Sitting of 5 June 1894

QUESTIONS.

  SHERIFF JOHNSTONE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whe-
  396
  ther Sheriff Johnstone, who acted as the Returning Officer for Sutherlandshire at the last Parliamentary election, appeared at Edinburgh after the election to answer a complaint against him of charging 1s. per mile as travelling allowance for his Presiding Officers and polling clerks; and, if so, whether he will state the decision of the Court with reference to the complaint made against Sheriff Johnstone?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): Sheriff Johnstone appeared in ordinary course at an Appeal Court before the Election Judges. The decision of the Court was to the effect of the answer which gave the hon. Member on the 25th of last month—namely, that the Returning Officer could not charge more than the travelling expenses actually incurred.
  *MR. WEIR: Then it is a fact that this gentleman had to disgorge 75 per cent, of these travelling allowances?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE BALADHUN MURDER CASE.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if Mr. J. Clark, who has just been appointed Deputy Commissioner of Cachar, in Assam, is the same gentleman whose sentence of seven men to be hung or to penal servitude for life, for the murder of Mr. Cockburn, at Baladhun, was reversed on appeal by the High Court of Calcutta, and whose conduct has since been under inquiry by the Chief Commissioner of Assam, in consequence of the finding of the Judges that he had been guilty of numerous and serious irregularities in the course of the proceedings; if so, has the inquiry been completed; and what has been the Chief Commissioner's decision thereupon; is it the case that, before this, recent promotion, Mr. Clark was an Assistant Commissioner of the second grade, and that there are in Assam three Civil Assistant Commissioners of the first grade, his seniors; and what have been the special services of Mr. Clark which have caused his promotion over their heads; is Mr. Clark a Civil servant of only eight years' standing, while the 10 other Deputy Commissioners now in Assam average over 14 years' standing; and is there any case on record in which

  397
  so young a man has been appointed to a Deputy Commissionership; and is he now able to lay upon the Table of the House the full Papers relating to the Baladhun murder ease as well as those relating to the inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Clark and other persons in connection with the proceedings therein, which he stated on the 2nd of April last had been ordered by the Government of India? I beg further to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Police Inspector Joy Chunder is specially commended as a zealous officer in the Annual Report of the Province of Assam; if he is aware that this Inspector was severely censured by the High Court Judges of Calcutta, in their decision in the Baladhun murder case, for procuring tutored evidence by torture and other illegal methods, and that the Judges recommended that his conduct should be made the subject of a proper official inquiry; and has such inquiry ever been held; if so, with what result? And, finally, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that Mr. J. L. Herald, lately Deputy Commissioner in Assam, has been promoted to the position of First Grade Joint Magistrate at Faridpur; is he also aware that the High Court Judges at Calcutta, commenting upon his conduct of the earlier proceedings of the Baladhun murder case, suggested an inquiry into certain illegal and irregular proceedings on the part of Mr. Herald, which they described as arbitrary and improper, and deserving of severe condemnation; and has such inquiry ever been held; if so, with what result?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,: My hon. Friend's three questions all refer to the same case, and he will perhaps allow mo to answer them together. I have made inquiry, and am unformed that a full inquiry has been held into the conduct of the police and Magistrates in the Baladhun case, and that the Report has been received by the Government of India and will be forwarded to me by the next mail.
  MR. CAINE: Will it be laid on the Table of the House?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I can hardly say till I receive the document. My desire is to give every publicity.
  MR. CAINE: Do you expect it by the next mail?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes.
  MR. CAINE: I will put the question 10 days hence.

  THE EXAMINATION OF CANADIAN CATTLE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Times newspaper, alleging that Canadian cattle owners are disposed to doubt the disinterestedness of the English experts appointed to examine Canadian cattle, and that they would therefore bitterly resent any decision made by those authorities adverse to their own interest; whether there is any foundation whatever for this attack upon the bona fides of the Imperial officers; and whether Dr. M'Eachran, F.R.C.V.S., Inspector of Stock, and Chief Veterinary Inspector of the Quebec Department of Agriculture, is the principal officer charged with certifying the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in cattle about to be exported from Canada to the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether Dr. M'Eachran is still managing director of the Walrond Ranch, Alberta, or has any interest in that or any other Company engaged in exporting cattle from Canada to the United Kingdom?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): With regard to the concluding question of the hon. Member, I would say that I possess no official information on the matters referred to, but I am informed by the Colonial Office that it has been ascertained through the Governor General of Canada that Professor M'Eachran is connected with the Walrond Ranche, but in what capacity is not stated. In reply to the first two questions, I would say that I have seen the newspaper statement to which the hon. Member refers, but I do not gather that it is anything more than the repetition of vague and irresponsible gossip. I may, perhaps, be allowed to state that I have had the honour of presiding over and working with the officers in question for now nearly two years, and no one knows better than I do their great ability, and absolute straightforwardness in the discharge of their public duties.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether there is any foundation for these statements? Considering the great importance of this traffic, I think he should inquire if they are absolutely without foundation.
  MR. H. GARDNER: I have given the House all the information I have on the subject.

  ST. BOTOLPH, ALDGATE, CHARITIES.
  SIR A. SCOBLE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has now under his consideration a scheme framed by the Charity Commissioners with reference to Cass's Charity; whether he is aware that an inquiry is about to be instituted by the Charity Commissioners as to the Charities of the parish of St. Botolph, Aidgate, of which Cass's Charity is one; and whether he will postpone giving his sanction to the proposed scheme until the result of the intended inquiry is known?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,: The scheme referred to by the hon. Member is now under my consideration. The Charity Commissioners have, I understand, no present intention of instituting an inquiry as to Sir John Cass's Charity, which is limited to the City part of the parish of St. Botolph, Aldgate.

  LANCE-CORPORALS IN, INFANTRY REGIMENTS.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Army Order 110, dated the 12th of May, 1893, which increased to 32 the number of paid lance-corporals allowed to a battalion of Infantry, if he will explain why, though this Order was received in India in August last, it has not yet been acted upon, so that lance-corporals who left England with drafts subsequent to 12th of May, 1893, and who were receiving pay under it, have, in consequence, been deprived of such extra pay on coming on the Indian Establishment; and whether, considering the well-known difficulty in getting good men to accept the lance stripe, he will see that this omission is at once rectified?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): I have reason to believe that the facts are as stated in the question; but I am in correspondence on the subject with the India Office, which has it under consideration.

  FIREARM FATALITIES IN INDIA.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to many eases during the' last few months, such as those at Guntakul, Fulta, and Bareilly, in which Natives of India have been killed by British soldiers off duty carrying firearms, resulting in the trial of such soldiers for murder; and if he will recommend the Commander-in-Chief in India to issue an Order prohibiting the carrying of firearms and other lethal weapons by soldiers when off duty?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have inquired as to the Regulations under which soldiers are allowed when off duty to carry firearms. Those Regulations are of a stringent nature, and go, I believe, as-far as any Regulations can to limit the possession of private arms and the grant of shooting passes to steady and well-conducted men. I do not think that it would be expedient to attempt to enforce absolute prohibition.
  MR. CAINE: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the existing Orders enforced and punishment inflicted when they are broken?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Certainly.

  PLATFORMS ON THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the platforms at stations on the St. John's Wood Branch of the Metropolitan Railway are so constructed that there is a considerable open space between them and the continuous footboard of the railway carriages; and that at Baker Street Station especially the said open space amounts at some places to as much as from eight to ten inches wide at the curved parts of the platform; and whether steps will be taken to require the Railway Company to so construct the platforms of their stations as to obviate the existing great danger to passengers?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,: No, Sir; the Board are not aware that such is the fact at the stations generally: but as regards Baker Street Station, the Board of Trade are informed by the Company that the figures mentioned in the question go beyond the fact, as the only instance where the space exceeds eight inches is at one side of No 1 platform, where the maximum space is nine and a half inches for a short distance, and tapers down to four and a half inches. On No. 2 platform the maximum is seven inches, tapering down to two and a half inches; and on No. 3 the maximum is four and a half inches, tapering down to one and a half inches. The Board are advised that as the station has been constructed on a curve this cannot be remedied. The Company say that they do all they can to obviate the possibility of mishap by whitening the edges of the platform. An Inspecting Officer of the Board of Trade made some suggestion for alteration in 1892, and the gaps were reduced as far as practicable.
  *MR. WEIR: Is it not a fact that Mr. Theobald, a late Member of this House, was killed in consequence of so much space being left between the carriages and platforms? Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if something further cannot be done?
  MR. BRYCE: It is a difficult question, and is continually engaging the attention of the Board of Trade. The alternative seems to be having no platform at all, as on the Continent, and that is open to many other objections.
  *MR. WEIR: Might not the platforms be constructed to come under the footboards of the carriages?

  SCOTCH COUNTY COUNCIL DEPUTATIONS TO LONDON.
  SIR H. MAXWELL (Wigton): I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is within the powers of County Councils in Scotland to send deputations to London at the expense of the ratepayers; and, if so, whether there is any limit to the numbers appointed on such deputations or the length of their visit; and whether he is aware that the County Council of Lanarkshire have appointed a deputation of seven members to proceed to London, in order to watch the progress of the
  402
  Local Government (Scotland) Bill before the Standing Committee?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c): County Councils have no statutory power to send deputations to London, and it does not appear to me that they can charge the expenses of such deputations against the rates, which are appropriated by Statute to specified purposes. I may add that the Local Government Act of 1889 contains provisions limiting the powers of County Councils as to opposing Bills before Parliament, and that it was thought necessary to obtain, by an Act which recently received the Royal Assent, authority to County Councils to contribute to the expenses of a County Councils Association. Such statutory authority would have been unnecessary it County Councils had had a general power of expending the rates upon such purposes as that referred to in the question. I understand that a Sub-Committee of the Lanarkshire County Council has recently been in Loudon in connection with the Local Government Bill now before Parliament, but that they were here for only two days, and that it was not their object to remain for the purpose of watching the progress of the Bill in the Standing Committee.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: Were the members of the Committee there at their own expense?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I have no information as to that.
  MR. CALDWELLasked whether Town Councils had power to send deputations and charge for them?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: Town Councils having a common good have many powers which do not appertain to County Councils.
  MR. CALDWELL: Have Town Councils without a common good powers to make this expenditure?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: You will require to give me a particular case before I can answer.
  DR. MACGREGOR: If County Councils have power to pay the expenses to London, why should they not have power to pay the expenses of the poorer members at home?
  *MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am afraid the hon. Member must have missed the

  403
  purport of my answer, which was that I did not consider that they have the power to make this expenditure out of the public rates.

  INDIAN RELIEFS.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in arranging for the dispatch of the reliefs to the British forces serving in India during the present season the Government had regard to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Section XVII. of the Queen's Regulations for the British Army, and especially to that part of it which provides that arrangements will be made to embark corps and detachments so that they may arrive at their destinations in accordance with the table specified in that paragraph; whether the dates fixed by that table were determined in the interest of the health of the men, and in accordance with climatic considerations; whether the departure of the troopships to India during the present season was regulated with a view to conform to the Queen's Regulations, and whether those sent to Bombay arrived there wholly within the limits of time allowed by those Regulations; whether the reliefs, or any of them, in fact, arrived after the cold weather was over, and whether in consequence they had to be sent up the country during the hot season, thereby increasing greatly the incidental discomforts of the journey; and what steps the Government, in fact, took consequential upon the break-down of the troopships to enable them to act up to the Queen's Regulations, and ensure the arrival of the reliefs before the cool season was over?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: As far as may be practicable, arrangements are made for the reliefs for India to arrive within the periods specified in the Queen's Regulations, and any variation from those periods is settled in communication with the Horse Guards, War Office, and Admiralty. I have no reason to believe that the health of the troops has been injuriously affected in consequence. As I explained, in my reply to the hon. Member on the 31st May, the dates of arrival last season were exceptionally late, owing to the break-down of the troopships. All possible measures were taken to accelerate the service, with the result stated in that reply.
  *MR. TOMLINSON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of my question.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes, I think I did when I said that the dates were fixed in communication with the Horse Guards, War Office, and Admiralty. Generally, every endeavour is made to promote the health of the men, and we have no information that their health suffered in this case.
  *MR. TOMLINSON: Is it not a fact that the result this year is to make later the time for sending reliefs up country, thereby materially increasing the inconvenience to the men?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes, a delay took place owing to the break-down of the troopships, which have now been withdrawn from the service.
  *MR. TOMLINSON: Will precautions be taken to prevent this breach of the Queen's Regulations in future years?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The future arrangements are a matter of correspondence now going on between the India Office and the Home Authorities.

  QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the Queen's birthday was not directed to be kept on Saturday, the 26th of May, by the Forces of the Crown in the Provinces as well as in London; whether he is aware that much disappointment was felt by the Volunteer Forces in the Provinces, who from business engagements were unable to parade on Thursday, the 24th of May, that no opportunity was allowed to them of evincing their loyalty by holding a Saturday afternoon parade in honour of the happy event, as the London corps were able to do; and whether in future arrangements will be made for the celebration of the Queen's birthday by the Forces of the Crown in all parts of the United Kingdom on the same day?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am unable to satisfy the hon. Member on this point. The date on which Her Majesty's birthday is kept is fixed by the Lord Chamberlain, who takes the Queen's pleasure on the subject.

  ELECTIONS IN THE TUAM UNION.
  MR. W. REDMOND: On behalf of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the

  405
  Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have been called upon to hold an inquiry into the circumstances attending the election for the Monivea division of the Tuam Union at the late Poor Law election; whether Mr. P. C. Kelly, the defeated candidate, has brought under their notice cases of voting papers being filled and signed in the names of persons at present in America; and whether the Local Government Board will grant an inquiry into these allegations?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,: The Local Government Board received from Mr. Kelly a list of objections in relation to the election referred to, and obtained from the Returning Officer a statement of his reasons for the decisions arrived at by him in each of the cases referred to him by Mr. Kelly. One of the votes objected to by the defeated candidate was that of a person alleged to be in America, but as there was a majority of six in favour of Mr. Mannion, even if this vote had been disallowed it would not have affected the result of the election. The information at present before the Local Government Board does not, in their opinion, constitute sufficient ground for holding an inquiry on oath with regard to this election.

