. It has been suggested that between this and the 1st of June there will be an inducement to the clerks at the Probate Office to be careless or negligent, in order to put the matter off until the 1st of June, so as to secure the payment of the tax, but I do not think that is an argument which will weigh with the Committee. The same principle has been adopted in the five sub-sections, and the Amendment of the hon. Member would be altogether inconsistent with that principle.
  MR. CALDWELLThis is a practical matter that falls mostly within the province of law agents, and I can understand the reason which prompted the hon. Member opposite to move the Amendment. The date of death is not a matter that can be disputed, but there is frequently a difficulty, after death, of making out the inventory. In the cases where the deceased has been in business you have to appraise the value of the property, and you have to state its mercantile value in the letters of administration. From no fault on the part of an executor there may often be delay in applying for probate, from causes such as disputed claims. You might have a case of a man dying and leaving an estate worth £20,000, which, because the executor is in a position to lodge the account at once, will escape duty altogether, and you may have another case of an estate of £10,000, which, through delay in making out the account, owing to no fault of the executor, will have to pay the duty. In deciding what is fair in
  310
  allocating the duty, regard should be had to the equities of the matter, and we should not lay down such rules as would enable one man to escape and would bring another in. The date of death is a very reasonable period to fix. Cases frequently occur in practice where the value of an estate is enhanced by discoveries made after the presentation of the original letters. I know that the irritation in the country is strong on the subject, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to take into consideration whether he cannot obviate the present arrangement, under which, by making little alterations in the dates and so forth, he apparently hopes to catch a few trifling sums, which, while creating a good deal of feeling, do not contribute much to the revenue. The system is one which cannot be defended on principle, and it is one by which advantage is to be taken of the exigencies of particular estates, where the man who is unable to take out his letters of administration before a certain date will be placed in a worse position than the man who has been enabled to do so.
  SIR H. DAVEYI think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) has pointed out some difficulties in Clause 5 which are well deserving the attentive consideration of the Government, and I do not think the Solicitor General accurately dealt with the point. The hon. Member for Stockport has pointed to one or two instances in which it is perfectly obvious that the draftsman of this Clause had no consistent scheme in his mind. In Subsection 1 of Clause 5 the date from which the duty attaches is the date of application for letters of probate, while in Subsection 2 the date is the date of the granting of letters of administration, which may be months after the application, and I say that if the duty dates from the application for probate in the first sub-section, the same date ought to be fixed in the second sub-section. But that is not all, and the hon. Member for Stockport did not do justice to his own case; because sub-section 1 says:#x2014;
  "Where in the case of any person applying for probate or letters of administration granted in England or Ireland on or after the first day of June 1889, or in the case of any person exhibiting an inventory in Scotland on or after that day."
  Yet it will be seen that the exhibition

  311
  of an inventory in Scotland coincides with the application for probate in England. The more I consider these duties, the more impressed am I with the intricate confusion that is being introduced into the whole system. I think attention ought to be directed to subsection a, which says:#x2014;
  "If the value of the estate and effects in respect whereof duty was charged on the former affidavit or inventory under Section 27 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, exceeded #x00A3;10,000, the person delivering the further affidavit or exhibiting the additional inventory shall deliver together therewith a statement of the value of the estate and effects included therein, or of the increased value of the estate and effects in the former affidavit or inventory as the case may be."
  But the next Sub-section says that, if the value is less than #x2014;10,000, the duty shall not be payable at all. I think the contention of the hon. Member for Stockport well worthy of the attention of the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALI would point out to my hon. and learned Friends that under Sub-section A, if in respect of an estate a person dies after the 1st June, and the duty has been paid up to #x2014;10,000, or more, and afterwards it is found that the amount has to be increased, a further statement may be delivered showing the value of the estate and the effects not included in the former affidavit or inventory, while Subsection B provides that, if the Estate is supposed to have been less than #x00A3;10,000, but the value exceeds that sum, the total value is to be included. The difference in the language arises from the payment in one case of the increased amount and in the other of the total amount.
  MR. CALDWELLLet me point out that in the case of real property you charge the duty on the estate of any man dying on or after the 1st June, 1889, while in the case of personalty you are taking power to charge the estates of persons who may have died six months before, but as to whom no one has applied for letters of administration before the 1st June, 1889. It is clear that letters of administration cannot be applied for till after a man is dead.
  SIR E. CLARKEIf hon. Members will look at Sub-Section 8 they will see that it says:#x2014;
  312
  "Where a further affidavit or additional inventory is delivered or exhibited of any estate or effects of a deceased person after a former affidavit or inventory of the estate and effects of the same person has been delivered or exhibited and recorded prior to the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, it shall not be necessary to deliver any statement of the value of the estate and effects of such person under such section."
  That I think carries out the object in view, while the words of Sub-Section 4 are also necessary because they keep the entire provisions of the clause in harmony.
  Amendment put and negatived.
  MR. GEDGEI wish now to move an Amendment, the object of which is to extend the tax to all cases in which a person leaves upwards of #x2014;10,000 in personalty and realty whether the realty is left by will or by appointment under a deed. This Bill, as it stands, restricts the tax to cases in which over #x2014;10,000 in personalty and realty is left "by will." I do not think the tax ought to be imposed even as proposed by the Bill, but if it is to imposed I do not see why it should be restricted to cases of property left by will. A man who has #x00A3;9,000 personalty and #x00A3;5,000 realty to leave would be advised by his solicitors to leave the realty by deed and then when he died the whole #x00A3;14,000 would escape this tax. The deed would not require an ad valorem stamp, but merely a 10s. stamp, and thus a considerable sum would be saved. I do not see why this loophole should be left unstopped if the tax is to be imposed at all.
  THE CHAIRMANA question of procedure arises here, and I hold that this Amendment cannot be moved. The effect of such a proposal would be to effect an alteration in substance of the Bill by increasing the scope of the tax; therefore it cannot be taken.
  MR. GOSCHENI propose to amend Clause 5, page 3, line 11, by inserting after the word "will," the words "or other testamentary instrument."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. S. GEDGEI beg to move as an amendment to Clause 5, page 3, line 26, the insertion after the word "person," of the words "in respect of the estate and effects of any person dying on or after the first day of June 1889."
  SIR. R. WEBSTERI have stated that it was necessary to insert words to prevent Sub-sections a and b applying to estates where the owners die before the 1st June, 1889, and if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Bill he will see that the draftsman has dealt with the matter in Sub-section 8.
  MR. S. GEDGEI think when we come to Sub-section 8 the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that it is not entirely as he supposes, as I do not think that that Sub-section will meet the point. I hope my Amendment will be accepted.
  MR. GOSCHENWe cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, as we think that the Clause as it stands entirely disposes of the question.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR GLADSTONEIn moving the Amendment of which I have given notice I will endeavour to avoid anything which is not at all necessary for the purpose. It is necessary to remind the Committee of the condition in which, according to our contention, the question of the Death Duties was left last year, when enormous advantages had been given in the first instance in respect of the rates, the whole ultimate incidence of which would be in relief of real property. At the very time of the readjustment of the rates, when this enormous advantage had been given to real property, the readjustment of the Death Duty was made between realty and personalty. And the effect of that readjustment, according to our estimate, according to our demonstration, was that personal property passing upon death was left liable to pay three times the duty charged on real property. We thought that a ease which it was necessary for us as a body to take up and to do our best to bring to the minds and proper action of the country, thereby establishing the case of this grievance, this extreme and enormous inequality to the disadvantage of the holder of personal property as compared with real. That, Sir, is retrospective. Now comes the present year, when we come to the way in which Her Majesty's Government produce this plan for imposing a distinct duty upon realty and personalty alike. In many respects it will be upon realty and personalty alike. Wherever an individual, becoming a
  314
  successor to realty, takes an interest equal to #x00A3;10,000, he will be in precisely the same position as if he had taken up the amount under a will, established by probate, or by taking out letters of administration. In that case there will be absolute equality. There will also be an equality at the other end. That is to say that where the entire estate in respect of which Probate Duty is paid, does not amount to #x00A3;10,000, the party or parties interested in that estate will be in the same position as an individual taking an estate in realty which is equal to #x00A3;10,000. Therefore, let it be understood that up to this point equality will subsist. There is another and most important point under which a new and I must say gross inequality#x2014;amounting, I confess in my opinion, to a gross injustice#x2014;will occur. A great inequality will be introduced and established by the plan of the Government if it is carried. That is in the case where the entire estate, in respect to which probate is taken out, amounts to a sum exceeding #x00A3;10,000, but where either a portion of the interest or of the interests are severed under #x2014;10,000 each. In that case every one of these interests will be subject to this Death Duty. I observe in the first instance that such inequality entirely destroys and sweeps out of view the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when proposing the reduction to #x00A3;10,000, which was#x2014;it is an argument which I will not stop to dispute, because it is not one with which I am at all concerned—that he was working out a distinction analogous to that established under the income tax, where £400 is the line at which exemption from the tax absolutely ceases. If we are to be told that we are to impose a tax of 1 per cent upon the capital value accruing to persons taking property by will, however small and insignificant their personal interests may be, it is quite obvious that instead of establishing an analogy, we are entirely differing from the analogy by going in the opposite direction. Because, whereas where the income tax recommends exemption up to a certain point, and beyond that certain point a partial exemption, we should be establishing by the plan of the Government, as regards this enormously extended class of case, a principle

  315
  with no degree of minuteness in the interests taken, and exempting the individual from the payment of this extra duty. It seems to me a proposal of that kind is an astonishing proposal. From a Party point of view, nothing in the world could suit our Party better. There is no constituency in the country in which it will not form a favourite topic for every Liberal candidate. I do not know what sort of handling it will receive from hon. Gentlemen opposite, especially those who represent constituencies in which personal property is predominant. That I hope they will consider before they determine upon the course they are to take with respect to this proposal. But I must frankly confess, as between Party men and Party men, I do not recollect any financial proposal that was more convenient and more advantageous to us in a Party spirit. We will work it heartily; I think we may say that we will work it with effect, and work it with effect because we are standing upon the principle of equality and justice. Now, Sir, let me consider the cases that will happen. Let me take the case—I will not say extreme case, because extreme cases will happen, that is to say, very strong and vivid illustrations of the nature of this proposal and the operation of this proposal will undoubtedly come up. But I will take a case which is perfectly natural. I will take the case of a farm of the value of £16,000. Well, upon the farm, in all likelihood, I may take the value of the farm stock at about £3,000, or between £3,000 and £4,000. Now, taking an average of lives, and speaking generally, the successor to that farm, under the Succession Duty Act, could well afford to pay this duty. That will not be contested. As a rule, the value of an estate which he takes for his life will be under £10,000. I doubt very much whether such a case will occur anywhere as an interest of over £10,000 taken by a successor. As a general rule, there will be no such case as the case of a life interest in a farm where the sum will reach £10,000. Now, what is the kind of legislation which this popularly elected assembly is invited to consider? It is this. When a farmer dies, the next holder under he entail comes in, and he does not pay this severe estate tax. The farmer does; and his heirs, whose interest, the farm being of £16,000 value,
  316
  is not of £10,000 or £8,000, but £3,000, will have to pay the estate tax.
  MR. GOSCHENWhy does he?
  MR. GLADSTONEHe will have to pay the estate tax wherever it happens, after it comes to him under the probate, the total of which exceeds £10,000.
  MR. GOSCHENWell, are there many such cases?
  MR. GLADSTONEThere are many of such cases; there are hundreds and thousands of such cases. It seems hardly necessary that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have put to me the question, because I have already stated that I was arguing exclusively with reference to such cases, and that no inequality whatever will subsist where the total interest under the will was less than £10,000. Well that is one case. Now I will give another case. The principle of exemption has always, I believe—always within my recollection—been recognised under the Death Duties, although to a very low amount. I think, if I remember aright, until the year 1881, everybody was liable to the payment of Probate and Legacy Duty except where the interest taken over was of a value of £200. At that time some important changes, or what I may call reforms, were introduced into the Death Duties. Under the necessity of exacting a great deal of revenue by taxation, I know of no more proper subject of taxation than estates passing at death. But the grievance, especially of the small people, was that they were all liable to what is usually a much heavier burden than the burden of the duty itself, namely, the burden of the charges entailed. They were obliged to go through the formalities attached to a much larger property, and then the person taking less than £200 at death was subject to that tax. We made a change at that time—I am not quite certain whether I recollect with accuracy, but if I do not it is not material to my point—by raising the limit of exemption, not so high as it ought to have been raised, and as, I think, it could have been raised, but we raised it to £1,000, if I remember aright. And we effected a greater and more important change by an arrangement of this kind, that whereever the estate was under that limit the Revenue officer should be charged with the whole transaction of the business, and that the accounts, and the whole