  CHARGES AGAINST TRINIDAD RAILWAY OFFICIALS.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the proceedings before the Railway Inquiry Commission in Trinidad, and to the fact that several railway officials are awaiting their trial for embezzlement; whether he has observed that it appeared in evidence that serious defalcations and mismanagement occurred on the part of under officials during the administration of Mr. Tanner, late Director of Public Works, and that he was so confident in his system of management that he had opposed inquiry regarding alleged malversation during his tenure of office; whether the Colonial Office will urge Mr. Tanner, who has retired to this country on pension, to return to Trinidad and submit himself for examination before the Commission; and whether there would be any objection to laying upon
  406
  the Table of the House the Correspondence between the Government of Trinidad and the Colonial Office and the Crown Agents relative to the working of the Railway Department in Trinidad during Sir William Robinson's tenure of office in the island?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As regards the second question, the answer to the first part is in the affirmative, and to the last part in the negative. I cannot find that any allegations of malversation were made during Mr. Tanner's tenure of office. As regards the third question, Mr. Tanner is prevented from going out to Trinidad by the state of his health. He has been examined by the medical officer of this Department, and Lord Ripon would not feel justified, in view of his Report, in requesting Mr. Tanner to proceed to the colony. It may be found possible to arrange for Mr. Tanner to be examined in this country with respect to the affairs of the Railway Department, and Lord Ripon is in communication with the Governor on the subject. Mr. Tanner has asked that this may be done. As regards the last question, when the Commission has reported the Secretary of State will consider whether any Papers should be given.

  SENTENCE FOR STEALING PARTRIDGES' EGGS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make inquiries as to the case of Jane Law, the wife of an agricultural labourer, who was, on the 29th of May, sentenced by the Saffron Walden Bench to a fine and costs, amounting in the whole to £12 9s., or in default to three months' hard labour, for having in her possession 94 partridges' eggs which it was alleged that she had obtained unlawfully; and whether, in this case, he will take steps to mitigate the severity of the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,: Upon the evidence the Justices came to the conclusion that the eggs were collected and stolen for the purpose of being sent to market and sold. The trade carried on in this way leads

  407
  to widespread dishonesty and pilfering among the men and boys employed on the land, and I cannot say that I think the pecuniary penalty, under the circumstances, so much in excess of the merits as to necessitate my interference. Fourteen days was given to the defendant to pay, and the alternative period of imprisonment is stated to me by the clerk to be two and not three months. I think one month would be sufficient.

  BALLYMAHON WORKHOUSE DOCTOR.
  MR. D. SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the medical officer of the Ballymahon Workhouse, County Longford, employed a woman as night nurse without the authority of the Guardians; that the Guardians, on being made aware of the circumstance at their weekly meeting, dismissed the woman and appointed another to look after the infirmary; and that the doctor, contrary to the Guardians' order, re-engaged the same woman; (2) will he state under what bye-law of the Local Government Acts the doctor has such power; and (3) whether at a recent meeting of the Guardians the doctor referred to was censured for the manner in which he acted towards the Sisters of Mercy who have charge of the patients in the workhouse infirmary?
  MR. J. MORLEY: (1) The facts are generally as stated in the first paragraph. (2) It is the duty of the medical officer to see that the patients are properly treated, and the Workhouse Rules provide that he shall give all necessary directions as to the treatment of sick paupers—directions the Master of the workhouse is bound to carry out. (3) The difficulty in the present case appears to arise from strained relations existing between the Nun in charge of the hospital and the medical officer, and the Guardians recently censured the medical officer for describing the Nun's conduct as unbecoming. The Local Government Board Inspector has been directed to personally inquire into the matter, and endeavour to secure that the officers of the workhouse shall act harmoniously together.

  BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what part of the sum of £12,635 3s. 2d. paid to the Attorney General for England in the year 1893–4, for contentious business, and what part of the sum of £3,906 3s. 6d. paid to the Solicitor General, was in respect of the Behring Sea Arbitration?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The totals referred to include £7,509 17s. 3d. paid to the Attorney General and £254 12s. 6d.paid to the Solicitor General in respect of the Behring Sea Arbitration.

  COLDBATH FIELDS MONEY ORDER OFFICE.
  MR. HALSEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Commission appointed to inquire into the allegation as to the sanitary condition of the Money Order Office, lately Coldbath Fields Prison, has yet reported; and whether he will lay the Report upon the Table of the House?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,: The Report of Lord Playfair and Dr. Corfield has been received, and is under consideration. I shall hope to be in a position to make it public before long.

  DR. JAMESON AND THE MATABELE.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, and if so when, Dr. Jameson has had a recent official interview with certain Indunas of Matabeleland in regard to the political settlement of that country; whether any Report of it has been received, or is expected, at the Colonial Office; and whether any statement was made thereat by Dr. Jameson that the Matabele would be expected to render service to any settlers in the country, either paid or unpaid, and especially in connection with the development of the mining industry which it is suggested may arise?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have received no official Report of the interview to which I presume my hon. Friend refers. Two Press reports that I have seen of the interview contained no suggestion that

  409
  Dr. Jameson informed the natives that they must labour without pay.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: How is it that the Colonial Office seems always so late with the information which we can obtain from other sources?
  MR. S. BUXTON: When we get information we usually communicate it to the newspapers. Of course, I cannot say where they get their earlier reports from.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I am not alluding to matters appearing in the newspapers, but to information obtained elsewhere.

  ISLAND OF COLL FREE CHURCH MINISTER.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in a Glasgow paper to the effect that in the Island of Coll, in consequence of his having incurred the displeasure of the proprietor of the island by standing against the factor for the County Council, the Rev. Mr. Ross, Free Church Minister there, had been subjected to many annoyances, the last move against him being the barricading of his front and kitchen doors by the factor, by the erection of six rows of barbed wire fencing, and the filling up of the well, from which the manse got its supply of water, with all sorts of filth and stones; whether it is true that the barricading with barbed wire fencing described was thrice renewed after removal; and whether the Procurator Fiscal has inquired into the case; and, if not, whether he will instruct him to institute inquiries?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am making inquiries into the statement to which my hon. Friend has called my attention, but have not as yet had time to receive a reply.

  COLONISATION BOARD STAFF.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the names of the persons on the staff of the Colonisation Board who are to receive salaries amounting to £460 during the financial year 1894–5; what other offices they hold, if any, and at what remuneration; and will he explain why the travelling and incidental expenses during 1894–5 are expected to be 50 per cent, in excess of those during 1893–4?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The staff of the Colonisation Board consists of Mr. Colmer, C.M.G., Secretary in London, who has a salary of £150, and Mr. Borradaile, Agent at Winnipeg, who receives £256 per annum. Neither of these gentlemen holds any other appointment, nor receives any other remuneration from Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Colmer belongs to the staff of the High Commissioner for Canada. The provision for travelling and incidental expenses was increased from £50 to £75, because the former sum had been found inadequate, and had been exceeded.

  FATAL LAMP ACCIDENT IN BELFAST.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the inquest held in the city of Belfast on the 12th of May last, on the body of Francis Conlan, who came to his death from burns received by the explosion of an oil lamp as he was turning down the wick before going to bed; whether he is aware that the oil used in the lamp was an American oil known as the "Royal Daylight Oil," the flash point of which is about 828 Fahr.; whether he is aware that no Scotch oil flashes under 100° Fahr., and the bulk of it is much over this point; if the minimum allowed for oil supplied to the War Office is 105° Fahr.; and whether, considering the danger of the present minimum flash point, 73° Fahr., of lamp oils generally used by the working classes, he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter, or have a Committee appointed to investigate it, with a view to legislation on the subject?
  MR. ASQUITH: Accidents with oil lamps do not as a rule come under my notice, and in Ireland I have no sort of jurisdiction in regard to the administration of the Petroleum Acts. In this case the only knowledge I possess of the accident in question is derived from the depositions of the coroner's inquest furnished by the hon. Member himself, and as to the flash point of this particular oil I have no information whatever. Further, I am unable to say what is the minimum flash point of Scotch oils or that of the oils-supplied to the War Office. As has been before more than once explained, the

  411
  question of the relative safety of oils of particular flash points is an extremely debateable one, and it is open to the gravest doubt whether the raising of the flash point would tend to put a stop to accidents of this kind. It is one of the many points connected with amended petroleum legislation which would have to be carefully considered by a Committee, and I shall be glad if it is possible to constitute such a Committee, but in the present state of public business I cannot hold out any hope that fresh legislation on this very large and difficult subject could be successfully undertaken this Session.
  MR. PAUL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the constant loss of life from the ignition of highly inflammable oil on an ordinary summer's day, he will without loss of time appoint a small Committee to inquire into the simple question whether or not foreign oils are admitted into this country at a flash point inconsistent with safety?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is a question on which experts are wholly at variance. Some are of opinion that these oils do not cause more injury than those which have a lower flash point. I cannot separate this question from the other questions connected with legislation on the subject, but I hope in a short time to arrange for the appointment of a Committee to consider the whole subject.

  IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state (1) how many applications for loans, under "The Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Amendment Act, 1883," have been received from bodies of Town Commissioners in the Counties of Roscommon and Tipperary: (2) what sum has been advanced to the Roscommon Town Commissioners under this Act; (3) whether it will be possible for the Roscommon Town Commissioners to apply for fresh loans under the Act; and (4) whether he can state what are the reasons which caused the Board of Works, and latterly the Congested Districts Board, to refuse the applications of the Boyle Town Commissioners for loans under this Act for works of public utility, such as the building of a Town Hall and the erection
  412
  of artizans' dwellings, seeing that under Sub-section 5, Section 35, of "The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1891," the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund is applicable only in any county in which the fund was before the passing of that Act applicable?
  MR. J. MORLEY: (1) I am informed that five applications were received under the Act mentioned in the first paragraph from Town Commissioners in the Counties of Roscommon and Tipperary. (2) A sum of £1,500 was advanced out of the Fund to the Roscommon Town Commissioners previous to the transfer of the Fund to the Congested Districts Board under the provisions of the Land Act of 1891. (3 and 4) As regards the third and fourth paragraphs, I am informed that neither Boyle nor Roscommon is congested within the meaning of the Act of 1891, and that the Congested Districts Board have no power to grant loans to the Town Commissioners of these places except for the purpose of benefitting congested districts.

  KILRUSH HARBOUR.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the extra taxation about to be imposed upon Ireland, he is now prepared to direct a Board of Works engineer to investigate Kilrush Harbour, with the object of considering the advisability of making a public loan or grant to deepen the harbour?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Applications for the grant of public money for the improvement of Kilrush Harbour have been before the Irish Government from time to time, and one of the latest applications, received in January of last year, asked for a grant of £100,000 for the purpose. I regret I can now only repeat the answer which the Government has been compelled to give to all these applications—namely, that it has no funds at its disposal out of which a grant of money could be made for improving this harbour.

  UGANDA AND WADELAI.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any official confirmation has been received of

  413
  the telegraphic despatch published on Monday by the Central News; whether the construction of a line of forts extending from Kihiro to Uganda, so as to entirely separate the lower half of Unyoro from the upper, is within the scope of the instructions under which Her Majesty's officers are acting in Uganda; whether the construction of this line of forts is consistent with the exclusion of Unyoro from the area of the British Protectorate; and whether the expedition of Major Owen to Wadelai, the hoisting of a British flag there, the conclusion of a Treaty with the Sheikh there, and the five engagements which it is stated were fought with the enemy, are in accordance with any instructions given to Her Majesty's officers in Uganda by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, if not, what action it is contemplated to take in the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Information to the same effect has been received. Operations against Unyoro could only be justified in so far as they were necessary for the protection of Uganda in consequence of the aggressive attitude of Kaba Rega himself. The construction of the line of forts appears to have been a part of the military operations for defence against the Wanyoro and does not affect the decision of Her Majesty's Government as to the limits of the Protectorate. Colonel Colvile, being aware that Her Majesty's Government desired to obtain information as to the state of affairs at Wadelai, took advantage of the expedition to Unyoro to send Major Owen with a small escort by water. He met with no opposition at Wadelai, and he fought no engagements on the way there or back, although he appears to have been fired upon by some natives on the banks. As the hon. Member is aware, Wadelai is within the territory leased to the King of the Belgians, and will therefore be outside the limits of our action during the continuance of the Agreement.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Are these forts in the territory of Kaba Rega to be occupied by British troops?
  SIR E. GREY: No instructions were sent to undertake operations in Unyoro, but they were rendered necessary by the aggressive action of Kaba Rega himself.
  414
  The construction of these forts appears to have been judged necessary by the people on the spot. Therefore, although the construction of the forts could not affect the intentions of the Government with respect to the future of Uganda, I cannot call in question the decision taken in this matter by those on the spot.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What is to become of these forts which are outside Uganda? Are they to be garrisoned or to be handed over to Kaba Rega?
  SIR E. GREY: The Commissioner sent to Uganda will have to consider what measures are necessary to maintain friendly relations with the neighbouring countries, to prevent the Slave Trade, and to promote British trade and commerce. In the circumstances, I think it ought to be left to the Commissioner to decide after his arrival whether these forts shall remain or not.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the matter really be left to the judgment of the Commissioner as to whether forts are to be maintained on territory outside the British Protectorate?
  SIR E. GREY: As yet we do not fully know what the position of affairs in Unyoro is. The Commissioner will be instructed, as I said last Friday and repeated just now, to maintain friendly relations with the people in Unyoro. The point referred to by the hon. Member must, I think, be left to his decision.

  LABOUR ON PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the fact that this is the last year of the contract by which 36 of the men employed in this building under the Clerk of the Works are paid their wages through a middleman, it is intended that they shall on the expiration of the contract be paid by the Clerk of the Works, and receive the 7½ per cent, which is now charged by the contractor?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,: The men employed through the contractor already receive the full recognised wage of their respective trades, and to discontinue the agency of the contractor would not affect their rates of pay. It is not intended to make any change in the present system.

  COREA.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information as to the reported rising in the Corea, especially as to whether the rumour is true that the rising is against foreigners; and whether British ships of war are on the coast for the protection of British interests?
  SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government have received no information on this subject, and it may therefore be hoped that the reports which have appeared in the newspapers are exaggerated. The Naval Commander-in-Chief with six ships is now on the northern part of the China Station, but it is not known whether any vessel has been detached for service on the coast of Corea.

  FLITWICK BOARD SCHOOL.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the new buildings of the Flitwick Board School, sanctioned by the Education Department and in part erected by the late Board, have now been stopped by the orders of the present Board for a period of 13 months; that the builder has presented a claim against the Board for £624 for breach of contract; and that a sum of £60 was surcharged by the auditor of the school accounts against certain members of the Board for illegal disbursements; whether the said sum has been paid by those members; and, if not, why the payment of the said sum has not been enforced by the Department; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the present Board from reversing the policy of its predecessor by pulling down a building already begun, and throwing a large additional burden upon the ratepayers of the parish of Flitwick?
  MR. ACLAND: With regard to this case, I can hardly add anything to the answers which I gave to the hon. Member on the 15th of February and the 19th of March last. The enlargement of the school is, I understand, now being carried out in accordance with the plans approved by the Department in March last. The question of surcharge rests with the
  416
  Local Government Board, and is not within the province of the Education Department. I am informed by the solicitors to Major Brooks, one of the members of the School Board, that the Board have applied to the Queen's Bench Division for a Rule for a mandamus, directing the Overseers to raise the sum in question, and I presume that the question at issue will be settled by the Courts of Law.

  DUNPHAIL RAILWAY ACCIDENT.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state what number of repaired wheels of the Mansell pattern made 22 years ago, as referred to in Major Marindin's Report on the railway accident on the 27th of April last to a passenger train at Dunphail Station, are now in use on the passenger trains of the Highland Railway; will he explain why time was not allowed the examiner at Kingussie to go all round the train, instead of only time to examine the wheels on the right side; seeing that since the introduction of continuous brakes the strain upon carriage wheels has been much increased, will the Highland Railway Company be required to furthen strengthen them; whether he is aware that it is the practice on the Highland Railway for the assistant guard to ride in the rear van instead of in the front brake van; and that a penalty has been imposed on the Company for failing to provide a communication cord between the carriages and the engine and the brake van of the train, and for the infringement of Rule 22 of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1868"; and whether all the carriages of passenger trains on the Highland Railway are fitted with automatic brakes, in accordance with the instructions of the Department to the Railway Company last year? In putting the question, I should like to say that the fourth paragraph has been so "seriously mutilated" since I handed it in at the Table that I withdraw it, with a view to framing other questions on it another day.
  MR. BRYCE: The question of the hon. Member refers to matters which are within the knowledge not of the Board of Trade but of the Railway Company, whose office is in Inverness; and as the question appears on the Paper for the first time this morning, there has not been

  417
  time to obtain any information on the subject.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman says his question has been "seriously mutilated" at the Table; but the only part left out consisted of mechanical details, which could instruct nobody.

  HOURS OF LABOUR ON THE HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have been taken to require the Highland Railway Company to run its trains in accordance with the observations made by Major Marindin, in reference to the collision on the Highland Railway, at Tain, on the 28th of March last, that he had no hesitation in recommending that the Highland Railway Company should be informed that working under rules which admit of a train shunting on a line under the protection of one signal, and that a distant signal, when another train is actually approaching from the opposite direction, cannot be considered as block-working within the meaning of the Act; whether any penalty will be imposed for this breach of the Act; whether the signalman at Tain every alternate week is on duty 15 hours per day, less two hours for meals, and that the guard and brakesman are engaged an excessive number of hours; whether ho has issued any Order prohibiting the Highland Railway Company from working their employés an undue number of hours; and whether he is aware that Major Marindin's Report on this accident is neither in the Library of the House nor obtainable iu the Vote Office?
  MR. BRYCE: The Board of Trade are in communication with the Highland Railway Company on the subject of paragraph 1. Obedience to an Order of the Board made under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, may be enforced by the Railway Commissioners, and the question of imposing a penalty is for them. The Board have called upon the Company to make a Return of the hours worked by the servants of the classes in question. I have caused a copy of the Report to be sent to the hon. Member.

  ANTHRAX.
  MR. FELLOWES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received the Reports lie called for as to the measures adopted in foreign countries to prevent the spread of anthrax: and whether he is now in a position to say if he will appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire whether anything can be done to stop the serious consequences of the disease, not only to live stock, but in some cases to human beings also?
  MR. H. GARDNER: The particulars with which I asked to be furnished regarding the measures adopted in certain foreign countries for preventing the spread of anthrax have been obtained, and are now under consideration. My present impression is that no advantage would be gained by the appointment of any Special Committee on the subject, but I should like to consider the matter further before giving a definite answer to the second part of the hon. Member's question.

  ACCOMMODATION IN PARLIAMENT HOUSE.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it is intended to pro-coed with the appointment of the Select Committee to consider the accommodation provided for the Members and officials of this House, and for the representatives of the Press; and, if so, why has the Notice been removed from the Notices of Motions?
  MR. H. GARDNER: Yes, Sir; it is intended to proceed in this matter; and the Notice of Motion will be put down for Thursday next.

  FATAL ACCIDENT INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government intend to take the Second Reading of the Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Bill shortly, with a view to it being passed this Session?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Lord Advocate, who is in special charge of this Bill, has been watching an opportunity to get a Second Reading, but has been hitherto unable to succeed, in con-

  419
  sequence of the objection taken to it by Members who are opposed to the Bill.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give reasonable time for the Second Reading by bringing it on before 12 o'clock?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: At the present moment the Government is very short of time, and until the Budget Bill is passed will be very short of money.

  BLACK NAVY HANDKERCHIEFS.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why the order to Messrs. J. and T. Brocklehurst, of Macclesfield, for black Navy handkerchiefs has been reduced from 80,000 in 1893 to 16,000 in 1894; and whether an order has been given to any other firm in this country or abroad?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The number of these handkerchiefs required for the present year is 16,000. No order has been given to any other firm in this country or abroad.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: About how many of these handkerchiefs are required in any one year?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The number varies; it is only 16,000 this year.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: And last year it was 80,000.
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Yes, I suppose the stock in hand was larger this year.

  THE EXILED SAMOANS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the allegations of Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson in Saturday's Times with respect to the harsh conditions under which the Samoan Chief, Mataafa, and his adherents have been exiled; that they are imprisoned on a coral atoll, where the water is brackish and the food distressing; that they are divorced from their families and dependent on the charity of pitying whites; that the Government has made no attempt to relieve their necessities; and that Mr. Stevenson himself was not allowed to send them a supply of food and tobacco; and whether Her Majesty's Government are
  420
  in possession of any official information on this subject; if not, will the British Consul in Samba be instructed to inquire, and, if he finds that Mr. Stevenson's allegations are well founded, to exert his influence in the direction of a more humane treatment of Mataafa and his exiled adherents?
  SIR E. GREY: Mataafa and his principal adherents have been deported by agreement between the three Powers to the Marshal Islands, which are a German possession, and where, though their banishment may be disagreeable, they are, under the custody of the German Government, being treated with every regard to humanity. The question as to what extent they can be joined by their wives is under consideration, and special assurances have been given that, as they are Roman Catholics, the services of Roman Catholic priests settled in the Islands shall be available to them.

  TRAINING SHIPS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, having regard to the fact that an additional training ship is about to be commissioned, and in view of the promise recently given, the Admiralty will avail of this occasion to consider the claims of Queenstown as a station for a training ship?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: It is not intended that the Northampton, the ship about to be commissioned for the training of boys, should be stationary at any one port. She differs from the ordinary boys' training ships in that she takes boys of a greater age, and for six months' training only. She will visit various ports, including Queenstown.

  CHITRAL.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the India Office have any information from Chitral additional to that which has been given by the newspapers on or since Saturday last?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No official information on the subject has been received, but inquiry has been made of the Government of India.

  IRELAND AND THE AUTUMN NAVAL MANŒUVRES.
  MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it would not be possible on the occasion of the visit of the Fleet to the North of Ireland to send one-half of the Squadron to Lough Foyle instead of sending the entire Fleet to Lough Swilly?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I stated yesterday the arrangements made for the cruise of the Channel Squadron. These arrangements cannot be varied in the way suggested by the hon. Member's question.
  *MR. WEIR: Will the Channel Squadron find its way round to Invergordon?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I can only give my hon. Friend the same answer.

  TRADE IMPOSITIONS AT KERMAN.
  MR. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has observed in the Consular Report just issued upon trade with Persia the complaints of British subjects trading at Kerman respecting the unjust imposts to which they are subjected, and the urgent requests they make for the appointment of a Consular officer; and whether, in view of the beneficial influence which such an appointment would have upon the imports into Persia, especially of Manchester cotton goods and calico prints, and also of the fact that it is recommended by Consul Preece, of Ispahan, the Foreign Office is prepared to act upon the recommendation?
  SIR E. GREY: The question is under consideration, and I can make no further statement with regard to it at present.

  HULME'S CHARITY.
  MR. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner why the Assistant Commissioner proposes to recommend a smaller grant from the Governors of Hulme's Charity for higher education in Bury than has been given to Oldham; and if the relative populations of the two boroughs has affected the amount of the proposed grant, why that consideration should now be introduced when it was not regarded as between Manchester and Oldham when the grants from the Hulme Trust were made to those two places?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. F. S. STEVENSON,): The Charity Commissioners have not yet received any Report from the Assistant Commissioner who has been visiting Bury. It is understood that no funds are as yet available from the Hulme Trust for Bury. When the time arrives, the Commissioners will take all the circumstances into consideration before publishing a Scheme.

  THE TRIAL OF BULUWAYO TROOPERS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to give the House particulars of the trial of the two troopers at Buluwayo, charged with stealing a present and intercepting a message from the late King Lobengula, and of its results?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The two troopers in question were sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment, with hard labour. The particulars of the trial have appealed in the newspapers.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Is the Colonial Office in possession of the official Report of the trial?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We have received a Report by telegraph from the Acting Governor, General Cameron, in reference to the matter.

  POLO IN PHŒNIX PARK.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether permission has now been given to the Polo Club, who have already railed in some acres of the Phoenix Park, to erect a stand house on the ground; whether his attention has been called to the successive stages by which permanent encroachments and erections have been made in the park; is he aware that when the Polo Club first got permission to use a special part of the park, the ground was marked out for them merely by a whitewash boundary; that after a time they were permitted to erect a wooden railing, on the plea that this was necessary for the protection of spectators; that subsequently a second railing was erected on the other side, and the entire ground thus enclosed except at the ends; that then a small wooden shed

  423
  was constructed at the western extremity; that last winter this shed was transfered to a more commanding position, and enclosed by a strong iron railing; that seats were put on top of it to form a stand house, but that admission thereto is denied to any persons except members of the club and their friends; will the Government inquire whether on Saturday last a person practising the game rode outside and deliberately drove the ball into the midst of a group of ladies, and rode off without offering any apology; and will any steps be taken to secure the free and uninterrupted use of the park for ordinary citizens not requiring special privileges from the Crown towards their enjoyment?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that the Polo Club has not been allowed to rail in the ground on which the game is played; but, for the protection of the public, barriers have been erected on two sides, the ends being perfectly open. The club has been allowed to re-erect the wooden pavilion for dressing rooms; the site has been changed in order to allow free passage for carriages and other traffic round the ground; the railing round the pavilion is the same as was round the old shed, but a little longer; the new feature is a platform accommodating about a dozen persons. With the exception of the demesnes attached to the official residences, which have never been opened to the public, and the ground occupied by certain public institutions, the Zoological Gardens, and the necessary lodges, nurseries, &c, for the service of the Park, there are no permanent enclosures in the Park. The cricket grounds which have been assigned with the consent of successive Governments to certain clubs are all held on licence, and cannot be described as permanent encroachments. Inquiry has been made, but no information is forthcoming about the incident alluded to in the fourth paragraph, nor has the Board of Works received any complaint. I appreciate the desire of my hon. Friend to secure the Park for the general use and enjoyment of the citizens, but I do not think that the existing privileges, which have been granted and confirmed by successive Governments for so many years, constitute any serious interference with such general use and enjoyment.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Is it not the case that the game of polo is enjoyed by a large number of citizens?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I believe it is very popular in Dublin.
  MR. SEXTON: Are the licences held from year to year, or only for a fixed term, or is the arrangement an indefinite one?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Board of Works can terminate the licence if they think fit.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Is the privilege allowed to other Societies as well as the one named in the question?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: To four others. I stated so.

  CRICKET IN PHŒNIX PARK.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the published letter of the Hon. Sec. of the Dublin Workmen's Cricket League as to the allegation that the Board of Works have prepared in the Phoenix Park a cricket ground for general use, on which at least four matches can be played, in which he asserts that its state is such that not even one match can be played on it; is it the case that cattle can graze over this ground, and that if a ball goes over into the railed-in ground of the Garrison Club it is a "trespass" to follow it; will the Government consider the advisability of requiring rich clubs like the Phoenix Club to rent ground for themselves and leaving the park to the clubs of the working classes who cannot afford to hire private grounds; whether the Phoenix Club are now prosecuting, with the assent and assistance of the Government, members of the Working Men's Club for playing on their crease in the park; are the Government determined to sustain this prosecution; and, if so, will the Board of Works provide adequate accommodation in the park for the general body of cricketers; is he aware that the Constabulary Club is now dead and their ground is in disuse and disrepair; and what use will be made of this plot?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed, as regards the area of ground intended for the general use of persons not belonging to cricket clubs in the Phœnix Park, that nearly all the eastern portion can now be, and is frequently, used by six

  425
  or more sets of players. Though unrolled, the ground is sufficiently level, and the sward good. The western portion having been cleared and levelled within the last six months, the sward has not got into a sufficiently good state, but as time goes on should be quite satisfactory. There will then be additional room for seven or eight more matches on this portion. Cattle can no doubt graze over this as on other unfenced portions of the park, but as the park is so extensive the inconvenience could scarcely be serious. There is no reason to think that any case of trespass would arise under the circumstances stated. The cricket clubs have spent a good deal of money in enclosing, levelling, and otherwise adapting the grounds for cricket, besides erecting pavilions for the members. To deprive them now of these grounds would, I think, in view of the vast extent of the park, require grave consideration. One of the clubs to which grounds were assigned was the Working Men's Club. The members of the Phoenix Cricket Club have not been prosecuting members of the Working Men's Club, but trespassers committing wilful mischief who, on being challenged by the police, all gave false names and addresses, as stated by the Magistrate at the trial. The Constabulary Cricket Ground has not been much used by that body, and the question of what should be done with it is now before the Board of Works.