  317
  operations connected with the property should be settled by and through him upon a charge of, I think, 30s., in respect both of Legacy Duty, and likewise the trouble he might be at, and which would stand in lieu of all those charges. Now let me take the case of two persons under a will receiving money in respect of property in which probate is taken out. It seems to me intolerable that if we have reduced the total charge upon these people to £10s. for their Death Duties and other law charges, so as to include the whole transaction of the business, we are now to come down upon them and to subject them to a charge of £3 extra. Why, it seems to me so extravagant and so outrageous a proposition that—although, as I have said, nothing could be more convenient to us who sit on this side of the House—I cannot help hoping that the mention of such a case as that may have some weight with the Government. I have a great deal of hope of them. The aim of my Amendment is to establish equality without increasing the tax payable by any one. There may be another mode by which equality might be established, namely, by providing the mode of succession under the Act of 1853; but the effect of that would be to increase the duty; and we do not desire to increase the duty—what we desire is to remove the inequality. I may here refer to a change which I think would give more complete effect to the intention of my Amendment. In the fourth line of the Amendment instead of reading, "any legacy upon which Legacy Duty is chargeable," it might read, "Any legacy within the meaning of the Legacy Duty Acts," and I will with the sanction of the Committee propose so to alter the Amendment. Our idea is that if 1 per cent is chargeable it is clear that those whose estates are of less than £10,000 value ought not to be liable to the present rates. Our proposition is that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought fit to charge only the amount of interest taken by each individual successor in the case of realty, so he ought to charge only the amount of interest taken by each individual successor in the case of personalty. It has nothing to do with the aggregate. It does not signify one whit to the man who receives one or two thousand pounds whether the probate is taken out for
  318
  £10,000, £20,000, or £100,000. However large the probate is, and however small his interest, his share is to be diminished by this serious tax of 1 percent on his capital, while the more fortunate person taking possession under the Succession Duty is placed in a totally different position and has not to pay anything. In this country, where there are multitudes of cases in which the probate is taken out for very moderate sums, it would be very hard in those cases to come down on the man who takes the interest under a will, and, however small that interest, to charge him this serious tax, from which other persons, substantially in the same position, are to be altogether exempt. Upon these grounds I now beg to move the Amendment which stands on the Paper in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 40, at the end, to add the following Subsection:—
  (9) Provided always, that whenever the value of any succession in personal or moveable property under "The Succession Duty Act, 1853," or any legacy within the meaning of the Legacy Duty Acts, shall have been diminished by reason of any duty having been charged and paid under the Act in respect of the principal fund or estate out of which the subject of the succession of the legacy is payable, or of which it forms part, and the value of such succession or such legacy together with the amount by which it has been diminished shall be less than ten thousand pounds,then,and in every such case so much of the duty paid under the Act as is equal to the amount by which the value of the succession or the legacy has been diminished shall be repaid to the person entitled to the succession or legacy."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be then added."
  MR. GOSCHENThe right hon. Gentleman has stated that one of the objects of his Amendment is to serve electioneering purposes.
  MR. GLADSTONEWhat I said was, the result, not the object.
  MR. GOSCHENThe result of what?
  MR. GLADSTONEOf my Amendment.
  MR. GOSCHENThe right hon. Gentleman said it was with a direct view to electioneering tactics that his Amendment was proposed.
  Several hon. MEMBERSNo, no.
  MR. GOSCHENHon. Members who say "no" were not in the House at the time. The right hon. Gentleman has explained how the matter should be

  319
  put before the constituencies. Hon. Members opposite need not be shocked, because the right hon. Gentleman said, Here is a case we are not sorry for."
  MR. GLADSTONEI am very sorry for it.
  MR. GOSCHENThe right hon. Gentlemen said he was not sorry.
  Several Hon. MEMBERSHe never said so.
  Mr. GOSCHENI wonder on what terms we are to conduct these debates. The right hon. Gentleman was allowed to speak without any interruption, but the moment a reply is attempted—I hope I may say so with the greatest good humour—the speaker is interrupted immediately. That conduct I am sure will not commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman stated distinctly that use was to be made of this motion in the country in order to represent the gross inequality existing in the treatment of personalty and realty.
  MR. GLADSTONEI said I believed that this proposal would, from a Party point of view, prove a great gain to us, and be very detrimental to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I thought it only honest to state as plainly as I could how it would be made use of in the country.
  MR. GOSCHENI am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the candour with which he has stated his case, and I am sorry so much irritation should have been shown. The question is one that is to be raised in the country. As to that there is no mistake. But how is it going to be raised? The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to state that "here again is an instance of the gross difference with which personalty and realty are treated "; but the right hon. Gentleman forgets that settled personalty is treated in precisely the same manner as settled realty. This the right hon. Gentleman did not state.
  An Hon. MEMBERNot under will.
  MR. GOSCHENI did not say under will. Remember I used the words "settled personalty;" and said that that and settled realty were to be treated in precisely the same manner in this Bill, and therefore when it is said that here is a gross case of inequality, I hope it will be remembered that in the case of settlements we have put these two classes of property on the same
  320
  footing. I think hon. Gentlemen opposite will at least admit that equality is our object. We have not attempted to make any difference between personalty and realty, but we are obliged to make a difference between property passing under settlement and property passing by will, and that applies to personalty as well as to realty. The right hon. Gentleman gave an instance of a farm of the value of —16,000. He said the owner of the estate would probably not pay anything on succeeding to that farm because the value of the succession would be only his life interest, and that would be less than £10,000. In order to strengthen his position he selects the case where the successor takes only a life interest. The right hon. Gentleman says that the life interest would escape if less than £10,000, though practically worth £16,000, but that the poor farmer whose stock was worth only £3,000 or £4,000 would have to pay. A contrast is thus drawn between the owner of an estate of £16,000 and the farmer with £3,000 or £4,000 worth of stock. But if the farmer had only £3,000 or £4,000 he would not pay.
  MR. GLADSTONEMy meaning was this, that if a farmer takes an interest of £3,000 or £4,000 which forms part of an estate amounting to upwards of £10,000, he has to pay while the rest of the estate goes free.
  MR. GOSCHENI wish that the right hon. Gentleman would make these distinctions at the proper time. What the right hon. Gentleman stated was that the farmer would have to pay and the owner would not pay. I call attention to this mode of putting the case in order to show how extremely easy it is to create false impressions in the mind of the public. With regard to the £3,000, I understand the right hon. Gentleman to refer to a legacy, and to be thinking of a legatee who receives the money out of an estate of a larger amount than £10,000. In that case the residuary legatee would have to pay the additional duty. By all means let the case be argued from the point of view of the residuary legatee. But let it not go before the country as a case of robbery of orphans. Now I will take the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose a case of an estate of £100,000. The right hon.

  321
  Gentleman will agree that an estate like that ought to pay the 1 per cent. Suppose it were left equally among 12 children. In that case, under the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman no part of that £100,000 would pay a shilling of this 1 per cent. That, therefore, is not a suggestion which we can accept in the interest of the revenue. There are many cases where personalty of a large amount is divided among five, six, seven, or eight recipients. I ask, as a practical question, whether landed property is often treated in that way. I have made inquiries and find it is very rarely the case that real estate is divided in this manner. As a practical matter therefore, this supposed injustice will very rarely arise. Where there are exemptions there will always be anomalies; but the question is whether these anomalies are sufficient to cause us to give up the exemptions. There are strong grounds of justice and expediency for such exemptions, and by the proposals of the Government small and poor estates will be let off. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman may have the effect of letting off estates of £80,000 or £100,000 which are not to contribute to the revenue,in so far as they are divided among persons who receive less than £10,000. The Government have no desire or intention to favour one class of property more than another. I think I may be said to have treated realty and personalty with greater equality than any other Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I admit that there is some inequality arising from the practical impossibility of dealing with real estate as you deal with personal estate. In the case of personalty something can be taken at once from the corpus, but in real estate it is a great practical difficulty to dispose at once of part of the estate. Our whole legislation recognizes the distinction between the two classes of property. I disclaim any intention of giving any unfair advantage to one kind of property, but I cannot accept a proposal which may destroy two-thirds of the Revenue which the Government wish to obtain from the new duty.
  SIR HORACE DAVEYSir, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the Government have no desire or intention of creating any inequality of taxation
  322
  between real and personal estate. But, Sir, I must say that if that is the intention of the Government—if they have no desire or intention in that direction—they have been singularly unsuccessful in carrying their desire into effect. I venture to say my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian was absolutely correct when he said that not only does this tax not redress any existing inequalities of taxation between real and personal estate, but that it actually introduces fresh anomalies and fresh inequalities, and aggravates confusion which already exists in the levying of the Death Duties. Now, Sir, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian to task for not having called the attention of the House to the fact that settled personalty only pays the new duty on the value of the succession in the same way as real estate. It was not necessary for him to refer to that, for if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done my right hon. Friend the courtesy to study his Amendment, he would have seen that that Amendment has nothing whatever to do either with settled realty or with settled personalty, but merely with personalty which passes in account by probate or letters of administration. The contrast which my right hon. Friend desired to draw in the observations which he addressed to the House was between the Estate Duty, as it was levied upon personalty passing by probate or intestacy, and the Estate Duty as it was levied on real estate, devised, it may be, by the same will, or passing by the same intestacy. Now, Sir, in his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that there were great anomalies, and he also admitted that he had been unable, notwithstanding his burning desire to do so, to assimilate taxation between real and personal estate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian has suggested a mode in which that may be done so far as regards personalty and realty passing by the same will; but what is the inequality between them—an inequality which is aggavated by this new Death Duty? I will point out once more, and I do not think that any hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House will dispute the correctness of what I am going to say,

  323
  the, whole vice and the whole difficulty arises from this, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has endeavoured, as regards the personal estate, to increase the Probate Duty under the name of the Estate Duty; but as regards real estate he only increases the Succession Duty. It is perfectly clear that the difficulty in this case is that the Probate Duty is levied on the whole estate before distribution, while in the case of the Succession Duty it is only levied on the value of the share which the devisee of the real estate takes for his own enjoyment. The result is that every estate, the value of which exceeds £10,000, pays this Estate Duty, and although it may be divided between half-a-dozen people, the persons who are beneficially interested in the estate upon which this Estate Duty is claimed, although they take only £2,000, have to pay; and on the other hand, in the case of real estate which may be worth £50,000, if it has to be divided between six children, not one of those six children will pay a single penny. I do not think that can be contradicted by anyone. Again, we will take the case of a man with a personal estate valued at £12,000 and a landed estate worth £9,000 only. He leaves the landed estate to his eldest son, who may go and sell the next day and put the £9,000 into his pocket while he pays no Estate Duty; but if the man divides the £12,000 amongst his four younger children, who only get £3,000 apiece, then every one of these four is subject to the tax. Sir, these things cannot be gainsaid. I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that many of the difficulties and anomalies arise from the mode in which the Death Duties are levied, but we complain, Sir, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced a new Death Duty. He has introduced fresh complications and a Death Duty which is to be levied on a new principle and on a different principle as regards personalty and real estate. And, Sir, it does not atop there, and I beg to ask the attention of gentlemen who are interested in commercial pursuits in the country to this point. Members of the Committee are aware that landed property which is held for partnership purposes is in the eyes of the Chancellor of the Ex-
  324
  chequer personal estate, and landed estate which is employed in partnership for the purposes of commerce in this country will be brought in under the new Estate Duty, and will have to pay the tax leviable on personal property; whereas real estate, not owned in partnership for commercial purposes, will pay the duty only on the interest of the successor. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very severe in some remarks he made as to the illustrations employed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian. I can only say that I understood the right hon. Gentleman distinctly to say that he was referring to a case where a farmer on administration took £3,000, the total of the estate exceeding £10,000, and I cannot but think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have lost, or have omitted to hear,something that my right hon. Friend said. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, I venture to say, was perfectly accurate in the illustration he gave. Under this Act it would be possible that a farmer who succeeded, it may be his father and received £3,000 in the shape of farming stock out of his father's estate, would have to pay the duty of 1 per cent, whereas the real estate, although it might be of a value exceeding £10,000, would altogether escape payment of the duty. And now, Sir, one word as to this Amendment,which I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has misunderstood. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that the word legacy, under the Legacy Duty Acts, includes the residue and also the share of an estate passing under intestacy, and no doubt the word legacy was used advisedly in this Amendment. To make it more clear, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has informed the Committee of the alteration he has made. Now, the object of the Amendment undoubtedly is this, that where the share which people take under the estate has been diminished by reason of the exaction of this duty out of the personal estate, there should be a drawback or return upon those shares where they are under £10,000, and the object of that is to assimilate it to real estate in the same way in order to make beneficial interests under a will exceeding £10,000 liable to the tax. No person taking beneficial interest in real