  ENUMERATORS OF IRISH AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.
  MR. M. HEALY: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the desirability of relieving the enumerators of agricultural statistics in the Royal Irish Constabulary, who often at this time of the year have to walk 15 or 20 miles daily, from house to house, of patrol or general duty during the days on which they are engaged in collecting statistical information?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that it is the practice to relieve the police from all their ordinary duties while actually employed on the outdoor duty necessary for the collection of the statistics referred to, and for which I understand
  426
  they receive extra remuneration. It may, however, become necessary on occasions to employ individual members on other duties; but, as far as possible, they are relieved from their ordinary work when engaged on these statistics.

  THE DEATH DUTIES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will inform the House what portion of the increased receipt of £3,500,000 or £4,000,000, which he estimates will be received annually from the Death Duties he has estimated would be derived from the increased receipts arising from Succession Duty being charged on the principal value of realty passing in fee simple instead of being charged on the value of an annuity; and whether he can state, either accurately or approximately, what proportion of the property whereon Death Duties were levied in 1891–2, amounting in all to £241,453,000, represented realty passing in fee simple, and what was the amount on which Succession Duty was levied in respect of such realty?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): It was impossible to get the figures in the short time which has elapsed since the question appeared on the Paper. Notice of it was only given yesterday.

  INSOLVENT ESTATES AND THE FINANCE BILL.
  MR. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that Clause 13 of the Finance Bill as at present drawn extends to all insolvent estates, no matter what the gross value of the assets, and also to all estates, no matter of what amount, where, after deducting debts, the balance is under £1,000; whether it has been taken into consideration that professional assistance is most required in cases of the character referred to; and on what grounds in insolvent estates, where no Probate Duty is payable and the State gains nothing, State officials should undertake free of charge the duties of solicitors?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The effect of the Bill is as stated in the first paragraph. The fact that Inland Revenue officers are empowered to receive affidavits in such cases does not, of course,

  427
  prevent the parties from employing professional advice, if they require it. The ground why this provision was adopted in the Bill was mainly public convenience.
  MR. M. HEALY: If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman exclude from the scope of the provisions persons who have large properties and were insolvent?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand that the provision applies to people who have less than £1,000. People with larger fortunes than that will be able to indulge in professional advice.
  MR. M. HEALY: Is it not a fact that the provision as it stands will apply to an estate of £50,000 if the owner happens to owe £49,000?
  SIR W. HARCOURTasked for notice of that question.

  CESS AND STENT IN ROYAL BURGHS.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has yet received the Report of the Inland Revenue Authorities upon the Memorial of the Convention of Royal Burghs with regard to cess and stent; if so, will he introduce a Bill to deal with the matter this Session?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Report of the Inland Revenue Authorities is, generally, not unfavourable to the proposals of the Convention; but I am afraid I cannot undertake that the Government will introduce a Bill to deal with the matter this Session.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: In all probability the Bill will be absolutely unopposed, and could therefore be proceeded with after 12 o'clock. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If there be such a lusus natuæ as an unopposed Bill, I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

  WORKMEN'S TRAINS.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the Board of Trade have no information, and are unable or decline to procure any, with regard to the extent to which some English and Welsh Railway Companies, on their cheap tickets issued to workmen, impose upon them a condition relieving the carrying Company from all liability for the death or injury of the workmen, if caused upon the journey by
  428
  the fault or negligence of the Company; whether the Home Office, or any other Government Department, has or will procure information as to what Companies issue such tickets, and to what extent, either in the form of the Return asked for or in some other form; and if he will consider the propriety of altering the law when opportunity arises, so as to make such conditions on passengers' tickets, whether cheap or ordinary fares are paid, invalid?
  MR. ASQUITH: The matter to which my hon. Friend's question refers concerns the Board of Trade, and has nothing to do with the Home Office or any other Government Department. From communications which I have had with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I know that the whole subject is at present engaging his attention.

  THE JABEZ BALFOUR COMPANIES.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether, in view of the fact that all the materials for a public prosecution with regard to the Jabez Balfour Companies were sent in to the Treasury by the Official Receiver more than six months ago, he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take immediate action in the matter?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. REID,&c.): I answered a question substantially the same a few days ago, and I must adhere to that answer, which was, that it was not desirable in the public interest that any further statement should at present be made.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Are we to understand that there is no intention of proceeding against the other persons concerned in these frauds?
  MR. R. T. REID: No; the hon. Gentleman is to understand simply that it is not in the public interest that any further statement should now be made.

  HIGH COURT JUDGES AND DERBY DAY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Attorney General if he will grant a Return showing, for the last five years, which, if any, of the Courts of the Judges of the High Court of Justice have either not sat or have risen before

  429
  the usual hour on the Derby Day, with the reason for such omission to sit or early adjournment?
  MR. R. T. REID: My attention has only just been called to this question, and I will ask the hon. Member to postpone it for a day or two.
  MR. HANBURY: I will repeat it on Friday.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN KENT.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Can the President of the Board of Agriculture say if there is any truth in the report of a fresh outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia at Sevington, near Ashford, Kent?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I have no information of a further outbreak of pleuropneumonia at Sevington. I fancy that the report has been circulated in consequence of the slaughter there of some animals that had been in contact with those in which the disease was discovered some time ago.

SITTING OF THE HOUSE (DERBY DAY).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. MACLUREsaid, that in rising to propose the Resolution which stood in his name for the adjournment of the House over Derby Day he did so with the natural modesty which had always distinguished him in that House. He very greatly regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was on the previous night unable assent to this proposal, not only in the interests of the Members but also of the officials of the House. The longer Parliamentary experience of the right hon. Gentleman might, no doubt, have enabled him to discover a sufficient reason for the refusal, but from the point of view of hon. Members, some of whom had not always voted against the Government, and for the sake of the officials, he might reasonably have consented to give them one day's holiday, particularly when they wanted to do honour to the Prime Minister, for whom they all had such regard as a great supporter of their national sports. He quite admitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself were not so young as on an occasion some years since when they came careering to the House to support
  430
  such a Motion as this. To him it was a matter of perfect indifference whether the House adjourned or not; to the Derby he would go. He had not missed that event for 30 years, and he was not going to miss it at his present advanced period of life. He looked upon the Derby as an exact specimen of all the national sports. He never had a bet on a race in his life; and as a Churchwarden, and a member of the House of Laymen of the Province of York, he saw no harm in his witnessing a national sport conducted on highly moral principles. He sincerely wished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to go down in the special train to-morrow. He would have been an adornment to that train, and he would have enjoyed a well-deserved holiday. He appealed to the Government to show that they were for once liberal and generous, to give them a day's holiday, which they, and especially the officials, so much needed. He admitted that practices of a most objectionable character had been introduced into the national sports. There might be a certain amount of betting. He reprobated that very strongly, but were they to give up cricket because there was betting at cricket matches? He ventured to assert that if they did not uphold their national sports England would not maintain her present position. He knew that a number of Irish Members would not vote against this Motion. He relied on the promises which had been made to him; he did not believe that they would be broken, and he would therefore move the adjournment of the House over Derby Day.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I rise to second the Motion of my hon. Friend. I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is going to the Derby, but let me give him one word of warning, and that is to take the precaution of pairing if he does not succeed in carrying his Motion. There are special reasons why the House should look with favour on this proposal. No Parliament, certainly in my time, has ever had to bear such a strain and such a tax as the present Parliament. We sat for 11 months out of the 12 last year, and if any serious attempt is to be made on the part of the Government to carry even the most pressing of their measures the House will have to sit for something

  431
  like 11 months during the present year. I submit, in these circumstances, that the loss of a Wednesday Sitting could not make a very material difference to the progress of Government business, while it would make a great difference to the over-worked Members of the House, and to the wearied officials, to whom my hon. Friend has referred in such feeling terms. We should all benefit both in health and temper by a holiday.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That depends upon whether you win or lose.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I can picture to myself the scene and the ovation that will follow the hoisting of the number of the horse of the Prime Minister. Just consider what it will be! I can see the winner led back to the scales, with the Prime Minister on the one side, and the stalwart form of the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the other, with head erect, and proud, defiant eye, flashing a warning all around—the sort of thing we often see when he rises to address is on favourable occasions—and there would be something very much worse and more serious than graduated Death Duties if anyone should venture to lift even a finger against the favourite until the welcome words "All right!" have been given. I think that the right hon. Gentleman might consider on this occasion the appeal we desire to make to him. Of course, there are different ways of doing it. You must take a Division. That I grant you. There is the Nonconformist conscience to consider. I have observed that the Nonconformist conscience is pretty tough when any political advantage is to be gained, and there can be no doubt as to the political advantage that would result from Ladas winning the Derby. I think it would only be necessary to give a wink to the Whips. The Government, as has happened before, would be defeated, and we might all go to the Derby in peace and comfort. Just one word in reply to an objection that has often been urged in the House, and, no doubt, will be urged again, for I see the warning face of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson) opposite. "Why," it is asked, "should the House of Commons be called upon to adjourn merely for a horse race?" There is a good and serious reply to be made to that. Everybody will admit that it is a matter of
  432
  first-rate importance to a country like this that we should preserve a first-rate breed of horses. Up to this time this has always been done by private enterprise in this country. In recent years foreign countries have become quite alive to the advantage of maintaining such a breed of horses; and enormous efforts have been made by these foreign Governments with all the advantage of unlimited purses to enable them to accomplish that very desirable purpose. I am not going to conceal from the House of Commons that, in my humble opinion, a great deal of injury has been done during the past 30 years in this country by our not endeavouring more to maintain the excellence of our breed of horses. Good horses of all kinds— especially horses that would be fitted to carry the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself—are much more difficult to procure now than they were formerly; but as long as racing is maintained, the fountain of excellence will always remain with us. And why? Because the ambitions of the Turf, and the great prizes that are to be won at it, are sufficient to induce private individuals, like Lord Rosebery, and a great many others to retain in possession of this country the Hermits—the House will forgive me for putting Hermit first—the Stockwells, the Newminsters, the Galopins, the St. Simons, and the Ladases.
  MR. BUCHANAN: And the Ormondes.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes; but Ormonde was not quite sound. I was delighted to see Ormonde in consequence removed from this country—I say that without the slightest want of patriotism. But, as I was saying, the encouragements given by the Turf are sufficient to induce private enterprise to maintain in the possession of this country, in spite of all the foreign purses in the world put together, horses of that class. So long as we continue to retain them in England, you can command your breed of horses. Abolish, or discourage, racing and undoubtedly they will go. That is one serious reason, and I will not give another, why I do desire to induce the House of Commons on this occasion to mark their recognition of what was called, and justly called, by my hon. Friend, a great national institution.

  433
  I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be induced to look favourably on this proposal. Viewing the fact that the present Prime Minister is at this moment owner of the Derby favourite— a horse which, so far as I can see, presents to all outside appearance the greatest certainty in the world of winning—I am entitled to say to Members of the House of Commons, and especially to hon. Gentlemen opposite, what a noble Lord said to me on a former occasion, "England expects the Liberal Party to go down to Epsom to-morrow." I hope they will do so. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look favourably on this Motion—there is no reason for making this Adjournment a question of confidence in Her Majesty's Government. Political opponent though I am, I hope the Liberal Party will return from Epsom to-morrow conscious of the enormous advantage they have gained because Lord Rosebery has won the Blue Ribbon of the Turf; conscious also of something else on which I am not quite so sure I could heartily congratulate them—that the victory of Ladas has done a real good and very possibly most timely turn to the fortunes of the Party to which they belong.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday.—{Mr. Maclure.)
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not know whether gentlemen who have had to fulfil the arduous and difficult duties which belong to a trustee have ever been solicited by the persons who are the subject of the trust to violate their trust for the advantage of the beneficiaries. It is the duty, and very often the painful duty, of the trustee to say, "Well, gentlemen and ladies, I should be extremely happy to oblige you, but really the fact is that the terms of the trust do not allow me to do so." The Government to-day are in the situation of trustees of the whole time of the House which was granted to them on Thursday last, and the question we have to consider is whether giving up one of these days to attendance at the Derby is strictly in conformity with the terms of that trust. I am sorry to say that we have come to the conclusion that it is not so—that it was not for this purpose that we were entrusted with the whole time of the
  434
  House; that the House of Commons has other objects to which its time and attention ought to be devoted; and that those who have the disposal of the time of the House have no right to appropriate it to any other purpose than that for which it was given. My right hon. Friend says it is very necessary that the House of Commons should go to the Derby to-morrow in order to keep up the breed of horses in this country. I am quite sure that so long as there are persons like himself, it will not need that special encouragement to maintain in this country a breed of horses of the best description. I can offer him some consolation in that respect. If what he wants is encouragement from the august body of the State, I would remind him that there are three estates of the Realm— the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons of England. He has the undivided encouragement of the two first. They are at his disposal. Enjoying their otium cum dignitate, they can give the countenance of their lawn sleeves to my right hon. Friend on that occasion. I cannot, therefore, think that his argument that horse-breeding will die out in this country in consequence of our attending to public business to-morrow, or that it will seriously injure horse-racing, is well founded. I think that if we were to consent to this Motion we should not be doing that which we are bound to do in reference to the time at our disposal, and therefore I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the proposal.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 246.—(Division List, No. 74.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.—(No. 190.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 4th June.]
  [SIXTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2.
  *MR. BYRNEsaid, he had the following Amendment on the Paper: —Clause 2, page 2, line 5, after "following," to insert "when situate within the United Kingdom." He had

  435
  intended this as a drafting Amendment. The effect of it, with another Amendment to be moved subsequently, would be to make it clear that the property out of the country to be charged with Estate Duty was property liable to Legacy or Succession Duty. He did not desire to press the Amendment—in fact, he would mot move it, because there were similar Amendments on the Paper in the names of other Members, and it was possible that those hon. Gentlemen attached different meanings to their proposals.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: If the hon. Member moves his Amendment, shall I be in Order in moving the same Amendment afterwards for a totally different reason?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper to the same effect as that of the hon. Member for Walthamstow. It seemed to him that the clause was not sufficiently clear to show the difference between property situated within the United Kingdom and property situated outside it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Walthamstow was a drafting Amendment. Would the fact of its not being moved preclude another Member from moving it as a substantial Amendment?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment can only be put from the Chair, and either accepted or rejected once, but hon. Members can support it for any reason they like when put.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, it would be an improvement if the first four sub-sections of the clause were prefaced by the words "As to the property in the United Kingdom." The advantage of that would be felt when they came to deal with Sub-section 5, which related to property outside the United Kingdom.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the Government themselves proposed to move an Amendment to prevent ambiguity. After the first four sub-sections they proposed to leave out the word "such," before "property," so that it might not be supposed that in the subsequent subsection the same class of property was dealt with as that referred to in the first four sub-sections.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLrose to move, in page 2, line 5, after "following," to insert "situate in the United Kingdom." He said that there were very grave interests involved in this country and in other parts of the world which naturally reacted on one another, and unless they could at the very beginning insert in this Finance Bill some terms to confine their action to property situated within the United Kingdom very grave evils would follow, and among the gravest would be this: that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Revenue of this country would not benefit in anything like the degree—if it benefited at ail— which was estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He should place before the Committee one or two considerations which he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would admit were deserving of the greatest respect and attention.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, after the word "following," to insert the words "situate in the United Kingdom."—(Sir G. Baden-Powell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURT (interposing)said, they had had the question discussed and decided upon, as to whether the Estate Duty should or should not be applied in regard to property out of the United Kingdom; and it could not be again raised upon this Amendment, which was a drafting Amendment to clear up the clause. A decision had been taken on the question whether the Estate Duties should or should not apply to property outside the United Kingdom, and he ventured to say that no Amendment could now be moved which had the object of declaring that property should be excluded from the operations of the Bill that was outside the United Kingdom. He pointed out at the time this question was raised that it could be more properly raised on Clause 2, but hon. Gentlemen opposite discussed it on Clause 1, and made this proposal upon it, which was negatived without a Division. He was sorry the hon. Member was not able to be present, but they argued it for several hours in this House; it was the last Amendment put from the Chair on Thursday night, and it was negatived

  437
  without a Division. Such being the facts of the case, and after that decision of the House, he ventured to say that the question could not now be raised in any Amendment as to whether property out of the United Kingdom should or should not be liable to pay these duties.
  MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,said, his recollection was not that this matter of the duty, as it related to property out of the United Kingdom, had been negatived.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, it has. The Amendment was after the word "property" to insert "capable of being dealt with in the United Kingdom," so as to restrict it to the United Kingdom. If that is so, and I think it is so, then I think this Amendment, if it had been merely a drafting Amendment followed by others, would have been in Order, but, as it is, I think it is out of Order.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES,on the point of Order, submitted that the words "capable of being dealt with in the United Kingdom" were entirely different to the words "situate in the United Kingdom," and covered other property. He would further point out that if it were out of Order to propose the words "situate in the United Kingdom," then this whole clause was out of Order, because if the clause had any import at all, it was a restrictive clause. If it was not restrictive it had no meaning whatever. Clause 1 imposed the duty upon all property whatsoever and wheresoever. Clause 2, again, if it had any meaning at all, had the meaning that it further defined the property in question, and if it defined it further, it must restrict it further. The language of the clause ran "it is to be deemed to include." The question they had to settle under the clause was what was to be included in the property that passed; that was to say, how far the restriction could be extended. The Chancellor of the Exchequer bad said that at the very end of the clause the question should be raised as to whether property in the United Kingdom was to be included or not, and the right hon. Gentleman had already told them that he proposed to vary the form in which it had been included in the clause as drafted. He submitted, therefore, on the ground that "property capable of being dealt with" was not the same as property "situate
  438
  in the United Kingdom"; on the ground that this clause was entirely itself out of Order unless the Amendment now moved were in Order, and on the ground that the framers of this Bill themselves had included the question of the inclusion of property in the United Kingdom in the last part of the clause, that the Amendment now proposed was entirely in Order.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, it was perfectly true that this clause did define certain properties included in Clause 1. It said that property passing on the death of a deceased (which was defined in Clause 1) should be deemed to include the properties following. The properties following were (a), (b), (c), and (d) subsections. These, no doubt, applied to properties in the United Kingdom. But it also stated that all property out of the United Kingdom should be included, subject to limitations and definitions. That was merely a restriction on the property which had been described under Clause I. But the question was raised upon Clause I, and decided by this House. [Mr. GIBSOX BOWLES: Not decided.] That question was raised and decided. He warned hon. Gentlemen at the time that if they raised it and decided it then they could not raise it again. It was discussed for a couple of hours, and then it was decided by the House without any Division, for the Amendment was negatived, which would have had the effect, had it been carried, of excluding property out of the United Kingdom. That was the situation. This clause was clearly not out of Order; it was a Definition Clause.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I said if this Amendment was out of Order, then the clause was out of Order.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, it was a Definition Clause, and having decided in the first clause that the word "property" was to cover property outside the United Kingdom as well as inside, they were here defining and limiting property outside the United Kingdom in the manner described at page 24. That was to say they had already determined that the general word "property" did cover property outside the United Kingdom, and now at the end of the clause they were describing and defining that limit on that property in the manner so described.
  SIR R. WEBSTERentirely agreed that they considered the general question of whether or not property outside the United Kingdom should come within the Estate Duty, but that did not quite touch the merits of the point of Order. This sub-section was proposing to define property in these words—
  "Property of which the deceased at the time of his death was competent to dispose."
  Take the case of personal property or real property; it obviously came within these words. The right hon. Gentleman told them that he did not propose that the earlier sub-sections should deal with property outside the United Kingdom, therefore, he submitted it was obvious, on the right hon. Gentleman's own principle, that they must be allowed to discuss under these four sub-sections whether the words were so worded as to be wide enough to include property out of the United Kingdom.
  SIR W. HARCOURTremarked that if this was a drafting Amendment he should not have a word to say against it. It was only because the hon. Member was proceeding to discuss a question which had already been decided that he had interposed. He understood the object of the hon. and learned Member (Sir R. Webster) was very different. He did not at all dispute that it would be better drafting to put in words to make it clear that Sub-sections (a), (b), (c), and (d), were not intended to apply to property out of the United Kingdom. Upon that they did not differ. The Government preferred their own words, and they thought the alterations they proposed to make in line 24, would make it perfectly clear that it could not apply to property outside the United Kingdom, because that would be sufficiently defined and made clear, so that the ambiguity which the hon. and learned Member properly referred to would be removed. The real ambiguity arose from the word "such," and "such" here referred to (a), (b), and (c). They struck out the word "such," and the Solicitor General would move an Amendment which would make it perfectly clear that the only part of this clause which referred to foreign property at all, was the part of the clause which began at line 24. That really was the point, and there was no difference in substance.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, before the Chairman decided the point of Order he should like to ask a further question. At the end of the clause were these words: —
  "All such property, when situated out of the United Kingdom, shall be included if it is liable to Legacy or Succession Duty or would be so liable."
  That was a restriction on the general proposition which the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered had been accepted by the House. He would ask if it was in Order, if this was not in conflict with the general proposition, would any further restriction that might be placed upon the taxation of foreign property be out of Order, whilst this was in Order, as an exception to the general rule which the right hon. Gentleman laid down? It appeared to him that at the end of Section I there were words which showed that, notwithstanding the vote which the House had given, all property was not included, but only property liable to Legacy or Succession Duty. Therefore, he would submit that if it was not in Order in this particular place it would be in Order hereafter to impose any such limitations as the Committee might think right on the imposition of property situate in the Colonies. When the question arose the previous night with regard to Clause 1 whether they should vote against the clause particularly in reference to what was proposed by the Member for the University of London, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not himself suggest that it was on Clause 1 but upon Clause 2 that the objects aimed at by his right hon. Friend could be dealt with, and when they refused to divide against the clause they were under the impression that it was a matter that might be raised upon Clause 2.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, there was clearly no difference between the two sides of the House. His point was that it was not open now to say that no property abroad should be subject to this duty, but it was open to add further limitations. The limitation which the Government had proposed was that only such property should be included as was liable to Succession and Legacy Duty. If hon. Members thought further restrictions should be imposed they could discuss them. That was the position of the matter. He did not dispute that at the

  441
  end of the clause they might impose further limitations.
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the general question having been settled it could not be again raised. But, at the same time, in answer to the question put to him by the right hon. Member for St. St. George's, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was right in suggesting—and he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree with him in the suggestion—that it was quite possible to modify the propositions upon the latter end of the clause; but the general proposition which had already been decided was no longer open.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose at this or a later stage to put words at the commencement of the clause which will show that the first four sub-sections are intended to apply to the United Kingdom?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We really mean that if you will leave it in our hands.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. BYRNErose to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose," and insert the words—
  "to which the deceased was at the time of his death absolutely entitled, whether in possession or not, or which he had a general power to appoint by will or (being money) to charge, whether by deed or will, or any property provided, and, so far as such powers shall have been respectively exercised but not otherwise, or to which, being real estate, he was at the time of his death entitled for an estate tail in possession, or for a base fee continuing after his death."
  He said, he thought that the Amendment was considerably clearer than the words appearing in Clause 2 of the Bill, as drawn. The first kind of property which was to be included under the term of property passing on the death of a deceased, was property of which the deceased at the time of his death was competent to dispose. Suppose these words stood alone without explanation on the face of the Bill, anybody would admit they were far too wide. There were many kinds of property a man could dispose of in which he had really himself no property. He knew the difficulty the drafters of a
  442
  Bill of this kind would have when they tried to define property that passed on the death of a deceased. The first item was the property of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose. They had to look somewhere else to see what was meant by that, and he found that the Interpretation Clause made things more confounded than ever. Having regard to the Interpretation Clause, and to the words in this clause, it was clear that a good many items of property were included which it could not possibly be intended to include. In the first place, it would include all property in which the deceased had no property himself, but had only the right of disposition, as, for instance, a purely fiduciary power, or quasi-fiduciary power. Suppose he was tenant for life under the Settled Land Act, there was power to dispose of the property, but it was not, of course, intended to include such cases. Suppose he was trustee with power of sale—fiduciary power—that would be included in these words. Suppose he was a mortgagee with power of sale. Upon his death this would be considered property of which he was capable of disposing, and, therefore, property passing at his death and upon which duty was payable. He could suggest other instances to show that the words of the clause were far too wide. Generally, property over which a deceased person had had a power of sale, but in which he had no financial interest whatever, would be included. He had done his best to frame a clause which would include every item of property which could be reasonably considered property of which the deceased was competent to dispose, which passed at his death, and which might fairly be included for the purposes of duty. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose," and insert the words—
  "to which the deceased was at the time of his death absolutely entitled, whether in possession or not, or which he had a general power to appoint by will or (being money) to charge, whether by deed or will, on any property provided, and, so far as such powers shall have been respectively exercised but not otherwise, or to which, being real estate, he was at the time of his death entitled for an estate tail

  443
  in possession, or for a base fee continuing after his death."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. REID,&c.)said, that the Amendment would introduce into the clause esoteric mysteries of real estate. The substance of the proposal of the Bill itself was that property passing on death should include all properties of which the deceased was competent to dispose at his death, such as, for instance, money at his bankers. Another form of property consisted of a power to appoint property to oneself. For example, where a man had £1,000 at the bank which was not his own money, but which he might be in a position to appropriate to himself at any moment. What the Government said was that if a man at the time of death had power by a stroke of the pen to transfer to his own credit this £1,000, it must be treated as property passing at the man's death, although he had not in fact exercised the power of transferring the money to his credit. If such property were excluded from the operation of the clause the effect would be to facilitate greatly the plans of persons who might wish to evade the payment of Estate Duty. Coming to the Amendment the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, unwilling to leave the responsibility of drafting the clauses with the Government, and more ambitious than they, sought to enumerate every possible case in which a man might be deemed competent to dispose of property. They had been reminded that there were a number of professional gentlemen who saw a prospect of evasion of duty under this Bill. If they endeavoured to give this comprehensive and specific enumeration of every case it was very possible that after all something would be omitted, and that under these circumstances persons might be assisted in the evasion of payment of duty. Of course, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would guarantee to enumerate every case he should be much obliged to him for doing so, but to enumerate them partially would do no good whatever. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment contained a limitation under which he said property
  444
  was not to be taxed over which a person had a general power of supervision unless he in fact exercised that power. The result of that would be that if a man wanted to give another a life interest in £10,000 which upon his death should pass to his son, the father, although he might have a general power of control, and his son be completely at his mercy, might not exercise his power, and so the tax which would otherwise fall in at his death would be lost. In any case, whether his argument was right or wrong, he would ask the hon. and learned Member to reconsider the matter, and make any suggestion which he might think fit as to the limitation of the power of disposal when Clause 18 was reached. They would also find opportunity on Clause 18 to discuss the whole question of tenants in tail, in possession, or in remainder. There appeared, he thought, to be some good ground for the proposal in the Amendment with regard to base fees, and to that proposal he undertook to give further consideration. He hoped the Amendment might not be pressed further now, and that the Committee would consent to deal with these matters in due order.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, it was essential that the Committee should know to what they were coming. He must make a protest on behalf of his hon. and learned Friend that this was an Amendment inspired by some Committee.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not mean to convey that. All that he wanted to say was that the Government by their clause had done the best they could to avoid evasion of the Act.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he knew of no committee in this matter or of any persons' intention to endeavour to avoid responsibility under the measure. This Amendment had been placed upon the Paper in order to make the thing more clear. The Government, although they had access to the most competent advice, were not able at present to say that they would accept it; and he wanted to know what, by the action of the Government, they were storing up for themselves in view of the fact that when any question of importance arose they were invariably asked to postpone it until some subsequent clause was being deal with? It was absolutely essential that they should know what meaning was to be given to the words—