  325
  estate under a will would be liable to it unless the interest he takes exceeds £10,000. Sir, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian would be far from saying that some better way may not be devised for meeting these anomalies and difficulties. We have endeavoured to meet them in the best way we can, and dislocating as little as possible the scheme brought forward in the Act. No doubt a better scheme would be one which reformed the Death Duties altogether, but we cannot do that, so we have done the best we can by indicating in the form of this Amendment the anomalies that exist, the way in which they are aggravated, and the way in which we think they ought to be dealt with.
  MR. R. B. HALDANEIt is with considerable diffidence that I rise to say something on the speech which was addressed to the Committee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because it appears that nobody can say anything from this side of the House without his motives being misunderstood. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian made a speech which was received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with loud complaints, and when the right hon. Gentleman ventured to explain that his statement had been misunderstood, the interruption was received with still louder complaints. Then when the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockton ventured to make an explanation, he was received with jeers at his supposed superior legal learning. Well, Sir, if there be no just man on this side of the House, even on the Front Opposition Bench in the eyes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what chance have those who sit behind? We shall be told when we venture to make any criticism on the proposals of the Government that we do so for the purposes of misleading the Electorate. As an earnest of what some of us hope to do all over the country when the proper time comes, I shall endeavour now to state the effects of the Government proposal. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us a number of things. He has told us that in this Bill, settled personalty is treated on precisely the same footing as settled realty. I shall presently take an opportunity to controvert this. He told us
  326
  beforehand that our Amendment was one which was bound to fail in its purpose, because its purpose was not one which could be properly carried out. Let us test these things by concrete cases. Take the case of a man who has got land worth £50,000 and six children. He leaves the land among the six children equally, and there is not a share of it which will be called upon to pay a penny of this new duty; but suppose he happens to have in addition to this a sum of £3,000, and supposing he leaves the whole of the land to his eldest son, whilst the sum of £3,000 is divided amongst the younger children. Under the clause introduced into this Bill, for I believe it was not shadowed out in the original Bill, but was the result of an afterthought of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I mean Sub-section 2, Clause 5, this miserable £3,000 will be charged with duty, while the £50,000 of realty will escape scot free. And that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer called carrying out the intention which he announced in his great speech last year of treating realty and personalty as on precisely the same footing. But he goes further: he says after all this is not a serious matter because it is only the residuary legatee who suffers, and he seems to think the residuary legatee is entitled to little or no consideration. Why, Sir, in nine cases out of ten where only a small sum passes under a will, the children of the testator are residuary legatees. The common form of the will is to give legacies to those whom they may concern and to divide the residue among the children, and the very purpose of this Amendment is to reach the people who, in nine cases out of ten, will thus be constituted residuary legatees. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, at all events, settled reality and settled personalty were treated in precisely the same way, and he challenged us to go to the country and have the honesty to tell the electors that such was the case. Well, Sir, we shall go to the electors and tell them that settled realty and settled personalty were treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Bill, but not on the same footing, because we shall point out to them in the first place that, whereas settled personality is charged upon what is equivalent to the

  327
  fee simple value, settled land is not charged on the feesimple value at all, but is dealt with by a separate clause which I should have thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not read the Bill when he spoke, By Sub-section 5 of Section 6 settled land is charged upon an artificial annual value in a way which is so astounding that I cannot but believe there will be considerable discussion upon it. It is said to be chargeable upon the principal value, but then there comes in an extraordinary proviso that the principal value shall not exceed the amount which would be chargeable on an annuity. Now, Sir, would it be believed that the highest capital value to be taken is 24·4 years?
  MR. GOSCHENPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will be obliged to me for informing him that that part of our proposals were taken verbatim from the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers).
  MR. HALDANEI am sorry to hear it. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman what was said by a distinguished Leader of his own Party—namely, that many things have happened since then, and I would remind him furthur that we are not dealing with the ordinary Succession Duties, but with a new Death Duty, the fifth or sixth which will have been called into existence, and which, instead of simplifying the subject, will add a new complication to it. But the fact remains that, instead of charging land on its fee simple, or even on an assessment of its annual value you are charging it on 24·4 years' purchase of its annual value. Why, Sir, even in the case of perpetual pensions, which we heard about to-night, the Government proposes to take 27 years, and yet in the case of laud—for some mysterious and unexplained reason which, of course, has nothing to do with the Tory Party opposite, and which is wholly unconnected with the speeches we have recently heard from Gentlemen opposite—land is to be treated on this special footing. We shall support this Amendment not because it is the best that could be devised, but because it would be out of order to move an Amendment which would increase the duty on land. We welcome the principle of the graduated
  328
  Death Duty, and should like to see it applied to land and to personalty alike, but we must content ourselves with the lesser, but still just, endeavour of getting, as far as possible, equal treatment for land and personalty.

  Clause 6.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 257.—(Div. List, No. 116.)
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONI beg to move in Clause 6, page 5, line 40, after "property," to insert "and in estimating such principal value regard may be had to the annual value after making such allowances (if any) as ought to be made under the said Act." This Amendment is framed in reference to the point alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Mr. Haldane) respecting the inequalities created by this Bill as between personalty and realty. Under the Bill, the capitalized value of realty is to be assessed to the Succession Duty, and is to be estimated simply and solely on the net annual value of the estate. In a very large number of cases the result of taking the net annual value alone as the basis of capitalized value will be that estates having a very large market value will practically altogether escape the duty. On many estates the annual rental is very small indeed. Such estates as are commonly called luxurious estates and estates which, in some future time, will be probably very valuable for building purposes, will under this Bill practically escape the proposed duty. I move the Amendment to give the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of carrying out the principles he announced in his Budget Speech of equality and similarity between realty and personalty. My proposal, practically,is that in estimating the capital value, attention may be paid to other factors, as well as the net annual value, so that the real market value may be ascertained.
  Amendment proposed,
  "In page 5, line 40, to leave out from the word "property," to the word "The," in line 42, in order to insert the words "and in estimating such principal value regard may be had to the annual value after making such allowances (if any) as ought to be made under the said Act."—(Mr. Sydney Buxton.)

  329
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of clause."
  MR. GOSCHENThe Government is unable to accept this Amendment, because by doing we should follow a false analogy and create a real injustice.
  SIR H. DAVEYI have an Amendment on the Paper, but of course I cannot move it because it relates to the question raised by my hon. Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us when the Resolution was before the Committee of Ways and Means that the intention of the Government was to assimilate real and personal estates. It is perfectly clear that if the values are assessed in the way indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, really on the existing annual value, you will not by any means get anything like the real feasible value of the property. I believe I am right in saying that for the purpose of Succession Duty a property of £5,000 cannot be assessed at more than £2,800, or something of that kind. That may be right or not, but do not let us hear again that real and personal estates are to be assimilated.
  MR. RATHBONEI can confirm what has fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman from my own personal experience. I have a property worth, I suppose, £25,000, from which the rental is £140 a year. Now, just think what the proportion is to what I should have to pay if the value were invested in Consols.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)This clause creates another inequality, and not an inequality between realty and personalty, but an inequality between two classes of realty, and the one class of realty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is benefiting is the one best able to bear the burden and the one as to which there is the least difficulty of realizing it. Suppose a man inherits property in green fields which represent a succession of £10,000, his successor will have to pay duty on the fee simple value. The Chancellor of the Exchequer points out the difficulty there would be in selling a small portion of that to pay the duty, but the building speculator who has bought land in the neigbourhood of
  330
  large towns, such as London, Liverpool, Manchester, or Birmingham, which is not lying idle, but year by year is adding from 1s. to 3s. per yard to its value, and represents his profit when he comes to sell, that is to be exempt altogether. This is an inequality, not as between realty and personalty, but as between a heavily burdened class of realty and the class of realty that bears no share in local taxation. Owners of building land escape the payment of their share of local taxation, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to exempt them from Imperial taxation.
  MR. GOSCHENI am not surprised at the vigour with which the right hon. Gentleman speaks in relation to this point. No doubt there are cases where it would seem property escapes its fair share of taxation, and if a means can be devised by which I can secure more from my hon. Friend opposite out of that valuable property of which the rental is only £140 I shall be glad. But I wish the Committee to realize that the Government is establishing no new principle. We are following the principle of valuation laid down in the Bill of 1885. Hon. Gentlemen may find fault with my proposal, but it cannot be so very wicked in principle, based as it is on that upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian proceeded. Admitting much that has been urged, still I maintain my position that it would be unfair to adopt the proposal of the hon. Member.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLThe Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that there are certain inequalities, but then he is aggravating those inequalities. There are ground rents increasing in value that pay no rates or taxes. Again, I may point to America as an example, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepts the principle that realty and personalty should be equally rated and taxed, there is no difficulty. In one of my visits to America I thought I would buy a bit of land in Iowa, but before I completed the purchase I found that I should have to pay taxes on the property every year, and so I was deterred from my nefarious speculation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he made a trip across the Atlantic, might pick up some very useful ideas that, put into practice, might save him from the Radical wrath to come.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREI need hardly point out that as a general rule ground rents are worth more in point of annual value than Consols. In the case of a rental arising out of ground rents under leases with still 40 or 50 years to run—say of £1,000 a year—the annual value would be calculated at 24 years' purchase, and the duty would only be £240; while if a man had £1,000 a year out of Consols that would be calculated as worth £35,000, and the duty would be £350. Of the inequalities attending the present Succession and Probate Duty by which great ground landlords escape taxation there can be no doubt, and certainly amendment is required.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 129.—(Div. List, No. 117.)
  Original question again proposed.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONAs the next Amendment I have to propose is likely to give rise to some debate, perhaps the Government would agree now to report progress and allow us a short time tomorrow afternoon for the purpose?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYI hope the hon. Member will proceed now. It is the last Amendment, and I think the Committee have entered upon the discussion with a desire to conclude it to-night.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONMy proposal is to omit from the clause the words providing that the duty payable in respect of the principal value should not in any case exceed the amount which would be chargeable upon an annuity equal to such annual value according to the highest value in table III. in the Schedule of the Succession Duty Act. The point of this is that, as in the case of the last amendment, I wish to bring the Bill into conformity with the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when in opening his Budget he said his desire was as far as possible to bring about an equality between realty and personalty. I would strike out the limitation of the number of years' purchase to 24½ in capitalizing the value of realty. I trust the Government will see their way to amend this and allow further discretion for the estimation of the value of land upon a fair basis. Again, I suppose, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go back upon the pre-
  332
  cedent of 1885. But let me say no one now cares two straws about what was done in 1885; what people really care to know is how far the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to carry out his definite promise to bring about similarity and equality between realty and personalty. The Bill bristles with inequalities, but I trust it may be made a little fairer than it is.
  THE CHAIRMANI have very grave doubts whether it is in the power of the hon. Member to move his Amendment. It proposes to increase the limitation of the tax, and would therefore make the taxation larger than is proposed in the Bill, and that, I think, is outside the power of the Committee to do.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONI am afraid the Amendment has that tendency, for the Bill as it stands limits the tax on realty so much that any Amendment proposed must necessarily increase the tax. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can suggest any means by which we should be in order in endeavouring to bring about something nearer equality ["No, No."] Then we shall divide against the clause.
  SIR W. HARCOURTNo doubt the objection taken to the Amendment of my hon. Friend must prevail, but that of course does not apply to the operation of the clause. I do not wish to detain the Committee at length, but I wish to place on record—and this we may do by dividing against the clause—our objection to a new tax founded on a principle we regard as entirely unjust as between one class of property and another. The Amendment of my hon. Friend goes to the point of one of our principal objections to the clause. The clause provides that land shall be capitalized at 24½ years' purchase; why should it not be capitalized on the real value, whatever that is? What argument against that can possibly be maintained? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is extremely fond of the tu quoque argument, but I should have thought that from questions of arithmetic that favourite argument of his might have been excluded. Also, I do not see how we are to make any progress with finance if it is to be sufficient to say that in former times other people made the same error. What we really want to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  333
  is his own statement of the principle involved. The right hon. Gentleman is understood not to deny that inequalities exist, and it is desired that he should make some more effectual effort to remedy those inequalities. Now, though a private Member cannot make an Amendment such as my hon. Friend desires, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of course can make any change he likes. Is it not rather striking that the Government should be now contending for the capitalization of land at 24½ years' purchase, and earlier in the evening they were fighting for the commutation of pensions on 27 years' purchase? It is utterly impossible to defend it on any principle of equity between the different classes of property. The Government have a majority, and will no doubt defeat the Amendment, but it is our duty to call attention to this extremely unfair incidence of taxation.
  MR. GOSCHENI have not referred to the proposals of 1885, which the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down treats with such contempt for the sake of a tu quoque argument, but merely because I think that coming with the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, assisted by the right. hon. Gentlemen the Members for Derby and Edinburgh, there must be sound arguments in support of them. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not care two straws for what was done in 1885, but I think those proposals should be at least looked into. It can hardly be unfair and preposterous to establish now a method of valuation which was fair and just in 1885. As for the comparison with the capitalization of pensions, a fixed sum of money payable yearly by the Government may well be more valuable than land yielding a similar amount, which land, perhaps, is not saleable, and the value of which is subject to fluctuations, and under present circumstances is probably falling. The principle capitalization is taken from the value of land with buildings upon it, and 24½ years' purchase is a fair market price. The characteristics of landed and personal property are so different that it would not be sound finance to place them on exactly the same footing.
  MR. CHILDERSThe Chancellor of the Exchequer now for the fourth time
  334
  has adopted the tu quoque argument in reference to what was done in 1885, in which year we were defeated in our proposal to make the Death Duties on realty and personalty equal. The right hon. Gentleman asks why did we not then propose the other change also, that is to say, to value the land, not according to the scale of the old Succession Duty, but according to its real value. Why, how foolish we should have been when making the proposal which added greatly to the Death Duties on land, if we had proposed in addition to raise the scale of valuation; thus in many cases doubling the amount of the increased duties. Of course the plan of charging upon the real value, and not according to an arbitrary scale is a sound one, but had we done this as well as put personalty and realty under the same rate we should have been making a proposition to Parliament which would have had no chance of success. We satisfied ourselves by proposing what we did without suggesting that which would have made a heavy second addition to the tax on real property. I hope that is a clear answer to the tu quoque argument of the right hon. Gentleman. Instead of taxing realty and personalty at the same rate as we proposed, he is now enacting a reform of a limited kind, under which realty will not pay so much as personalty, and we say if that is the proposal of the Government, that there is good reason for valuing realty, not in accordance with the artificial scale of the Succession Duty of 1852, but according to its real value, the chief result being that ground rents would no longer escape the proportionate tax due from them. As to the particular proposition on which we wished to take a Division, it is clear it would be out of order to take one on Sub-section "a," and I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
  MR. HALDANEI should like to ask whether the words I propose at the end of the clause, and which I intended as a part of it, could be moved in this place?
  THE CHAIRMANThe clause being out of order, it is unnecessary to entertain that question.
  Clause, together with clauses up to Clause 9, added to the Bill.
  Clause 10.
  MR. GEDGEI beg to move to leave out Sub-section 1. Under the Succession Duty Act if any successor takes a succession and has to give up property which he possesses, he is allowed the value of that which he gives up, to be reckoned as against what he takes, and pays Succession Duty only upon that by which he profits. Say a father possesse an estate of £100,000, and gives a son £20,000, and when he dies devises the estate to his eldest son on condition that he passes over the smaller property to his younger brother. In that case, according to this clause, the son will be allowed to deduct the value of the smaller property against that which he inherits. But supposing the uncle or the grandfather—[laughter and interruption]—hon. Members may laugh, but this is a case very likely to happen—I am objecting to an exemption given in the Succession Duty Act being taken away. Supposing an uncle or grandfather—[continued interruption]—has devised the smaller estate to the elder son, as frequently happens, and it is to pass on to the younger son when the father dies—[renewed laughter and interruption]—then he will not get the benefit of this Return, and it seems to me that if he should get the benefit in one case and not in the other it should be in the last and not in the first—[Laughter.]—because in the last case the estate will have paid Succession Duty once. If hon. Members think this is the way to get through business I do not agree with them. [Laughter.]
  Amendment moved: Clause 10, page 7, leave out Sub-section 1.—(Mr. Gedge.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 1 stand part of the clause."
  MR. GUSCHENIt was rather difficult to follow the remarks of the hon. Member owing to the interruptions that took place during his speech. I did not quite catch his objection to the clause; but, no doubt, in the Succession Duty Act of 1853, there was an exemption which has been pushed too far, and my objections to the existing interpretation of which I explained as fully as I was able when I introduced the Budget the other day. If there is an allowance made—for instance, £200 a year—to an expectant heir, up to the death of the owner of an estate, and then on that death the estate comes into the posses-
  336
  sion of the person enjoying that £200 a year, the £200 is deducted from the annual value of the estate, and that, we do not think, should continue. I understand that it has been by a straining of the Statute that this exemption has hitherto prevailed, and we propose to put an end to such exemption.
  Question put and agreed to.
  MR. GEDGEIn moving the next Amendment, I merely wish to say that if an estate be worth not more than £300, only 30s. is paid by way of duty, and there is no Succession Duty payable at all, but if this clause is passed that limit of £300 will be reduced to #x00A3;100, and Succession Duty will become payable even in cases where legacies are under #x00A3;20. I think that is very hard, and I move the omission of the Subsection.
  Amendment moved, Clause 10, page 7, leave out Sub-section 2.#x2014;(Mr. Gedge.)
  Question proposed#x2014;"That Sub-section 2 stand part of the clause."
  MR. GOSCHENI do not think the clause would have the effect pointed out by the hon. Member. The exemption would be left as it exists now, but we desire to prevent these small legacies escaping payment of duty by being purposely left in land. An evasion of duty frequently happens in these cases.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 10 added to the Bill.
  Clause 11.
  MR. GEDGEIt is all very well for hon. Members who have not paid as much attention to the Bill as I have to laugh. I have the interests of the taxpayers at heart. Under present law if a man executes a voluntary settlement on which he has to pay a stamp of 5s. per cent and he dies within three months, the subjects of the voluntary settlement become liable to Probate Duty, and the sum of 5s. per cent is allowed. But in this clause the three months is extended to twelve months, making it more likely that the man will die, and the allowance is taken away. [Laughter and Interruption.] I beg to move the omission of Sub-section 2.
  Amendment moved, Clause 11, page 8, leave out Sub-section 2. (Mr. Gedge.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section, 2 stand part of the clause."
  SIR E. CLARKEI cannot agree to the exclusion of this Sub-section.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Further Amendments agreed to:#x2014;
  Clause 12, page 9, line 14, after "duty," insert "in case the successor shall not have availed himself of the option given to him by Section 22 of 'The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888,' or after two years from the date of the last payment by such successor of any instalment or part of the duty, if he has availed himself of such option."#x2014;(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Clause 14, page 10, line 25, at end, add "and no trustee, executor, or administrator shall, after the expiration of such six years, be liable to such duty, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the account rendered was correct to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief."—(Mr. Gedge.)
  Bill as amended, reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  COUNTY COURT APPEALS (IRELAND) [REMUNERATION, &O]
  Resolution reported:
  "That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the remuneration, subsistence allowances, and travelling expenses of any clerks of the Peace or Clerks of the Crown and Peace, who may have additional duties imposed upon them by the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the County Court (Ireland) Acts."
  Resolution agreed to.