  445
  "property of which the deceased was competent to dispose."
  If that could not be settled now the whole matter would have to be re-discussed upon Clause 18. But he would not put it as a matter of mere convenience. These definitions must inevitably be dealt with, and he thought the Government ought to deal with them at once. This Amendment had been upon the Paper for some days. If the hon. and learned Solicitor General did not think the words were quite suitable he could amend them just as easily now as when they came to Clause 18. There was no reason for the suggestion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that his hon. and learned Friend who had introduced this Amendment was bringing the House to the consideration of esoteric subjects. He submitted that the real matter that they had to consider was what was the degree of competency to dispose which a person should have in order to bring the property within this aggregation or pool contemplated by the clause? It was not right to put in general words like "competent to dispose" without knowing exactly what it was the Government meant. Such words would include the case of any man who had the power of exercising appointment—the case, for instance, of a man who had these carrying powers, and who by virtue of them was brought in as a mortgagee with power to sell, and who would be taxed up to a far larger sum than would be justifiable. He really could not understand why the Government should have put in these words. The words being there, and the Amendment being moved, he submitted that it was essential that the matter should be discussed now. They might have some days, or weeks, or months hence, a discussion as to the meaning of Clause 18, but between this and then he thought they were entitled to information from the Government which would show precisely what were the kinds of property which would fall into the aggregation.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Solicitor General had put to the Committee the case of a man who, without having any interest in a property himself, might have a power of appointment which he might hold in terrorem over his son, and he suggested that, although there was no exercise of power, yet upon
  446
  the death of the father the property would pass. Now, this was a question that was by no means new. It had been argued before with every advantage that legal acumen could give.
  MR. R. T. REID,interrupting, said, that if a man had a power of appointment, and did not exercise it in life, the question did not arise.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES,continuing, said, that he was remarking that this question as to property which did or did not pass under certain circumstances was not a new one. The Solicitor General had told them that the sub-section had been devised for the purpose of preventing evasion. If that was the ease, he did not think it was required. But it was one of the inconveniences of this Bill that when one was endeavouring to get at the meaning of a particular clause, he had to refer to other clauses, and to other Acts of Parliament. If the Solicitor General had the Act of 1881 as amended by the Act of 1889 before him, he would see that there were ample provisions against the evasion of duty. By their proposals the Government were endeavouring to bring in considerations which did not really exist. It was pretty much like saying that a man who had a general invitation to dinner, and never accepted it, had never dined. He did not think that the course which was being taken by the Government was likely to advance the Bill. When everybody had forgotten about that, and not till then, the Government were to bring in their definition of it. That was not fair to the taxpayer, who was entitled to know at once under what heading he was to be taxed. As the Bill stood, the unfortunate taxpayer had to run all over it from clause to clause to see what it was intended that he should bear in the way of fresh burdens of taxation. He-was disposed to move an Amendment himself, in order to remedy this inconvenience, and should do so except that he was anxious to save the time of the Committee. As to this particular-point of limitation, he entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment that the passing of properties referred to ought to be limited to the case of a man who was absolutely entitled thereto or who had the power to appoint to the property, and had exercised that

  447
  power. What passed in the case put by the Solicitor General was not property at all, but merely the potentiality of property. It was no answer to say that if the clause was wrong in itself it was wrong advisedly in order to prevent evasion, because, as he had pointed out, the danger of evasion was already amply provided for. He thought that this was an Amendment which the Committee might very fairly and properly adopt.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, he had listened to the discussion with the view of ascertaining as far as possible what were the points of substance and what the points of drafting, because he was sure that on points of drafting the Chancellor of the Exchequer would endeavour to please Members opposite. Three points had been raised on the Amendment, but he thought that the first two of these—namely, that relating to the base fee and that relating to fiduciary powers—ought to be dealt with in later clauses of the Bill. There was, therefore, only the one point to be disposed of in this clause—whether there should be included in the property passing for the purpose of duty property which at the time of a man's death he was competent to dispose of. Supposing the Government agreed to exclude property over which there was a general power of disposition if that power had not been actively exercised, the door would then be opened not to evasions but to a state of things which was certainly not desirable. Nothing would be simpler than for a man to buy property in the name of his son or in somebody else's name, reserving to himself a bare power of appointment. He felt that if systems of this kind were brought into operation it would be a very great evil. The Committee had therefore to consider whether any advantage was to be gained by adopting the Amendment. Anybody who was in the happy position of having property which he could but did not turn to account was not entitled to very much pity if he did not make use of his opportunities, particularly as under this Bill his property would be subject to an onerous duty if he did not exercise his powers. It seemed to him that the one broad principle involved in the Amendment ought to be disposed of, and there was a clear balance of advantage in dis-
  448
  posing of it in the way proposed by the Bill.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAYwas of opinion that the matter ought to be discussed now. It seemed to him that it would be perfectly impossible to discuss the very important question of aggregation without knowing first of all what it was that was to be aggregated. There was another objection to postponing the discussion. Although the Solicitor General had assured the Committee that the matter could be dealt with in the 17th or 18th clause, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have returned to the House before the last-named clauses were dealt with, and he would contend on a point of Order that the subject had been already settled by the Committee. It seemed to him (Mr. Graham Murray) that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Haldane) had really not met in any way the point which had been raised with regard to the fiduciary position. Surely it was not worth while to introduce words which had not at present found a single sponsor, and which would undoubtedly apply to all sorts of people which had powers at their disposal, and yet were not meant to be touched by the Bill.
  MR. R. T. REID,interposing, said, that the power of appointment by a trustee in favour of other persons was not a power of appointment of a general character, and it was only general powers of appointment that the sub-section dealt with.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, he was speaking not of powers of appointment, but of powers of disposal. Any trustee who had got a title to property made out was competent to dispose of that property, but he supposed it was not intended to impose a Death Duty upon the trustee in respect of such property. The Solicitor General said, that what the Government wished to get at was not only the amount a man had in the bank at his death, but the money he was able by a stroke of the pen to put into the bank. Why should not the Inland Revenue Authorities, however, wait until the man had exercised that stroke of the pen? If he did exercise it, the money would become part of his assets, and he (Mr. Graham Murray) did not think there was very much danger that, as a rule people would

  449
  refrain from appointing to themselves all that they could appoint. The Solicitor General appeared to forget that the Probate Duty was only paid in the case of powers of appointment being exercised. He should have thought it a very simple proposition that a man should not pay as for his own property upon that which he had never had for himself. The question was not altogether whether the words which were suggested by the Mover of the Amendment were the right ones, but rather whether the words—
  "property of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose"
  were the right words. It had been pointed out that those words obviously carried too much, and it was really too much to ask the Committee to insert them now in order that they might have the opportunity of amending them upon some subsequent clause.
  MR. MOULTONsaid, he did not believe there was the faintest danger of any judicial tribunal failing to perceive that the words "competent to dispose" were not used in the sense of "competent to realise or change the form of." A trustee was not capable of disposing of the trust estate. If a trustee sold the trust estate he was bound to hold the money in trust, and had no power of disposing of it. No one who considered for a moment what the object of this Bill was could doubt that the phrase—
  "property of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose"
  meant property of which the deceased was competent to transfer the beneficial interest to some other person. The next question was as to the power of appointment, and the substantial point was whether a person with a general power of appointment should or should not be taken to have the property, whether he had exercised the power of appointment or not. If a man was competent to dispose of property, it did not seem to him to make the slightest difference whether the disposition was made by appointment or by deed. It had been suggested that it made all the difference if the effect of the non-exercise of the power of appointment was that the property went in a particular way. If, however, a man did not exercise his power of appointment to his own property by will, it went in a particular way under the Intestacy Laws.
  450
  It really made no difference whether the property went under the Intestacy Laws or whether it went under some particular deed. Under these circumstances, he thought that in substance the words of the Bill described that which was the essence of the matter. If a man was competent to dispose of property that was all he was competent to do with regard to any property, and the matter ought to be looked at as if he had disposed of it.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite saw the necessity of some limitation in the clause, and declared what he would do if he were a judge trying a case. But he (Mr. Butcher) did not think that the imposition of a duty of this kind should depend on the particular view a particular Judge might take of the word "dispose." The object of the Amendment was to make the meaning clear to ordinary minds. If by "dispose" was meant "transfer the beneficial interest," his hon. Friend would probably accept an Amendment in that sense. He (Mr. Butcher) urged upon the Government to act upon the colonial analogies. But the Government were not asked to act upon analogies alone. What was required was to impose a tax on property which, in the ordinary, popular, and intelligent sense of the word, was the property of the deceased. If the deceased could, by doing something or other, have made property his own which was not his own, the hon. and learned Member contended that he ought to pay duty on that property. He (Mr. Butcher) said that unless and until the deceased had gone through that process he ought not to pay duty on the property. The hon. Member for King's Lynn gave an illustration. He (Mr. Butcher) would give another. Supposing he was offered a gift of £1,000, and he refused it for reasons not necessary to inquire into, would the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the £1,000 should be deemed part of his property, he having been competent to dispose of it, and that his successor should be charged for it. Of course, if he accepted the £1,000 it would be his own, and his successors would be properly chargeable. But until property really belonged to a man, and was in his possession, it was unreasonable to charge his successors duty in respect of it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,said, it was difficult to discover whether they were discussing a drafting Amendment or one of substance. There was a difference of opinion as to the part of the Bill in which the Interpretation Clause should appear, but he thought there could be no doubt that certain generic words should appear in the enacting clauses, and that then the Interpretation Clause should fully and clearly and specifically express what those words meant. The Government had taken the course of introducing in Clause 18 a complete and exhaustive Interpretation Clause, and this Amendment really invited the Committee to discuss that clause. In the present clause they had adopted the words—
  "the property of which the deceased is competent to dispose."
  When the time arrived to discuss the meaning of the words then would be the time to argue out the various hypothetical cases which had been put before the Committee. He could put a case where the payment of duty would be entirely evaded by real property if the view of the hon. Member opposite were adopted. But this was not the time to discuss that question. They were fully determined to discuss the words "competent to dispose" in Clause 18, but if they were on every clause to be discussing every possible meaning of technical words—words of art—of which there was hereafter a full interpretation, they would never be able to make progress with the Bill, and would get into a most confused state. He, therefore, asked the Committee to come to a conclusion on the matter. The Government thought the words they had adopted were the best, at any rate, any qualification or restriction of them should be reserved until they came to Clause 18.
  *MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he thought the framers of a Bill of this description should be allowed considerable latitude as to the order in which they inserted their clauses; but he would point out the extraordinary position in which the Committee would be placed if the meaning of the words "competent to dispose of" was not cleared up now. They were asked in Clause 3 to say that all property passing at death, of which the deceased was competent to dispose,
  452
  should be aggregated for the purpose of the duty; but surely it was necessary to ask what was meant by "competent to dispose"? When he came to Clause 18 he found that the present meaning of the Government was not to confine the extension given by these words to property over which the deceased had a general power of appointment, but to all property over which the deceased had any such general power as would, if he were sui juris, enable him to dispose of it, whether that had been done or not. A child who would be able to exercise a power of appointment if he lived to 21 might die at the age of two. Was it to be assumed that what he might have done if he had lived 19 years longer in the way of exercising the power of appointment had really been done? It was essential that the Committee should know whether this power to dispose of property passed "at death" or not. Then, again, his hon. Friend had referred to the case of a mortgagee. Clause 18 made the mortgaged estate part of the estate of which the mortgagee was competent to dispose. Persons were to be held competent to dispose of property if they had such general powers as would enable them to sell. A mortgagee with power of sale was able to dispose of the whole of the beneficial interest in a property absolutely. Were they to treat such an interest as that as property which ought to be aggregated under this Clause 3? It was perfectly monstrous. What ought to be aggregated under this clause was the amount of the mortgage. Was it reasonable they should go on discussing the aggregation clause without knowing what was to be included in these words? If they did not discuss the matter till they came to Clause 18 they would be told it was already settled. This was not a reasonable provision, and he appealed to the Government whether they would not introduce the necessary definition into the clause, so that it might be discussed now.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that Clause 18 stated what the Government meant; but, of course, the definition in that clause might be limited or extended when it came to be dealt with by the Committee, which would then have an opportunity of dealing with the Amendment, and either accepting or rejecting it.
  *MR. MATTHEWSadded that the difficulty was that they were asked to discuss aggregation without knowing what Clause 18 was going to cover.
  *MR. BYRNEsaid, as a matter of fact Clause 18 in Sub-section 2 (a) did not give an exhaustive definition such as would preclude the insertion of a definition of persons "competent to dispose of" property in this clause.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONpleaded on behalf of laymen for the insertion in this clause of a definition which could be "understanded of the people." This was the use of a generic word occurring only in one place where in fact it ought to occur. The word "competent" would probably cause little difficulty; but the word "dispose" seemed to give rise to serious discussion among legal Members of the House. They should not put wrong words into Clause 2 in order to whittle away Clause 18, which provided that a person should be held competent to dispose of property, whether he was tenant-in-tail or not. The two clauses at present were absolutely contradictory, and it would be difficult for even a legal tribunal to explain them. It should be made possible at least to appeal successfully to the law.
  MR. DARLINGcontended that the clause would offer an incentive to a man to act in an unconscionable manner. There might be property in the hands of his brother's children, and, if he had power to appoint himself, he might say, "If I do not, the State will levy a duty as though it were mine, and it will come out of the property I can leave to my heirs; I will therefore take it away from them, and then when my estate pays the duty there will, at all events, be some corpus out of which to pay it." He could not think it was intended to strike at the amenities of family life in this way, even for the sake of bringing money into the Exchequer. Such a result should be obviated by words which could be put into an Interpretation Clause.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the case put by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney was that the phrase
  "property of which the deceased was at the time of his death competent to dispose,"
  454
  meant that he was competent to transfer the beneficial interest in the property to some other person. Cases had been put of a man settling property upon himself or settling it away while reserving power to himself of reclaiming it. The case put by the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney was already provided for by the embodiment, in Sub-clause (c), of the Inland Revenue Act.
  MR. GOSCHENasked the Solicitor General to say whether he refrained from answering what had been said, because he thought the matter ought to be discussed on Clause 18, or because he thought the matter had been already sufficiently discussed. He complained of the way in which the Committee had been treated. In the first instance general propositions were laid down, and they were forced to vote on general propositions to the first clause, which went much further than was necessary for the Bill itself. They could not discuss them because the Government were postponing them to the Definition Clause. What was the use of discussing the point now if they did not know what the property was to be on which the valuation was to take place? He asked, Was that a fair position in which to place—he would not say the Opposition—the Committee? They did not know what the property was on which graduation would take place or the property on which aggregation would take place.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he should not discuss the fairness or unfairness of the matter. No Division or decision taken now could limit the liberty of the House to discuss the Interpretation Clause. If the hon. Member wished, he could withdraw the Amendment, and there would be no necessity to negative it. The Government in no way wished to restrict or fetter the liberty of the House of Commons in the matter.
  *MR. BYRNEsaid, he was willing to withdraw the Amendment upon the understanding that the Committee would be at liberty to discuss the matter on the Interpretation Clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BARTLEYmoved to leave out the words "at the time of his death," which seemed to be unnecessary even