  BRIBERY (PUBLIC BODIES) PREVENTION BILL (No. 158).
  Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)I think the words "in England" should be inserted. I think it should have to go before a Court of Quarter Sessions in England. Certainly to go before a Court of Quarter Sessions in Ireland is not a very happy prospect.
  SIR R. WEBSTERI understand there is an appeal in Ireland, but if the House is willing to insert the words "in England," they might be considered on Report.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI do not mean to convey that there is no appeal in Ireland. What I mean is this, that supposing a man on the popular side is prosecuted before the Court of Quarter Sessions, he will be convicted, but if he is a Tory he will be discharged. I do not know whether I am in order, but I
  338
  should move the insertion of the words "in England."
  SIR R. WEBSTERI rather gather that it is the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman to confine trial in Ireland to Assizes as distinct from Quarter Sessions. I am not able to express an opinion upon that without consultation with the Solicitor General for Ireland. The alteration might be made on Report, but I am not justified in consenting to it now.
  MR. T. M. HEALYOn Report we have only one chance. Unless we get this concession, Mr. Courtney, I shall move a new clause.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL, (Paddington, S.)I should like my hon. and learned Friend to make a concession on this point. I think we may take it for granted that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is as authoritative upon the law as the Solicitor General of Ireland.
  SIR R. WEBSTERdid not reply.
  MR. T. M. HEALYVery well, then; we will go on. My object, Mr. Courtney, is to make a provision such as exists in the Truck Act, 1882, that the Act shall not apply in certain circumstances in Ireland. My clause will be to the effect that the provisions relating to prosecutions and change of venue under the Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, shall not apply to proceedings under this Bill. in Ireland you have two classes of criminals—the Tory. and the Nationalist. The Tory is sure to get off. He gets off by this machinery; he has the right under the Crimes Act to ask for a special jury. That is to say, he is entitled to ask for an Orange jury, and having got an Orange jury he is certain of acquittal, or the ground is left open by changing the venue; in the same way as the Walkers were tried in Belfast. Having murdered a policeman, and wounded a second policeman, another man was hanged for it. So far as I am concerned, I shall upon every occasion expose the way in which trials are conducted in Ireland. I would refer to the case of the abominable scoundrels who were acquitted without a stain on their characters in connection with the trial of French and Cornwallis. What is done is this—they are tried by a jury of their own class. Now, take this Bill. If it becomes law—and I rejoice that the noble Lord has nearly passed it—a Poor Law Guardian in

  339
  Ireland who has given a contract he ought not to have given, would have a tremendous case made against him. Though, perhaps, the action was hardly worth looking at, it would be brought to Belfast, and it would be trumpeted about that a change of venue had been obtained, and that probably the man would be convicted. It would be regarded as a great case against granting Local Government in Ireland. But if you take the case of Mr. Clement Smith and men of that class, when they have to stand their trial, the change of venue is comfortable; they can ask for special juries, they have the right of challenge, and they have the means of getting off. Unfortunately, secret societies prevail in Ireland—the Orange Society and Freemasons, men belonging to Conservative politics, and a man of their side in politics is certain of acquittal. He can never be convicted. He may commit murder or any other crime, he has no chance of conviction. The machinery which has done this for him is the Crimes Act, which gives him the right to a special jury of his own class. I move this new clause.
  New Clause (Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, shall not apply to any trial under this Act)— (Mr. T. M. Healy)—brought up, and read the first time:—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  SIR R. WEBSTERI cannot possibly assent to this Clause at the present stage, and I would submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be very much better to raise the matter on Report.
  LORD R. CHURCHILLI would earnestly appeal to my hon. and learned Friend to consider this Clause, because it is obvious that the provisions of the Crimes Act in Ireland contemplated totally different proceedings than could possibly arise under this Bill. I do implore my hon. and learned Friend to give me what assistance he can in passing this Bill. The Clause of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is perfectly legitimate in that it provides that exceptional legislation should not be taken to apply to ordinary matters. I earnestly appeal to my hon. and learned
  340
  Friend not to oppose this Clause, but to let the Bill go through Committee with that Amendment, and then if on Report, if on consideration it was found necessary, it could be struck out.
  SIR H. JAMESI see the difficulty in which the Attorney General is placed. But I would point out that there may be a case of intimidation under the Crimes Act in Ireland, and, therefore, the object is to take care that the machinery of that enactment shall not be strained to apply to an offence under the Corrupt Practices Act. I think, however, that it is very improbable that there would be any clashing of the two Acts; yet I would join in the appeal made by the noble Lord to the Attorney General. I do not think he would be giving way unduly, because his rights would be preserved. I am sure this Bill ought to pass, and I appeal to the indulgence of the Committee now to allow this matter to be taken, while reserving to the Attorney General the full right of further consideration. If it is found that it is not to be allowed, then it can be struck out on Report.
  SIR R. WEBSTERI very much regret that it is impossible I can acquiesce. The clause could be inserted in Report as well as struck out. I do not consider it would be right to concede a principle brought forward as it is now.
  MR. T. M. HEALYI should have thought the learned Attorney General for England would have remembered what occurred last year when he refused to take the advice of his right hon. and learned Friend, in the case of a Bill to which he was very much attached, namely, the Criminal Evidence Bill. The hon. Member for Bury tendered him advice upon a point, he refused to take it, and he did not get his Bill.
  It being One of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at five minutes after One o'clock.

LAND TRANSFER BILL [No. 67.]
Report from the Select Committee (with proceedings of the Committee), made and to be printed. Bill reported with Amendments; and committed to a Committee of the whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 68.)
INDECENT ADVERTISEMENTS BILL [No. 69.] HORSEFLESH (SALE FOR FOOD) BILL [No. 70.]
Reported from the Standing Comfor General Bills with Amendments; The Report thereof received; and Bills re-committed to Committee of the whole House on Monday next; and to be printed as amended.
SAINT GILES RESTORATION (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL [No. 40].
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL [No. 50].

  SECOND READING.
  LORD MONKSWELLMy Lords, I move that this Bill be read a second time. The measure is a small one, and not of a. controversial character. Clause 1 remedies an obvious defect in the law, a defect which considerably increases the cost of raising the library rate. The law now is that when the Library Acts are put in force in an area composed of a single parish, the library rate must be levied as a separate
  190
  rate, but in every other area—e.g., an area composed of two or more parishes, or of a District Board, the rate may be levied as part of some other rate, thereby saving expense in the collection. My Lords, in the parish in which I live, Chelsea, the clerical expense of levying the library rate separately is £50 a year, and in addition about £100 a year is paid to the poor-rate collectors for collecting the library rate, making a total of about £150 a year for collecting £2,500. The whole of this expense would be avoided if, as this Bill proposes, the library rate were levied as part of the poor rate, as is now the case where two or more parishes club together to put the Acts into operation. Originally a Bill to the effect of Clause 1 of this Bill was brought in by me in this House, but it was taken off the Order Book and relegated to the Commons as a money Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships will consider it advisable under those circumstances to move any Amendments to the Clause. Clause 2 is merely supplemental to Clause 1. Clause 3, which has been inserted in the Bill in the House of Commons, is new and useful. It enables parishes having public libraries to make mutually advantageous arrangements for the joint use of those libraries.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for General Bills.