  455
  from the point of view of the Government. Although they were to some extent covered by Sub-section (b) they were so changed that the question should be raised whether the words should stand or not.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 6, to leave out the words "at the time of his death."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the hon. Gentleman could not have realised the effect of the language. He apparently objected to taxation not only of property undisposed of at the time of the testator's death, but of property which at any period of his life he would be competent to dispose of. The hon. Gentleman surely must see that his Amendment was unnecessary.
  SIR R. WEBSTERwas sure that his hon. and learned Friend had not quite considered the effect of the language from the practical and financial points of view, with regard to the power possessed at death and under the words "or had at any time." To settle the matter now would not cause delay, but would save a double discussion.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the point he desired to bring forward was a practical one which had arisen in his own experience, where a testator left the life interest in the corpus of a sum of money to his son, who, on certain conditions, had the power of leaving the corpus as he thought proper. Under this Bill a second charge for duty would be made. If the Government would introduce some words of limitation in reference to the life estate the difficulty would be removed. The individual would then pay on his life interest.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the point would arise on another sub-section.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. BYRNE*MR. BYRNE moved, after "dispose," in page 2, line 7, to insert the words,
  "but as to property over which the deceased had only a power of appointment to the extent to which such power shall have been exercised by him and not otherwise."
  456
  This Amendment had reference to the exercise of the power of appointment by the deceased only.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, after the word "dispose," to insert the words,
  "but as to property over which the deceased had only a power of appointment to the extent to which such power shall have been exercised by him and not otherwise."—(Mr. Byrne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, this Amendment no doubt raised a point which would have to be discussed before the Committee stage was concluded. Probably it would arise on Clause 18, and he hoped therefore his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw the Amendment.
  SIR R. WEBSTERpointed out that this was a question of principle quite apart from the point on the words "persons competent to dispose of." It was quite clear that under Clause 18 a number of questions would arise which it was important the House should recognise this principle would affect. He hoped that would be noted by the framers of the Bill before they determined whether or not they would proceed with the clause. It would therefore be wise for the Committee to discuss the matter further.
  MR. R. T. REIDasked whether it was necessary to discuss it now? He: was perfectly clear it could not interfere in the least with Clause 18.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Solicitor General offered to traverse the view taken by the Secretary of State for India, and as his (Mr. Balfour's) view was the same as that of the Secretary of State for India he should like to ask the Chairman's ruling as to whether a division upon the Amendment would out-cut any further discussion upon the point?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It strikes me that the proper place to raise a discussion upon this Amendment is upon Clause 18, which deals with definitions, but I could not decide this Amendment to be out of Order in the place where it is moved, or so much so that I should order it to be transferred.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, they did not consider they had been fairly treated by the course the Government had taken. The actual intentions of the Government they did not question, but the substance of the procedure of the Government they were unable to approve of, and as the Chairman had ruled they could take a Division without shutting out further discussion he thought they ought, without further delay, to mark their sense of the error into which the Government had fallen by going into the Lobby and expressing in that authorised fashion their protest.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 147; Noes 192.—(Division List, No. 75.)
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The following Amendment, standing in the name of Sir A. Acland-Hood, is out of Order:—
  "In page 2, line 8, leave out sub-section (b), and insert,—(b) Property passing on the death of the deceased under any settlement or other disposition made by the deceased either alone or jointly with any person or persons dated after the commencement of this part of this Act, or under the will or on the intestacy of the deceased."
  MR. GRANT LAWSON MR. GRANT LAWSON moved to leave out sub-section (b).
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, before his hon. and learned Friend moved his Amendment he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) had one he wished to move—namely, to insert, after the word "dispose," the words which he had taken from Clause 18—
  "Of property if he has such an estate or interest therein, or such general power as would, if he were sui juris, enable him to dispose of the property including a tenant-in-tail, whether in possession or not."
  *THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is out of Order because of the words which have been previously negatived.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the same thing occurred with regard to other words that were negatived, and the Amendment was not ruled out. [Cries of "Order!"] He was in Order in pointing out that the Amendment was correct.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: It would not be in Order where the hon. Gentleman proposes it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I bow to your ruling, and will not move it; I only wished to get a declaration from the Government.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he begged to move the omission of Sub-section (b). The Notice Paper bristled with Amendments to this clause, put down by the learned Solicitor General and others. Where a benefit accrued or arose to any person, those words "towards any other person," complicated the matter very considerably. The most natural case was that of a man having an interest in property of which he would obtain possession on the death of someone else. The most general cases were those of leases for lives and the purchase of reversions. He would take, first, the purchase of reversions, and he would cite a case which was an actual case in the West of England. A man who was a large owner in the West of England had sold the reversion expectant on his death to a purchaser for value. At the present moment, under the law A, having sold his property to B, there would be no Succession Duty to pay, as was clearly laid down by a decision of Sir George Jessel, when Master of the Rolls; but if this sub-section stood, it was quite clear that B would have to pay Succession Duty on the death of A. Let the Committee note the injury that was done by such a change in the law. In the case of an old sale of a reversion, expectant on the death of the man selling, what was originally a good bargain might become a very bad one if a large sum had to be paid under the Succession Duty. Then with regard to a future sale of reversions how would this act? If they put an Estate Duty on they would be reducing the value of the property and rendering a sale of the reversion almost impossible. Another consequence would be that all the property would be aggregated, which would increase the amount to be paid on the reversion. In regard to leases for lives they existed largely in Lancashire and, he believed, in other parts of the country, and under this sub-section where any one of these lives dropped out the Succession Duty would have to be paid upon the last life that dropped out. Again, the Estate Duty would have to be paid on the death

  459
  of a man who probably was a stranger, and had nothing to do with the property except that he was put, as a nominal man, into the lease for lives. The subsection was far too wide and would work manifest injustice. He thought they ought to throw out the whole of these words for the purpose of enabling the Government to substitute some words that would not work such gross injustice as he had pointed out.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (b) stand part of the Clause."
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would like to cite a case within his own knowledge, to test the operation of this clause. The property he referred to was bought a good many years ago, and was bought subject to an annuity to a lady who practically lived upon that annuity for 40 years. The purchaser on her death paid Succession Duty, but, had this clause been in operation, on succeeding to the property he could only have dealt with it by paying a sum arrived at by aggregating the whole of the property of the original vendor, including the annuity, and in that event it was doubtful whether such a duty could have been paid. It was manifestly unfair that those persons who succeeded to property of this kind should be saddled with the payment of a tax of which they had no notice or expectation.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was to omit the sub-section altogether, and not to amend it. To this sub-section there were various Amendments on the Paper, one of them standing in his own name. Another effect of carrying the Amendment of the hon. Member would be to shut out all those and prevent any discussion. Therefore, it would be very inconvenient to omit the sub-section altogether, and at this time it would not be proper to discuss the Amendments that were on the Paper.
  SIR R. WEBSTERquite agreed that they ought not to discuss the specific Amendments that were placed upon the Paper, but he would point out that it was in accordance with the Rules of the
  460
  House to move an Amendment to omit a sub-section in order that they might get a statement by a Minister in charge of the Bill as to what the purview of the Bill really was, otherwise it was difficult to ascertain the proper value of the subsequent Amendments. What he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Solicitor General was, what was the real class of property that was sought to be brought in? He would not discuss the latter part of the sub-section, which was the subject of the Amendment of the learned Solicitor General, for the reason the learned Solicitor General had referred to—namely, that it would have to be discussed later upon its merits. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell them what class of property was brought in it would have the effect of shortening the subsequent discussion. It happened that in the Isle of Wight leases for lives still existed to a considerable extent—for one, two, or three lives. What he wanted to know was this: Suppose a person simply occupied land for a term of years dependent upon, probably, three lives, was it intended that that property in which the interest ceased on the death of the deceased should come under the tax? [Sir W. HABCOUBT: When benefit accrues or arises.] Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean that wherever there was an existing interest dependent upon a life, or partially dependent upon a life, that that should be a case in which benefit accrued or arose to any person so as to give rise to this Estate Duty? If so, subject-matter had been included which had never been subject to Succession, Probate, or Legacy Duty. Was it intended by this sub-section that all interest which arose or accrued to third persons by reason of the death of a person should be subject to valuation for the purpose of the Estate Duty? When they knew what was the intention of the Government on this important matter they should be able to consider whether they could pass at once to the Amendments in the sub-section, as distinguished from rejecting the subsection itself.
  SIR W. HARCOURTremarked that it was extremely difficult in framing a clause such as the present to do more than lay down the general principle that

  461
  would be pursued; in fact, it was impossible even to point out generally how particular cases would be treated. The scheme of the Government was, generally, that wherever property passed on the death of the deceased in which other persons then directly acquired an interest, those persons who received the benefit should pay a proportionate tax. There were, no doubt, exceptions to this rule in the case of certain classes of property, and these exceptions at a more convenient occasion would deserve special examination and consideration. Meanwhile that might be laid down as the fundamental principle of the proposition.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was extremely puzzled about this sub-section, and the right hon. Gentleman's speech had not in any way elucidated matters. What he understood was aimed at in this proposal was the dealing with successive interests under a settlement. If a person was tenant for life under a settlement, on his death the property which passed to the next person in succession under the settlement was to be taken into account as part of his property. Whether that was right or wrong he would not now inquire, but that was what was aimed at, and it was inherent to the rest of the Bill. But the words here meant something quite different. They were concerned with property passing on the death of a deceased, and the property which was to be included in the aggregate, and which was to be taxed on such a death. Take this case, which was common in his own part of the country: a person was the owner of a lease upon his own life. He died, and that property passed upon his death, and went back to the reversioner. The whole property, as far as the person who died was concerned, vanished. It might be all that he had got, and how could they take that, therefore, which absolutely vanished and passed to a person who was a complete stranger, as subject to taxation for Death Duties?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We do not look to whom the property passes.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, they looked to two things—namely, to whom the property passed, and what class of property it was which passed. Here the thing vanished; there was no property left which
  462
  could be said to have survived the death of the deceased, because so far as he was concerned he had no power over it; it went into nothing upon his decease, and to tax that appeared to him to be entirely wrong. He could understand taxing successive interests under a settlement, and limiting the taxation to settled property, but this did not limit it at all.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had just stated that in this clause the Government had given a general outline of the property which was to be subject to this Estate Duty. In the next clause, they were told, all property so passing was to be aggregated—
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that was exactly what he did not say. There were two classes of property. There might be property that passed which was subject to duty, but not subject to aggregation, and there might be property passing in which the deceased had no interest, but which, because it passed on death was subject to duty, but was not subject to aggregation. The distinction between the two cases was clearly pointed out in Clause 3.
  MR. WYNDHAMthought the words in the sub-section were too wide. Take the case of a man who sold the fee-simple of an estate and preserved a life interest. When he died his interest ceased, and it was equally certain that the benefit accrued to somebody else. The property would pass at his death to the person who had bought the fee-simple. If these words were wide enough to cover that case, as he contended they were, it seemed to him the Estate Duty would fall upon the estate going to the purchaser, and would also fall upon the money which the vendor had received, perhaps, 15 years back, and which might be tied up for his children. If that were so, the same property, in its relation to the family, was taxed twice over, and if it came under the aggregation it might be that a higher rate of graduation would be imposed upon the whole of the property descending to the children.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, this clause was a very difficult clause to draft owing to the delicate character of the property which it had to deal with. Clause 2, Sub-section (a), dealt with property

  463
  which might be, say, £1,000 which a man had in the bank. Sub-section (b) was intended to deal with settled property—that was to say, with property settled or encumbered, as opposed to property which was free. He would endeavour to explain what was the purpose of the clause and the intention of its framers. It dealt with property under settlement, with property encumbered by annuities or rent-charges, and with property held or leased pur autre vie. The mode in which it was proposed to deal with such property might be best shown by illustration. Take the case, first, of settlement. Suppose an estate was settled upon A for life and afterwards to B, C, and D for life, and, finally, the fee-simple were given to E; as the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, only one duty would have to be paid in respect of that settlement. The thing had been to find out the period in the settlement at which the payment should be made. It was now intended that it should be made at the time when the first life interest should drop, and then should be free for ever afterwards during the continuation of the settlement. Take next the case of annuities dealt with under this clause. They were, of course, intended to be annuities settled upon property. Suppose the annuity was for a term of 80 years. If the man in the enjoyment of that annuity died at the end of 20 years, then the duty would be payable on the value of the 60 years which were unexhausted. Then, again, supposing there were au annuity charged upon real property for the life of a person, if that person died the burden or encumbrance upon the property would be released. In such a case the duty under Sub-section (b) would be payable upon the difference between what the remainderman or owner of the property had before and what he would then have; in other words, upon the benefit accruing to him through the death of the annuitant. Thus, if £1,000 a year were the whole value of the property and £500 the amount of the annuity, the taxable benefit would be the difference—namely, £500 a year. The benefit would have to be valued under the Valuation Clause, which was Clause 6 of the Bill. Sub-section (b) would, by a later Amendment which he would himself propose, be altered for
  464
  the sake of clearness. The property would only be taxed in so far as benefit accrued or arose to the person paying the tax in respect of it. What that benefit was estimated at would be a matter of valuation, and he thought probably the Committee would think that was the right way of dealing with it. They dealt with that subsequently in an Amendment standing in his name at page 29 of the Amendment Paper, and which was as follows:—
  "The value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cessor of the interest of a deceased person in any property shall—

  (a) if the interest extended to the whole income of the property, be the principal value of that property; and

  (b) if the interest extended to less than the whole income of the property, be the principal value of an addition to the property equal to the income to which the interest extended."