ASSIZES RELIEF BILL [No.60].

  SECOND READING.
  LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, this Bill deals with an apparently small matter, but it is one of some importance in relation to the trial of prisoners. Down to a comparatively recent period

  191
  prisoners who were committed for trial in respect of offences which were triable at Quarter Sessions were not tried by Judges of Assize except under special circumstances, the Judge of Assize trying the Assize cases, and the Sessions cases being tried by Quarter Sessions. A clause was introduced under which it was made possible for the Judges to try or not to try those cases, and in the result they were not tried; for the consequence was that the Judge of Assize tried the Assize cases, and the Sessions cases were tried before Quarter Sessions. Owing to the change which was made the question arose as to whether the Judges were not bound to clear the gaols of prisoners whom I may call Assize prisoners, and in the result the Sessions cases have been tried as well as the Assize cases of late years at the Assizes. This has resulted in very considerable inconvenience and increase of expense. The average cost of trying a case at the Assizes is very much greater than the average cost would be of trying the same case at Sessions. One result has been that the increased cost of trying those cases at Assizes has had to be borne by the country, cases which could very well have been just as well tried at Sessions. This Bill proposes that, in future, unless a case is committed by the magistrates for trial at the Assizes, or unless the Judges consider it ought to be tried at the Assizes, it shall be tried by the Quarter Sessions, instead of being tried by the Judges of Assize. Sometimes a prisoner would be tried earlier by the Judges, but one must look at the matter as a whole, and a trial at Sessions assumes a more local character than a trial at the Assizes. This is often a matter of importance to a prisoner, sometimes as it enables him to call witnesses whom he would not be able to call if he could not afford the cost of taking them to the Assize town. That is undoubtedly a very great advantage to the prisoner. I cannot for a moment doubt that, looking at the matter as a whole, whether you look at the interests of the public in the matter or to the interest of the prisoner, the balance of advantage is in favour of the principle contained in the Bill. In such towns as Wigan and Bolton, for instance, which have their own Recorders and Quarter Sessions, prisoners would be tried before the Recorder and would be able to call
  192
  their witnesses to character or otherwise on the spot, and not have to go to the expense of bringing them to the Assize town. Therefore, my Lords, I move that it be read a second time.
  LORD COLERIDGEMy Lords, in taking exception to the transfer of certain cases to Quarter Sessions, it is not so much that I object to the delay in the trial by Judges of those prisoners who are proposed to be tried at Quarter Sessions. I do not so much insist on the prolongation of the imprisonment which must necessarily take place. I agree with my noble and learned Friend that, on the whole, it is better for the prisoner that he should be tried at Quarter Sessions. But, My Lords, I wish to say that I do not like any measure which increases in any degree the liability of prisoners to be tried at Quarter Sessions. It is better that Sessions cases should be tried at Sessions; but, at the same time, I look with some jealousy upon a measure which would increase in any great degree the number of cases tried at Sessions instead of Assizes. It by no means follows that what appear to be insignificant cases may not involve difficult points of law; and all Sessions are not alike in being presided over by men who command confidence. A great many Quarter Sessions are not tribunals which anybody might desire with satisfaction to try prisoners who might equally as well be tried by the highest tribunals in the land. Still, it is rather on the score of the punishments imposed than on the difficulty of the cases which I feel it necessary to protest against too complete a relegation of cases to Quarter Sessions. I should be sorry to be obliged to lay down a principle on which sentences should be passed; but, making every allowance for differences of opinion, I affirm that, in many parts of England, sentences are passed which are enough to make one start back with amazement; and, therefore, it is necessary that rules of some kind should be laid down, not as to the character of the offence, but as to the amount of punishment which shall be ordered by such tribunals. It is a very complicated question, and one upon which differences of opinion may very fairly exist. For my own part, I should be very sorry to lay down principles, but I do say that the sentences which have been

  193
  passed at some Sessions are so startling as to justify a doubt whether it should remain possible to increase the number of such sentences, or whether it is advisable to withdraw in any degree the suggestive guidance of the more equal and reasonable sentences passed by the Judges. It is rather in reference to the punishment inflicted for offences that I should not like to see any extension of the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions. They try their cases with rapidity, and there is no reasonable objection on that ground; but I do say again, that the sentences passed at Quarter Sessions are such as, I am certain, if they were brought before your Lordships, would startle you very much. It is a useful thing that Quarter Sessions should occasionally have the opportunity of seeing what Judges do who are entrusted with the administration of justice. Perhaps the trial of Sessions cases at Assizes might be reckoned as depriving the higher Courts of the services of one Judge, by the amount of extra labour which would be imposed upon them, but that will be a less serious matter when the Special Commission ceases sitting.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I must bear my testimony in favour of the Bill. I think the disadvantages and inconvenience of the present system have been somewhat undervalued by my noble and learned Friend. I have inquired as to the proportion of Quarter Sessions cases and Assize cases tried at recent Assizes. They are not perfect at present, but I will read some of them. Among the figures in the Return I have received are the following: East Riding of Yorkshire, prisoners tried at February Assizes, Sessions cases, 38; Assize cases, 48; Durham, Sessions cases, 8; Assize cases, 14; Newcastle, Sessions cases, 10; Assize cases, 10. I have a large number of cases, but those are specimens. The figures with regard to other places are much to the same effect. A very considerable number of cases are tried at Assizes which, in the ordinary course, would be tried by Quarter Sessions. Undoubtedly a great deal of inconvenience is caused by Judges being occupied in trying these Quarter Sessions cases and being kept away from duties more proper for them
  194
  to discharge. At present, whether cases are tried at Quarter Sessions or at Assizes depends entirely on the date which happens to be fixed for the Assizes. It depends upon when the gaol delivery takes place, because, if the Sessions happen to come before the Assizes, they are tried there. That distinction exists at present by law. I think there are a great number of inconveniences at present, not the least of which is that, if they are tried at Assizes, they occupy the time of Her Majesty's Judges. There have been, more than once, complaints of Judges being compelled to go to different parts of the country simply because of their Assizes having been fixed earlier than the trials would have taken place at Sessions. There is no principle upon which Sessions cases would attach to the Assizes except by reason of the point of time. My Lords, I am also unable to concur with my noble and learned Friend in what he has said as to the inequality of sentences. I do not deny that a great many sentences strike one as some what distressing. The noble and learned Lord appears to consider that this present system is desirable as conducive to securing a greater uniformity of sentences, but I am bound to say that the same feeling arises in regard to sentences passed by Her Majesty's Judges. Even among Her Majesty's Judges there often appears to be great inequality in the sentences in cases apparently of the same character—and inequality not merely between the sentences of different Judges, but even between the sentences of the same Judge at different times. Sentences are passed disproportionate to the gravity of offences. But the nature of each case depends on a large number of different circumstances which make up the moral culpability of the Criminal Act, and different minds must be expected to somewhat differ on questions of this kind. So it is impossible to proceed upon any definite principle that shall be applicable to particular cases. I do not think that this point as to sentences affords any valid argument against the Bill. If a tribunal of appeal existed, greater uniformity of sentences might be induced, but it is impossible for minds of Judges not to differ as to the degree of moral culpability and the punishment to be inflicted for offences. My Lords, I think

  195
  it only right to add that I thoroughly approve of the principle of this Bill, and I should have thought it right to myself to bring in a Bill of this character; but upon appealing to Her Majesty's Judges upon a subject with which they were so much more familiar than myself, I found that among the Judges themselves there existed great difference of opinion on this matter as to the trial of Quarter Sessions cases, and I did not, therefore, bring in any Bill myself dealing with it; but, now that this measure has passed the other House, I see no reason why I should place any obstacle in its way.
  LORD ESHERMy Lords, I must express my strong objection to this Bill. It is said to be intended to relieve the Judges from trying a certain class of cases. But they have no right to be relieved. They have undertaken to administer the law, and they have no right to complain. These cases do not in general take up any appreciable portion of their time. I may say that I have had some experience of going circuit, and, except on the Northern Circuit, as is known to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, the trial of Sessions prisoners takes up very little time. The Judges, therefore, are not injured by having to try them, and if they were injured they ought not to complain. And they do not complain. I venture to say that if the opinions of the Judges were asked there would not be a majority of them who desire that this change should be made. That it is a great change cannot be denied. By the Constitution of this country, from the beginning of the time when the Judges went circuit, it has always been the rule that the Judges have been bound to deliver the gaol, and that every prisoner awaiting trial should be tried at the Assize. The only persons who can be benefited by this Bill are those leading members of the circuits who have to wait when there is only one Judge taking cases until they can get their civil business brought on, and I cannot help suspecting that this Bill which has been brought into the other House has been brought in for the benefit of those gentlemen and of nobody else. Now, with regard to the prisoners, this Bill would break the rule which has always existed, because it would keep prisoners longer in prison than, according
  196
  to the present system, they are. You will be taking away the opportunity which prisoners who are in gaol have of being tried. It is the constitutional practice that the Judge of Assize shall deliver the gaol, and that every prisoner awaiting trial shall be tried at the Assize. But this Bill would deprive the prisoners of this right. If this Bill passes, then, if the prisoner is committed for trial immediately after one Quarter Sessions, he will be kept in prison and will have to wait until the next Quarter Sessions, though in the interval there might be an Assize held. The rule of delivering the gaols which exists at the present moment, therefore, will be broken. This Bill would also deprive the prisoner of the right of being tried before a Judge of the High Court. It is said that Judges ought not to waste their knowledge and skill in trying such cases. I absolutely and entirely repudiate such a principle. There is nothing derogatory to a Judge in having to try cases which, though of no intrinsic gravity, are of extreme importance to the prisoners, and as a matter of fact Judges do not complain of having to do so. It is of the greatest importance to a prisoner who is being tried, perhaps for the first time, however slight the evidence against him may be, to have all a Judge's skill and powers of mind to determine whether they are, or not, to be branded with a conviction. It is of especial importance in such cases where prisoners tried for the first time may have a stigma cast upon them. The only people I believe who would be benefited by the Bill are the members of the circuit, not the prisoners, and that I say is a thing which ought not to be.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKMy Lords, I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord in his objections to the Bill nor in his argument of the great advantage to prisoners of being tried before Judges, some of whom on their appointment have never held a criminal brief and know much less of the Criminal Law than many Chairmen of Quarter Sessions and Recorders. Judges have plenty of other important work to do, and are not intended to devote their time to lighter work of this character which can be excellently done by others. Now, my Lords, with regard to small offences being tried at the Assizes. It is quite obvious that the Judges have

  197
  work of a higher character to do, and that they are appointed for that purpose. Why, then, are cases taken away from Recorders and others who are perfectly competent to deal with them on the spot because a Judge happens to come to the Assize town at a particular time? Trial before the Judge in such cases is a mere accident; and this Bill would relieve the country of expense and the Judges from a great amount of business which is thrust unnecessarily upon them. According to my noble and learned Friend, wrong is done to the prisoners by depriving them of the opportunity of being tried before Judges. But they have not always that opportunity. There are always four Sessions in the year for trying prisoners, and generally more than that; I think in West Yorkshire there are eight. Recorders, at least, are well-qualified and regularly trained to the business; and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions have generally both knowledge and experience. Why should not they try cases which they are perfectly competent to try on the spot at much less expense, and do try when the Judges do not happen to hold Assizes before them? Witnesses under such a plan as now exists have to be transferred at great expense from the district where the offence is committed to the Assize town, from a prison and a tribunal on the spot competent to try them, and at less expense than they could be tried before a Judge. It is in no sense a question of principle, and it is not, I submit to your Lordships, for the sake of the prisoners, but for the sake of the public that the practice should be altered, and that the time of the Judges should not be occupied in trying little trumpery cases at Assizes when their presence is required in London or elsewhere. At present you are cutting blocks with razors. Many of the cases which have to be tried by the Judges would be as well tried by a couple of magistrates at Petty Sessions. They are, indeed, generally the same classes of cases which magistrates at Petty Sessions deal with themselves—they do not send them to a jury. I have not had the opportunity of looking at the terms of the Returns to which my noble Friend on the Woolsack referred; but I think there is one instance given where the Judge of Assize was occupied for five days in that way. I think our Judges
  198
  might be much better employed than in trying cases which Chairman of Quarter Sessions and Recorders are constantly in the habit of trying with satisfaction.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy Lords, I agree with those who think that upon the merits of this Bill it ought to pass. But I also agree with what my noble Friend the Lord Chief Justice has said as to another matter which, though it seems to me not to be germane to this Bill, it is well should be called to the attention of the Legislature, and that is the question of doing something to reduce the severity of sentences. It is obvious that if anything can be done in that respect it should be done in reference not only to prisoners who, but for this Bill, would be tried at the Assizes, but generally with regard to all who come within the law. My Lords, I should be glad to see that matter well looked to. Certainly I can say that when I was in office I was very much struck with many instances of disproportionate severity at Quarter Sessions in the sentences passed. I think the whole subject requires attention, and, perhaps, not as to sentences passed at Quarter Sessions only; but this does not seem to me to be a proper occasion on which to deal with it.
  LORD HERSCHELLMy Lords, I only wish to add that I have no desire to advocate the Bill for the purpose of relieving the Judges of work. It does not matter much to them what work they are doing. They can only occupy a certain amount of time, and whether they are deciding simple cases or difficult cases is to them a matter of small concern. It is no relief to them to say that they should not try easy cases but only difficult ones which involve more trouble. I do not think that is a matter which is at all before your Lordships. In bringing this Bill before you I do so on two grounds—one is the ground of the saving of expense, the other is a ground distinctly referring to the prisoners and their interests. The principle I advocate in this Bill is that the more you can try these small cases on the spot the better it is for the man himself. I would not have advocated it otherwise. A prisoner very often wants to call witnesses to character, and it may often affect the sentence if he does call them with regard to the commission of an offence, and it ought to affect the

  199
  sentence. Now, if a prisoner is tried at Quarter Sessions, he has his witnesses on the spot; but he has not always the means of bringing them to the Assize town, and as they cannot be called he suffers hardship in consequence. I think therefore on the whole, it is distinctly to the interest of the prisoner that he should be tried on the spot, and that the Bill should pass.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDMy Lords, there is only one matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the expression of the noble and learned Lord who has charge of the Bill, that what he looks to is the interests of prisoners in this matter; and he has argued that it would be in the interests of prisoners that they should be tried at the Quarter Sessions town.
  LORD HERSCHELLNo, I did not say that; I said I would not have advocated it if I did not believe that, on the whole, it would be to the advantage of the prisoners in these small cases if they could be tried on the spot.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDThe noble and learned Lord argued that it would be in the interests of prisoners that they should be tried at the Quarter Sessions town. The noble and learned Lord, I am afraid has never paid a visit to Sussex. The Quarter Sessions town of the Eastern Division of that county is Lewes, and cases some from all parts of the division to be tried there. In the Western Division of Sussex Quarter Sessions are held at Horsham and Chichester. If an offence is committed on the borders of Sussex and Surrey, the case would have to be tried at Chichester, and the noble Lord's argument about the facility with which a prisoner would be able to bring his witnesses to character to a Quarter Sessions town falls to the ground, certainly in that instance, because there is a considerable distance between the borders of Surrey and Sussex and Chichester. Then, with regard to the time a prisoner would have to remain in prison. A man might be committed for trial immediately after the Easter Sessions and if the magistrates could not commit him to the Assizes and he could not obtain bail, he would remain in prison from the month of March to the month of July. That would not be in the interest of the prisoner. I think, therefore, the argument of the
  200
  noble and learned Lord is not sustainable.
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL (No. 52).
Read a third time (according to order), and passed and sent to the Commons.
DEFENCE OF THE HARBOUR OF ESQUIMAULT.

  QUESTIONS—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD SUDELEYMy Lords, I rise to ask the question of which I have given notice, and that is to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Dominion Government of Canada have assented to the proposed arrangement for the defence of the harbour of Esquimault, in Vancouver's Island, which he stated last year had been sent out on the 12th of June, 1888; whether the contemplated works had been commenced and the armament sent out; whether the Government would now state the date when the fortifications of this important harbour (being the headquarters of our Navy on the Pacific Station) would be completed and the guns placed in position. I desire to call attention to the present position of this matter, the peculiar and unsatisfactory position of the naval headquarters at Esquimault, in Vancouver's Island, and their present undefended state. Your Lordships will remember that about a year ago I went very fully into this question, and endeavoured not only to show that the port of Esquimault was utterly undefended, but also that the naval headquarters ought to be transferred to Burrard's inlet, the terminus of the Pacific Railway. During that discussion the Government endeavoured to show that it was impossible to make the proposed alterations, and that it had finally been decided that the naval headquarters were to remain at Esquimault. That being the decision arrived at, I will not again attempt to prove that the headquarters ought to have been removed, although I am confident I am right. Whether the decision of the Government was right or not, all authorities—Canadian, English, and officers of the Army and Navy are agreed that Esquimault is a place of very great importance,

  201
  and that if it is to be our naval headquarters and our only coaling station on the Pacific Station, there can be no doubt that it ought to be put into a position of being able to defend itself. Last year I stated that at that time there were no guns or any fortifications which could withstand a hostile attack, and that the place was absolutely undefended. I pointed out that the two torpedo boats which were at that port were old and obsolete, and could not, therefore, be made available. The noble Lord who represented the Admiralty did not attempt to controvert this. He practically acknowledged that at the time the place was undefended. It was stated that Esquimault was to be the permanent headquarters, and that the Government fully concurred that it ought to be defended, that a large number of guns were ready to be sent out, and that the only reason the matter was not at once concluded was that there was some slight difference of opinion between the Colonial Government and the Imperial Government upon some details on the question of defence. My noble and gallant Friend who represents the Admiralty stated that "the plans for the defence of Esquimault are all completed. They are cut and dried, so to speak. Men and guns are ready to be sent out to-morrow." He said that it was intended to place the harbour in a good condition of defence, and that the only difficulty which arose was that it was necessary for certain arrangements to be carried out. The noble Lord who represented the War Office on his part went further into details, and after acknowledging that the place ought to be at once armed, explained that there had been some slight alteration in the proposed armament, but that it was now decided to have two 6-in. guns, four 9-in., two quick-firing, six 16-pounders, and six rifled machine guns; that they were prepared to spend £31,000 upon armament, £10,000 upon submarine stores, and about £10,000 upon submarine mines and torpedos, and that the guns were nearly all ready to send out with a supply of ammunition. In July last I asked what had actually been done, and I was told by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that a letter had been sent out to the Dominion Government of Canada on the 12th of
  202
  June last year asking for their assent to certain arrangements, and that immediately a reply was received the work should be carried out. Twelve months have passed since that time, and if I am rightly informed nothing whatever has been done. The promises made have not been carried out; no guns have been sent, and no definite arrangements have been completed. Who is actually to blame I cannot tell. I have heard from many quarters that there has been a "Midshipman Easy" kind of triangular duel of correspondence going on. The Admiralty has written to the War Office, the War Office has written to the Admiralty, and both Departments have written to the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office has written to the Dominion of Canada, and they have all written again to each other, and the grand result has been absolutely nil. Early this Session I put this notice on the Paper, and I was asked to postpone it because the Government had reason to believe the matter would be at once settled. Now that three months have elapsed I hope that my noble and gallant Friend who will reply to the question will be able to say that I am mistaken, and that really something has been done. But I cannot help thinking from all I have heard that from want of determination on the part of those in high authority we are actually in a worse position than we were 12 months ago, and I should not be surprised to find that a new set of correspondence has been set on foot in lieu of that of last year, and that the guns have been distributed to other places and used elsewhere. At the end of last Session I ventured to ask my noble Friend the Secretary for State for the Colonies what had then been done, and he then stated that a letter embodying the views of the Government had been sent to the Government of the Dominion of Canada and they were only waiting for the result. Of course, my Lords, under ordinary circumstances this would be merely ludicrous, but the real danger of leaving that naval station undefended is so grave that I ventured to call your Lordships' serious attention to it, as in case of war with Russia our position in the Pacific Ocean, with its greatest commercial interests, would certainly be compromized. Let us for a moment see what this harbour being undefended

  203
  means. Esquimault, in the whole of the Pacific Ocean, is the only place where ships can go for coal, shelter, or repair. Of its strategic importance, having regard to the great development of Western Canada and the recently constructed Canadian Pacific Railway, it would be impossible to say too much. Russia has a great naval arsenal at Vladivostock, only a few days' steam away, which is often described as one of the first in the world. In urging the importance of this matter, I should like to say that in considering the possibilities of war. I allude specially to what would happen if war with Russia were to break out. Any question of war with the United States is one which I do not think ought to enter into our minds. Such a war would be fracticidal and, to my mind, impossible, and not within the scope of practical politics. With Russia, however, it is different. It must not be forgotten that a few years ago a Russian squadron was concentrated at San Francisco at a time when a war with this country was imminent, and it was well known that one object was to capture the harbour of Esquimault and the coaling station of Nanaimo. I think that of itself is sufficient to show the enormous importance of the question, and that I need not offer any apology for bringing it forward again. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me some satisfactory statement, and that he will tell me whether I am right in saying that the guns which were prepared for this place last year are no longer ready to be sent there, but have been distributed to other coaling stations, and that nothing whatever has been done.
  LORD ELPHINSTONEMy Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for postponing his question, which one must acknowledge has been for some time on the Notice Paper. I must, first, quite admit the great importance of the question. I went fully into the matter last year, and I will not weary your Lordships by going over it again. In the dispatch of 13th of June, it was stipulated, among other things, that while the Imperial Government, ammunition, and submarine stores, the Dominion Government, on their part, were to provide the permanent garrison, and trained instructors capable of instructing the artillery and submarine
  204
  miners, who would form part of the local force. On further consideration it appeared that the Dominion Government would probably find very great difficulty, and certainly very great expense would be thrown upon them were they to be called upon to provide the artillerymen, submarine miners, and officers capable of instructing the local force, and it has therefore been decided that a force of 75 Royal Marine Artillery are to be offered to the Dominion Government, including three officers. Fifty of those men will act as artillerymen, and 15 as submarine miners. The charge for maintaining that force—£7,000 a year—will be borne by the Dominion Government. The whole force will be under the command of a field officer, who will take command of the whole garrison. The officers will be capable of training the men of the local force in artillery and submarine drill. A Despatch to that effect was sent out on May 2 last. The Admiralty have already selected the officers and men for that purpose, and they can, if required, be sent away at two or three days' notice with the exception of the submarine miners. The reason of that exception is that the military and naval submarine drill are different, and it is thought desirable to have the men trained in the military drill as otherwise there would be two different systems and sets of stores in the colony, which would be sure to lead to confusion. Application as to the training of those men has been made to the War Office. With regard to the second part of the question, which asks whether the works have been commenced and when they will be completed, that is a question rather for the War Office than the Admiralty, but I apprehend that they are both very much in the same position, that is to say, that neither can take any step forward until the Canadian Government have replied to the Despatch of May 2. With regard to the guns, my noble Friend (Lord Harris) is unable to be present, and has authorized me to say that part of the armament that was to have gone to Esquimault has been sent to the coaling stations at Jamaica and St. Lucia, and for sea service. The quick-firing guns are in the manufacturers' hands, and the machine guns are being re-bored. There is no doubt that the armament

  205
  will be ready as soon as the fortifications are fit to receive them. The Government do not feel justified in keeping guns in England awaiting the completion of fortifications which are only in contemplation, while there are other important fortifications and ships ready to receive guns.
  LORD SUDELEYMy Lords, I beg to give notice that I will put this question again when sufficient time has elapsed to enable the Dominion Government to reply to the Despatch of May 2nd, and I also give notice that I shall inquire as to the progress that has been made with the defences of King George's Sound and Thursday Island, which, I understand, are at present in a very backward state.

WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE—LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERY,in rising to move an Address for a Return showing the number of women in England and Wales who are qualified to vote for County Councils and for Councillors in municipal boroughs, indicating in each case what is the qualification which entitles a woman to be placed on the register, said: I have been informed by the noble Lord, through whose Department these Returns would come, that there will be great difficulty in furnishing them in the form which I desire, but that they will be given in different for England, Scotland, and Ireland. Even in that form they will, I think, give more information than is at present available.
EARL BROWNLOWWith regard to the Return of women voters, it would entail great trouble and expense to give those relating to voters for Boards of Guardians and School Boards, and so much delay would be caused that the Returns would probably be useless. As however, the noble Lord is satisfied with the Returns in the form in which they have been offered, I will undertake to have them laid on the Table. The Return will consist of the number of women entitled to vote for County Councils and Municipal Councils.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANI shall be willing to give the Returns relating to Scotland.
EARL CADOGANI dare say my noble Friend is aware that women are not allowed to vote in municipal elec-
206
tions in Ireland except in one case—Belfast. I am afraid it will entail a very large amount of labour upon the clerks of Unions. If they are granted for England and Scotland, they should also be granted for Ireland.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYThen I will withdraw the Motion.

THE PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SYSTEM.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELD,in rising to call attention to the evils arising from the early age at which children may leave the public elementary schools under the present system, and to move for Returns, said: My Lords, this is a subject of very great importance. It is not a question of cubic feet or the distribution of grants; it is a question of the ultimate results of our whole system of education. A very large number of the children now leave school at a very early age, and a part of this evil arises from the liberty given to the Local Authorities to fix for themselves the standard at which children may leave school. In some cases, a child may leave school at the age of ten years, having passed the necessary standard required by the Local Authority. At that age a child is not competent to enter upon the labour to which his life can be devoted, and the consequence is, he runs about the streets and easily gets into the ranks of the criminal classes. I venture to think that this letting children leave at so early an age is very prejudicial to the education and the moral effect of the instruction they receive. If you examine boys who have left school for four, five, or six years, who have passed the standard required by the Act, you will find that in many such cases they have absolutely lost the power of reading with intelligence. I know that is the case in many parts of my own diocese. If that is so it points to there being something radically wrong and deficient in the system of education for the purpose of fitting the children for the duties they will have to fulfil in after life. I am not now entering on the question whether it is very important or not that the children of agricultural labourers should be well instructed on all those matters now comprised in our Education Code, but I do say, after devoting all the time and cost that is devoted to the education of

207
a child, it is a miserable result if you find that after five or six years he has actually forgotten how to read with intelligence. A child's mind is singularly receptive up to a certain age, and it becomes retentive just about the time it is turned away from the school, and at the time when your Lordships are sending your own boys to public schools. The present system of payment by results eminently tends to what is called cramming. There is another reason why you should not let the children leave school at so early an age. We are all aware that between 12 and 15 a boy's moral character begins to be formed, and it is at this critical time that we lose our hold of him altogether. Now, I do not propose that the children should be necessarily detained for a longer period in the elementary schools, although 10 years is hardly a sufficient age for an child to leave off attending school. The evil might be met in another way—first, by the wise extension of half-time. In agricultural districts this might be done by means of winter schools, as is done in other countries, especially in Switzerland where "half-timers" are not interfered with in the summer when they are able to work, but in the dark winter days when people are not employed in agricultural labour, they are sent to the schools. Although I am not in favour of compulsion at any time, I think, if it is employed, it can be far more usefully done at an earlier than at a later age. Children are very often sent to school by their parents for the purpose of getting rid of them; then, when they are just old enough to know how to fall into mischief, we lose our hold of them altogether, and I believe that has disastrous results. An extension of half-time might no doubt meet this evil to some extent. Far more use might be made of Saturdays than at present. I know of cases where children are ready to be gathered in voluntarily into the schools on Saturday afternoons, but, instead of being taught there, they are left running about the cold, damp streets. But there is another way, and that a most important way, of correcting the evil—evening schools. I do not think, until the introduction of the Code, anything material had been done to encourage this useful kind of education. By evening schools in manufacturing
208
towns and winter schools in agricultural districts a great deal can be done to supplement education and to keep the children under moral control, and counteract the mischief which is being done at an important and critical period of their lives. In Germany these evening schools are an integral part of the system of education, and the children are required to attend them. In reference to this point, the Commissioners say that they fully agree that the retention of some controlling influence over the scholars after they leave the day schools, and their removal from the contamination of the streets, would have a most excellent moral effect during a most dangerous period of life, and would be an object worth some public expenditure to attain. But there is scarcely anything in the Code which helps forward the end which the Commissioners have in view. Then they say there is always a necessity for having some kind of evening school for the purpose of fixing what has been learnt in the day school, and it would be worth while to spend something with that object. Further, they say that a special curriculum and standard should be provided suitable to the requirements of each locality, and that no special limit of age should be imposed upon the scholars. That last recommendation is of great importance. They further add that the evening schools of the future should be regarded and organized as schools for the retention of education already received in the day schools, and that for some years to come it will be necessary to have in evening schools the course of instruction given in the day schools. Now, my Lords, as I have said, I have no wish to increase the limit of age at which the children are required to leave school, or to raise the standard which they are required to pass before leaving school. In some instances even, I think it might be well if the children were allowed to continue their education in the evening schools, but what I wish to ask the noble Lord is whether some practical effect could not be given to the recommendations of the Commissioners by encouraging the evening schools, and, further, whether something could not be done to restrain the almost unlimited power of Local Authorities to fix the standard at which a child might leave

209
school. I am satisfied that where a child leaves school permanently at ten years of age, great mischief is done, from my experience in manufacturing and large towns, where one is pestered by little boys running about the rail way stations and public places, offering newspapers, lights, and so on. With reference to the powers given to Local Authorities in the matter of fixing the standard, I would ask whether a Return similar to the one that was made in 1881, giving the standards fixed by the different School Boards and other Local Authorities, could not be obtained up to the present time. Such a Return would throw light upon the subject I have brought before your Lordships, which is one of the greatest importance, and by far the most important matter we have at present to consider. I think we are all living under a great delusion with regard to the ultimate effects of this system of education in which we are spending so much money. I do not suppose any sudden change will be made in this matter; we must move slowly, and ultimately this system will act upon the least steady and least educated of the children of the poor. Still, I venture to express the hope that something may yet be introduced with the view of dealing with these difficulties, which, I believe, are productive of very serious evils, which I have only very imperfectly indicated in the statement I have made to your Lordships, and which are so much to be deplored.
LORD NORTONMy Lords, I think that the danger is not in the children leaving too soon, but rather in their leaving school before work is ready for them. If there were no interval between their leaving school and their going to work, the age of 13 would not be a bit too early for a boy to leave school. What is generally lost sight of is that for the working classes work is one of the most important parts of education. Leaving school is not ceasing from education. The most important part of a boy's education comes after he leaves school. He gains in intelligence, in knowledge, and in discipline. Therefore, to say that the children of the working classes leave school too soon seems to me a mistake. The danger, it seems to me, is that they leave school before they are ready to go to work, that there is an in-
210
terval of idleness in which they lose all they have learned at school, and are not keeping up their education by work. If there were no such interval, I say they would not leave school too soon; on the contrary, I would advocate, in some cases, that they should leave school sooner. The half time system is a very good one. It divides the book-work with the other work. There are two kinds of education—namely, the education of the school and the education of apprenticeship. I am convinced that you would find in the national schools that the half time boys, if tried against the full time boys in anything that requires intelligence, would beat the full time boys. The acknowledged fault of our national schools is that they are too literary; they have too much unrelieved book work; and what is wanted is something of the nature of industry or, as was suggested by a noble Lord the other day, bodily exercise. It is not fit that children of that class should be kept exclusively to book work. There are schools too much the other way being introduced into the large towns called technical schools. They are really national workshops—ateliers nationaux. It would be far better to put the boys in a regular shop or business at once; and in most of the great manufacturing towns they could get education in connection with real work and not sham work. I quite agree that there is very great danger in the interval of idleness between their leaving school under the existing law at the age of 13 and going to work, au interval when they were neither at school nor at work. All classes should remain at school till their life-work begins. It is proposed that there should be more evening schools or continuation schools. I think the continuation schools would be much better called de novo schools, because the scholars have, in a great measure, to begin again at A B C, according to the evidence given before the Commission. This comes of our piece-work payment leading to mere cram. The principle we should aim at is that the children should leave school as soon as the head of the school says they are fit, and work could be found for them. As to evening classes, I have not much hope or expectation in regard to them. The plan has

211
been tried for many years and it has failed, and the reason is very obvious. Would any of your Lordships like, after a day's hard work, to set about a course of study? To expect those children who are tired out by their work during the day to take to hard intellectual labour at night is absurd. Let rational amusement be provided for them in the evening, but it is useless to expect them then to study.
EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords, with regard to long compulsory retention in schools, it seems to me that it is injurious to the children themselves, to their parents, and to their schoolfellows, and a hardship upon their teachers. There is a class of boys and girls at the schools who are of an age beyond that of most of their schoolfellows, and who, because they do not pass a certain standard, are kept in compulsory bodily idleness and not allowed to earn their living. They are a burden to their parents or to the ratepayers, as the case may be; they are discontented and generally less amenable to discipline than the other scholars; and thus they form a most unwholesome element in a school. Some Boards of Guardians have recommended that after the age of 12 the school instruction of the children under their charge should not interfere with the training of their hands, which is best acquired at an early age. The right reverend Prelate seems to overestimate enormously the moral and religious influence of keeping children long at school; for work itself is a most wholesome part of education, and though I have always believed our school hours to be too long, they occupy after all but a small portion of the day. The alleged relapse of scholars into ignorance is largely due to the repulsive form in which instruction has been given under the old Code, to the time spent on parsing, spelling, and rules of grammar, instead of in the perusal of instructive and interesting works, from which grammar and spelling are unconsciously learnt with little labour. I have received many excellent letters from working men, badly spelt and faulty in grammar, but full of good sense and. useful information; and on the other hand, in former days great statesmen and commanders were most incorrect in their spelling; indeed, I lately read a letter, written about a century and a
212
half ago by an ancestor of Her Most Gracious Majesty, very indifferent in grammar and full of mistakes in spelling. The blending into one chaotic confusion of primary and secondary education is the greatest mistake, and the proper remedy for this is to be found in scholarships from elementary to more advanced schools. I will end by heartily supporting the right reverend Prelate's appeal for rather more encouragement to evening schools from Government, especially during the winter, when the shorter hours of daylight imply shorter hours of work.
THE EARL OF MEATHIt is most satisfactory to learn from the right rev. Prelate that he does not wish to increase the hours during the day at which children should attend the elementary schools. I think that that would entail great hardship upon the parents of children of the working classes, and I think also that it would be met with great opposition from the farmers in the agricultural districts as well as from employers in the towns. This debate shows, I think, that there is a very strong feeling in favour of half-timers, and also in favour of evening schools. Although the noble Lord said he thought the evening schools a failure, he attributed that failure to the lack of recreation. The classes of the Evening Recreative Schools Association, which has done such excellent work, under the auspices of one of the Royal Princes, are attended in very large numbers. If you invite children to evening schools where practical work is mixed with a little physical recreation, they come in large numbers very readily. I believe the whole reason of the unsatisfactory nature of much of the present education—for I must say that it is unsatisfactory—is that it is too literary and not practical enough. My Lord stated that the children of the working classes should be taught to work. I say that the children of all classes should be taught to work. I should like to see the child of the Duke as well as the child of the working man taught to do something with his hand. That is very useful for boys, but it is even more useful for girls. Our girls are turned out from school without being able to make the homes of their future husbands happy and comfortable. The

213
home is the nursery of the virtues, and the principles upon which civilization and social order are formed have to be taught in those homes; and, if the woman who has to keep the home is unable to make it an attractive and comfortable home for her husband, how can it be expected that the principles of social order can be taught in such a home? In America about 11 years ago a niece of the Bishop of Huntingdon was very much struck by the utter neglect of all housewifery duties in the homes of the artizans of New York, and she could not understand how it was that artizans who received such high wages should live in such a miserable condition, and she came to the conclusion that it was because their wives had never seen what a comfortable home was; they had no knowledge of how to make a home comfortable; it did not come to them intuitively as it does to our daughters of the middle class, and even of the working class. She had the happy thought of starting classes for the purpose of teaching housewifery. Those schools have been a great success, and many of the girls have gone out of them and married, and there is a marked difference between the homes presided over by women educated in her schools and those in which the wife has come from the ordinary schools. Girls, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me, ought to be taught at an early age that dirt is a disgrace and that disgrace is a sin. I hope this House may be able to do something towards making the daughters of the working classes more able to make homes happy. The Colonies are crying out for men who can handle a plough and shoe a horse; instead of those, we send them clerks and would-be gentlemen. They are asking for wives who are able to mend and wash, and who understand something about a dairy, and about the management of poultry; instead, we give them young women who are fitted to be governesses, and who are utterly incapable of doing anything which is required of them when they become wives. In view of the depression of trade and agriculture, it is necessary that all classes should do the utmost to promote economy and thrift. It is imperative that our boys should be taught handicrafts and that our girls should be taught housewifery
LORD ELGINI think that the system of evening schools is capable of much wider extension, and that there are particular reasons why it should be-extended to Scotland; and I would venture to trespass very shortly on your attention with some remarks in reference to the effect of the early withdrawal of the children of our schools. We have in Scotland, as your Lordships are aware, a uniform Board School system, and anyone who has taken a practical interest in the working of that system must have been very much struck by the gap which invariably occurs after the Fifth Standard. I have myself frequently seen a large and flourishing class in the Fifth Standard in one year, and the next year it has dwindled down to a miserable half-dozen. Although the working of this costly system ought to have introduced, and probably has, much larger numbers into our schools, and therefore ought to have increased all the classes, we do not, I think, find that anything like the proper proportion of increase in the higher standards is maintained. It is interesting to ask what the cause of this may be, and I do not think that in the discussion which has taken place, one of the causes, at any rate, has been alluded to. It has often been said that the fees are to blame in this respect, and that if education were free this would disappear. That is a proposition which I am hardly disposed either absolutely to deny or assert, but the matter is one that is of particular interest to us in Scotland at this moment, because we are great sufferers in this direction. I, of course, do not wish to raise any question which is not directly before the House, but I should venture to express the hope that the report which has been published that the whole of the grant which is to be made in aid of fees is to be spent in the lower standards is not correct. It has been argued that the parents will spend the savings which they will make from the free education of the younger children on the education of the elder. I venture to doubt whether there will be any such result. At any rate, we should bear this in mind, that we should certainly lose those whom it would be our best interest to secure—namely, the clever children of intelligent parents. I think the view of very many of the parents is that they will pay just as

215
much as they are obliged to pay, and no more. For myself, I confess that I should like to begin at the other end, and if remission of fees is to be made it should begin, at any rate in a large proportion, in the higher standards. I may mention in this connection that I know from experience that certain Boards at present, either wholly, or partially, remit fees in the Sixth Standards with good results. Again, some Boards give remission of fees according to the number of children of one family, sometimes letting the fourth child in free, at any rate letting off the eldest of the family. I do not pretend that these views will meet with acceptance everywhere, but I would like to press upon my noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland to take them into consideration. But, my Lords, with regard to this particular question of early age, I do not think that parents, in the views they take, are altogether correct, although it appears to me that the regulations of the Code, and especially the regulation as to the granting of certificates on passing the Fifth Standard, are such as to encourage these ideas. It may very fairly get about among the less well-informed classes that if the Government allows a child to leave school at any age on passing a certain examination, that child has reached a point in his education where it may reasonably be held to be complete. Apart altogether from whether the examination in the Fifth Standard is a satisfactory test, and apart also from the questions which have been raised by the noble Lord who spoke last and by the noble Lord opposite as to the particular instruction which ought to be given in the schools—whether it ought to be more in the nature of material instruction and less of literary instruction—I would venture to say that the opinion which has been expressed by the right reverend Prelate that a child of ten or eleven cannot be expected to retain a permanent impression of any education which it receives at that age, is one that anybody who looks into the matter will be forced to admit. I might mention, perhaps, an illustration which has come under my own personal knowledge—a case in which a certain number of boys and young men who had passed out of the school age requested a School Board to establish an evening class for their
216
benefit. The School Board naturally expected that they would receive a sum for the higher instruction of those pupils, but on the class being opened it was found that almost all of these young men wished elementary instruction, some even going back as far as the Second Standard. Now, all these evils are increased by the children leaving the school at the early age at which they are now enabled to leave by these labour certificates. We lose the very best of our scholars, because those who pass at that early age are those who either by natural ability or greater industry, or better teaching, have been brought up to the mark. This, again, is specially important to us in Scotland. It has always been the boast of Scotland that there is no halting place between the elementary schools and the Universities. I do not argue that that is the best system; I am inclined to think that it is not; but on the other hand, I do say that anything which either directly or indirectly tends to lower the standard in the elementary schools is a great mistake. As regards the remedy which should be applied in these circumstances, it is more difficult to speak, but the right rev. Prelate and other noble Lords have spoken of evening schools. Well, all I would say on that matter is this: that in the first place, it appears to me to be a remedy which will not be applicable to any great extent in rural districts, where there are small schools at a great distance, and it is impossible to maintain evening schools; and in the second place, and more generally, it is surely not a satisfactory state of things that we should have a system of education so incomplete that we have to set up another system of education in order to begin again the education which has been forgotten after once being acquired. My Lords, there is one matter which I think might be carried out with advantage. We have already laid down certain fixed limits of age. At the age of 5 we compel children to go to school, and after the age of 13 or 14 we allow them to leave school. I do not see why it should not be laid down that the labour certificates, on passing the Fifth Standard, should not be granted at an age when the children are confessedly immature—that they should be kept at school say till the age of 12, at any rate, before

217
being allowed to go out to work. After all, a child between 10 and 12 is not capable of work, to any great extent, of a nature which should stand in the way of education. I think this would at any rate be better than the other remedy which has been proposed, which is to raise the standard and require, perhaps, the Sixth Standard before granting a certificate; because that would only shift the difficulty, and probably lead to greater cram. The noble Lord the Vice President spoke the other night of the vast expenditure which is made on education in this country. I think there is one thing which is intolerable about that vast expenditure, and that is that we should not get value for our money. It is because I think leaving school at an early age leads to expense in that direction that I am very glad the subject has been brought up.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOKThe noble Lord who has last spoken has directed your Lordships' attention to Scotland. That is, no doubt, something outside the subject which the right rev. Prelate sought to bring forward. At the same time, I am not at all disposed to quarrel with the noble Lord for having called the attention of the House to the various matters to which he alluded. They are very important subjects, and I will only say that a great many of them have been very carefully thought over and considered. With regard to the age of leaving school, I think we should hesitate in laying down any hard and fast rule. The right rev. Prelate seemed to object to the Local Authorities laying down the standard at which children should be exempt. That was done in view of each locality adapting itself to its particular requirements. It is all very well for us here to talk calmly of this question of the early age at which children leave school, but there are many, many families in this country to whom the 2s. 6d. or 3s. a week which a young child may earn is of the greatest assistance, and to say that a boy is not to be allowed to earn that on account of his age is confounding two things—it is counting mere instruction as of more importance than education. I cannot help thinking that the moral effect upon a boy or a girl who can do something to lighten the hard trials to which their families are put, to bring small earnings to help to meet
218
the growing appetites, is more valuable than the three R's or any other form of elementary education. I am very far from saying that the child would not be better for staying longer at school, but if he can assist his family it seems to me that after attaining the standard which is fixed, his first duty is at home. There are many households which could not get on at all without the assistance of girls of about 10 or 11 years of age. Those who fancy that girls so young are useless should go into the streets here or elsewhere in town or country, and see children of that age taking care of infants while the parents are working and the house is shut up. In the parks of London there are plenty of such cases to be seen. My right rev. Friend asked me in respect to this question whether the standard at which labour certificates are granted cannot be raised. That is rather a matter of legislation; it cannot be done by the Code. With regard to the question of half time I am not aware that there is any difficulty thrown in the way of half time education, but it is rarely in force except in very populous districts. In those populous districts, as Huddersfield or Bradford, for instance—you will find there is an enormous number of children who are educated at half time schools, and probably there there are discrepancies; one town may fix a standard one degree higher than another. Still, you can hardly say that Bradford is not competent to fix its own time for the children to be allowed to leave school. You must remember, my Lords, that this whole system of compulsion was altogether novel in this country. We are complaining that there is still a great deal that is undone, but surely no one can look around him without noticing the enormous difference in the education and in the character of the children to what it was in former days. I do not mean to confine myself to 1870, for volunteers had done a great work previously. There is no doubt truth in what has been said about the children forgetting a great deal of what they learn in the schools. But I would like to ask those who have been educated in our large public schools whether they have not forgotten a great deal more than they have retained of the

219
education they there received. I would like to ask some of those young gentlemen who have studied in our public schools—not leaving them when they were 10 or 11, but going there at the age of 13, after a previous elementary education, and remaining there till they were 18—how much of what they learnt in those five years they have not forgotten by the time they are 30? I have met very remarkable instances of boys who were supposed to be well up in Greek when they were at school, but who ten or a dozen years afterwards know no more of Greek than they do of Hebrew. The fact is, there is a great deal of the education of both the upper and the poorer classes which simply passes away like vapour. I have endeavoured so far as I could to get rid of the system of payment by individual results, in order that there may be a more generous and generally fairer system of education without the cram, which does not give permanent results. Now, with regard to evening schools, the objection made by the noble Lord opposite seems to me a crucial one, applying to the whole system in one sense—that is to say, you cannot lay down general rules for town and country. We have given by the new Code greater facilities than there have been before for treating those subjects which are taught in evening classes. There is one point that has been pressed upon me to which I should like to refer—namely, that evening schools should be extended to adults over 21. Well, I have no objection to adults coming to evening schools, but it is a serious question whether the country should pay for them. My noble Friend behind me said, "Do not let a child go until he has work ready for him." That is a rule that would not work for a moment. In my own neighbourhood children of 10 years of age can, in certain parts of the year, get abundance of work. I have known cases where the children of a single family, going out and gathering acorns to be sold to farmers for their sheep and so forth, have in one year earned £3 to £5 for their parents. I need not say what is earned by children during the hop-picking season, when children of very immature age, much younger than 10, take an active part with their parents. Some years ago I asked a farmer what he paid to one of his labourers for hop-picking —which
220
lasts about six weeks; he said he paid to a man and his wife, who brought with them their two young children, £25 in six weeks. That, no doubt, is exceptional, but shows the importance of child labour at times. All these things show that you must not be too rigid in laying down hard and fast rules according to which children are to be allowed to leave school. If they have reached a certain standard and their labour is valuable, and their parents wish for it, their parents have submitted to compulsion on the understanding that the time is to come when they are to have the power of availing themselves of their children's services—and the children themselves know that there is a certain time, and no doubt look forward to it—it is harsh and cruel to enforce their further attendance. When you speak of agricultural instruction in schools, the very fact that these children are leaving at that early time shows how impossible almost it would be to have an agricultural education with any effect in the schools themselves. They get it fast enough when they go to work; they become familiar with horses and cattle, and they learn a great deal by a steady, slow process, which sticks to them for the rest of their lives. As for the interval immediately after leaving school, there are societies, like the Boys' and Girls' Friendly Society, which doing valuable work in keeping up correspondence with these young people when they leave school, and agencies of this kind multiply. And, my Lords, you may depend upon it that as the system of education goes on you will find that the necessity of it will impress itself upon the parents who have themselves had it, and that the extension of education will come rather by inducements than by force. I do hope that, because it is seen that this system of leaving school at an early age has its disadvantages as well as its advantages, you will not be too active to interfere with it by laying down some iron limit which may bring an opposition to compulsory education, which hitherto there has not been. Do not let it be supposed that we are worse off than we were before. The right rev. Prelate referred to the Report. The Commissioners in the main all agree, but as the minority

221
Report is rather fuller on this point I quote it—
"As to the earlier ago of leaving there is no doubt that children are much more advanced educationally in regard to their age than was the case 10 or 15 years ago: children were then kept at school till 14 doing work which they now master at 12. Table 18 of Educational Department, Report 1886-7, p. 258, shows that of the total population under 15, 53·2 per cent were on the roll of inspected schools. In 1876, of the total population under 15, 40 per cent were on the roll of inspected schools. Taking the country throughout we are of opinion that during the last 10 years there has not merely been a great increase in the number of children under instruction, but a considerable prolongation of the duration of school life."
That is a very important statement, and one which is justified by the statistics which the Committee give. Well, my Lords, I have had to address your Lordships upon this subject two or three times lately, and the Motion of the right rev. Prelate does not in itself call for any observation. He asks us for information, the precise nature of which he does not specify. I can only say—and I am sure my noble Friend (Lord Norton) will bear me out—that the efforts which were made to supply the Royal commission with every kind of statistic which could have been available for any purpose whatever seem to have been exhaustive. But at the same time, if my right rev. Friend will come to the Department and make known what it is exactly that he wants, if it be in existence it shall be pointed out to him, and if it does not exist it will, if there be no ground of great expense or other such objection against it, be given with the greatest pleasure.
THE BISHOP OF LICHFIELDI wish to thank the noble Viscount for the kindness with which he has met my request. I have no wish to prolong the discussion, which has taken a very much wider range than my Motion at all suggested.

THE LAW OF BIGAMY.
The following notice stood on the Paper, in the name of the Earl of Milltown:
"To call attention to the decision of the majority of the Judges in the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved in the case of 'The Queen against Polson,' which appears to make a material alteration in the law of bigamy as it has hitherto been understood."
THE LORD CHANCELLORBefore the noble Lord puts the question of which he has given notice, I would venture to appeal to him and to suggest that the subject matter of this discussion is not one which is altogether proper to your Lordships' House. The matter to which the noble Lord directs attention is a decision of Her Majesty's Judges—divided in opinion—upon a certain state of the Criminal Law. I am quite sure that my noble and learned Friend does not mean to impeach the Judgment of the learned Judges by a discussion à propos of nothing, but the very terms of his Motion are, in truth, a challenge of the correctness of the decision, because he asks if a serious alteration has not been made in the law by that decision. I must say I cannot conceive anything more inconvenient than a discussion in this House, in which a decision of Her Majesty's Judges is to be called in question. That it is quite possible that different opinions may be held upon the matter, is sufficiently evinced by the fact that nine Judges were opposed to five. But what I earnestly deprecate is a discussion upon the subject of their decision. It may be quite right to discuss what the law is, and, if my noble Friend is dissatisfied with the law as it is held by the Judges to be, there is the obvious mode of remedying it by bringing in a Bill upon the subject, when the whole policy of the law can be properly discussed. But I do trust that he will not initiate a discussion in which the question necessarily must be whether a decision of Her Majesty's Judges is right or wrong.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNI quite see the force of what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. The fact is, that it seemed to me that Her Majesty's Judges had, in this instance, somewhat exceeded their functions by deciding not what the intention of the Legislature had been, but what, according to their Lordships' judgment, the intention of the Legislature ought to have been. No doubt we must take what they have decided as being now, and always having been, the law of the land. We have, fortunately or unfortunately, no Court of Criminal Appeal in this country, and what has been determined by the Court for Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved must of course, pending legis-

223
lation, be taken to be the law of the land. At the same time, I cannot help calling attention to what is the effect of their Lordships' decision. The limit of seven years within which it has hitherto been generally considered extremely unsafe for persons to re-marry without certain and sure proof of the death of their husband or wife, has been practically abrogated; and, if the husband or wife bonâ fide believes in the death of his or her spouse—or rather, if he or she can persuade a jury to take that view—it appears, according to the law as now established, that no limit whatever is placed upon the period within which they may re-marry.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, that the Committee have added the Lord Monkswell to the Standing Committee for General Bills for the consideration of the Public Libraries Act (1855) Amendment Bill. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.