  If an annuity was £1,000 a year that would be the whole value of the property. If it was £500 a year and the property was property of £1,000 a year the benefit would be that £500. That was the meaning and purpose of the clause, and the matter had been made clearer by the further Amendment to which ho had just referred. In reference to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Bodmin, where a lease for life had been granted for full consideration, that would not come under the operation of the sub-section at all. There was an Amendment in the name of the Member for South Hackney making that clear, but, indeed, it was clear in the general law, and it would also be made clear by another sub-section in the Bill later on. To those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were disposed to criticise the language in which the Government had endeavoured to carry out their intentions, all he could say was that he wished they had themselves had the task to perform.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsympathised with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the extreme difficulty he must have experienced in dealing with such a complicated matter. It was indeed difficult for him to deal with the subject, and for this reason: According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Bill, in Clause 1, first proceeded to lay down general principles. It then proceeded, in Clause 2, to give a definition of Clause 1. And

  465
  perhaps when they came to Clause 18, which he understood to define Clause 2, they might find that they must look to some still later clause in order to find a definition of Clause 18. The result of drawing a Bill on these principles was that even the Solicitor General's powers of lucid exposition were barely sufficient to make clear the intentions of the Government. Even now he was not sure that he understood how the Government intended to deal with the cases which had been put from that side of the House. He was not quite sure who paid the duty or how the duty was to be estimated in the case of a man who had given value for a reversion which he obtained upon the death of the present owner of the estate.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the question of reversions would come up at another stage, and could be then dealt with.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was perfectly justified in refusing to discuss at that stage the question whether the Amendment of the Government or the Bill of the Government curried out their intention in that respect. But perhaps the hon. and learned Member would answer in a word whether a person who came into a reversion for which he had paid a substantial consideration in time past would have to pay duty as if he succeeded without any such payment.
  MR. R. T. REID: He would not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURthanked the hon. and learned Member for his perfectly plain answer. He would also greatly oblige if he gave an answer, similarly plain and brief, to the case raised by the hon. Member for Dover.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that when the question of aggregation properly came up he would endeavour to deal with it, but he could not argue it now.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that this was not a question of aggregation at all. The case supposed was when on the death of any person a benefit accrued to someone else than the deceased. As, for instance, where property was sold subject to an annuity arising out of the property. On the death of the annuitant a benefit accrued not to the estate of the deceased person
  466
  but to the purchaser of the estate. It was conceded that, in that case, as the law now stood, Succession Duty would be payable on the value of the succession by the purchaser of the estate. But in this clause they were considering the position not of the owner of the reversion which had fallen in, but that of the deceased person whose estate was not increased by the occupier. The question they asked whether it was intended that the representative of the deceased should be required to make any payment on account of the filling in of the life estate. If he did they were making him pay on what did not increase the value of the estate. If he did not, why should this case be brought within this clause? They were at least entitled to ask that there should be some words inserted in this clause indicating that the estate of the deceased person was not to be made liable for this duty.
  MR. CARSONsaid, he quite understood that, according to the framing of the Bill, all property, whether settled or unsettled, was to be taxed upon the death of the deceased; but he should like to ask why property which had never been in any sense the property of the deceased at all should form portion of an estate on which taxes were to be levied? An interest might arise to some persons by the death of A B, though A B himself might never have benefited by that interest. Supposing a man had a lease for his own life. He died; but his estate was in no way benefited by his death, nor did any estate arise at his death. Of course, it was possible that the lessor's interest went back to the landlord. But was the benefit to be taxed a portion of the property of the deceased, or was it part of the property of the landlord, to whom the lease reverted? That point ought to be cleared up.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid that, an examination of the clause would show that the executor paid taxes only on the estate he received from the deceased.
  MR. CARSONsaid, that according to his reading, there did not seem to be any provision for taking out of the taxable estate interests which passed to a third party.
  MR. MOULTONsaid, that in Clause (a) they took the ordinary form of property that a man had to dispose of; in (c) they took the suspicious cases, where property got transferred contemporaneously with the death of a man. They could not say that all those cases would be cases which were in their essence similar to a devolution that ought to be taxed. But the object was to secure that no case which resembled an ordinary testamentary disposition should escape taxation. He quite agreed that there would be a large class of cases that would come within the general words of the clause that ought not to come within it; but they could be cut out by amendment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUEsaid, that the question to be determined was at what point in the Bill all the exceptions were to be enumerated. He hoped that before Subsection (b) was disposed of every exception which the Government intended to make would be clearly stated.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that the clause was so wide that it would inflict great hardship on many persons. In the case of a Tease granted for a life who was to pay the duty when the lease fell in? Clearly the successor of the deceased lessee could not pay, and it would be hard to ask the reversioner to pay for getting back his own property.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that in the opinion of those authorities who had framed the Bill there were decisions which would exempt from payment property for which value had been given. But to prevent any obscurity there would be provisions in a later part of the Bill with regard to the point. He hoped the Committee would now discuss the particular sub-section.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought it was desirable now to try to amend the sub-section, so as to withdraw the operation of the very wide words with which it began.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that the hon. Member for Thirsk, who had to leave, had asked him to say that if it was thought that the withdrawal of the Amendment would facilitate the discussion of the clause, he was willing to withdraw it, and that he had
  468
  asked him to request, on his behalf, that it should be withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. BUTCHER*MR. BUTCHER (York) moved to leave out the words "or any other person," in line 8 of Clause 2. If the words were left in there would be established a duty of a totally unknown kind in the case of a lease granted for lives. If a landowner granted a lease to a tenant for three lives at somewhat less than a-rack-rent, then on the dropping of that lease of lives Estate Duty would be immediately payable on the improved rental of the property. That was a duty of an entirely novel character. But if the lease were granted for 50 years, instead of for lives, then on the termination of the term no duty whatever would be payable. That was an anomaly that hardly have been intended by the framers of the Bill. The omission of the words would make the clause deal with "property in which the deceased had an interest." That would sufficiently cover every case in which duty was legitimately-payable.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, to leave out the words, "or any other person."—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  *Mr. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that if the sub-section was amended as proposed, property in which the deceased had an interest, at his death, would be taxed; and that would be reasonable; but it would be most unjust to apply the sub-section to-property in which, in the same event, "any other person" had an interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the object of the clause was to gather in for the purposes of duty all estates passing on the death of a tenant for life, so as to place a charges on the general estate. That might be reasonable in reference to estates that, were family estates; but to bring in estates that were not associated in any way with the family was carrying the proposition much farther than it was at all desirable.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that two hours ago he had fully explained the views of the Government with regard to the clause. The omission of the words would undoubtedly prevent them from dealing with estates of other persons with which they ought to be able to deal. Supposing A settled a property on B during the life of C, and, after C was dead, upon some other persons. In such a case, unless the words "or other persons" were included in the clause, the property of C would pass to A and B without paying duty. The omission of the words would facilitate the evasion of the duty. Some people thought it was the most meritorious thing in the world to try to evade the duty, and it was the purpose of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to endeavour to prevent that.
  *SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he was sorry he had to press for an explanation of a little more satisfactory character. What they were endeavouring to find out from the Government was the class of property that was intended to be brought within the purview of the Bill by the words "or other persons." Everybody had hitherto admitted that ordinary transactions between landlords and tenants as to leases for years or leases for lives, should not pay Succession Duty, or Death Duties of any kind at the end of the term. At the end of a lease for lives, the tenancy dropped and reverted to the landlord. The Solicitor General might intend to include that property, but if he did it was an entirely new departure.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that such a case would not be included within the terms of the sub-section, and that intention would be made still clearer by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney at the end of Clause 2.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid, that in his opinion the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Hackney would not cover the point he had raised by his Amendment; but as he had the assurance of the Solicitor General that the case he had put with regard to a lease for lives was not contemplated to be within the operation of the clause, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. R. T. REIDproposed to amend" the clause by leaving out from "deceased" to end of Sub-section (b), and inserting
  "to the extent to which a benefit accrues or arises by the cessor of such interest."
  According to the wording of the clause as it stood in the Bill, it might be said that if the deceased had an interest of £20 a year in a property of £1,000 a year the whole of the property of £1,000 a year would be deemed to have passed. He did not think that was a proper construction of the clause; but in order to make the matter perfectly clear his Amendment would alter the sub-section so that it should read—
  "Property in which deceased or any other person had an interest ceasing on the death of the deceased, to the extent to which a benefit accrues or arises by the cessor of such interest."
  It might be said that the question of the valuation of the benefit still arose; but in order to make that clear the Government had put down an Amendment to Clause 6, which was the Valuation Clause.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, line 9, to leave out from the word "deceased" to the end of Sub-section (b), and insert
  "to the extent to which a benefit accrues or arises by the cessor of such interest."—{Mr. It. T. Held.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he accepted the Amendment, but he hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would bear in mind at later stages of the Bill the many important considerations which must arise, having regard to the fact that it was proposed to tax not only the benefit passing, but the benefit accruing.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he should like to point to one provision which would inflict a very great injustice; it would arise under the words as proposed to be amended by the Solicitor General. Let them take a case. A, the husband, possessed at the time of his marriage £5,000, and B, his wife, £10,000, and under the settlement the

  471
  money was settled so that each enjoyed the whole for life, and it then passed to the children of the marriage. In the event of the husband predeceasing the wife, she would have to pay Estate Duty not only on the £5,000, which before the marriage belonged to A, but also on the £10,000 which before the marriage belonged to herself. Surely, if that was not intended, some words should be introduced to make it clear.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not think the wife would be called upon to pay the duty on her own money. He would, however, look into the language of the clause to see if it could be made more clear, but he believed the contingency was provided against in Clause 6.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was entire ambiguity in the clause as it now stood as to who was to pay the duty. The clause seemed to leave that question severely alone. He supposed the person to pay would be the person who acquired the estate of the deceased, but how about a case in which nothing accrued to the estate, and something accrued to some third person? Surely the representative of the deceased would not be called upon to pay duty when ho received no benefit?
  MR. BRODRICKsaid that, although the Solicitor General had very clearly explained the effect of the Amendment, he did not think the instances cited by the hon. and learned Gentleman were quite satisfactory. He had taken an annuity of 80 years, of which 20 years had already expired, and he said that the person who received it would pay on the value of the 60 years unexhausted. That seemed fair enough. But then he took the case of a man who succeeded to £500 a year from a property value £1,000 a year. It was proposed to charge in that case on the principal value of £500 a year, but surely it had occurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there was a certain inequality in charging the man who succeeded to £500 a year for the remainder of his life on the principal value of £500 a year, whereas the person succeeding to an annuity limited to a certain number of years was to pay only on the value of the unexhausted annuity. He would propose to the Solicitor General that he should insert after the
  472
  word "arises" in his Amendment the words "to the beneficiary," so as to secure that the payment should be only in proportion to the benefit received. The hon. and learned Gentleman had failed to deal with the case brought forward by the Member for Dover—a case in which it was assumed that a reversion was sold for £20,000. The deceased man had £20,000, and he had a life interest; he left the £20,000 to his children, and the estate went away from them. Under the clause as drawn the Government would get duty not only on the £20,000, but also on the total value of the estate, which would have to be paid by the purchaser of the reversion. Surely the Government could not have a right to both payments? It was to prevent such injustices as those he had quoted that he would move his Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: We must first deal with the Amendment before the Committee.
  *MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would point to another simple case. A man had a deserving governess who had faithfully discharged her duties for many years. He wished to make provision for her in her old age, so he placed in the hands of trustees a sufficient sum to pay her £200 a year, the principal sum to revert to himself on her death. The governess died, and thereupon a benefit to the extent of the annuity accrued to the estate of the man. Yet the person whose property was supposed to be swollen was the governess, and it was upon her estate that the duty would be levied. The Government had not yet faced the case.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was afraid that as a result of his fluctuating audiences he had not been understood. He had dealt with that case in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, and thought he had given a perfectly satisfactory answer. He had stated that Clauses 9 and 12—the details of which the Committee could hardly be expected to discuss at that juncture—amply provided for such a case, and he assured the right hon. Gentleman that the estate of the governess would not be affected in the way he suggested.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that in a subsequent clause it was laid down that an executor must pay Estate Duty in the case of personal estate and, therefore, he would, in the case of the governess, have to pay that duty in the first instance.
  MR. R. T. REIDreplied, that Subsection 2 of Clause 5 provided that an executor should pay the Estate Duty in respect of personal property of which the deceased was competent to dispose at the time of his or her death, and
  "may pay in like manner the Estate Duty on any other property passing on such death."
  But he did not appeal to the Committee that this was not a matter to be discussed now. If there was anything wrong it could be put right on the 5th clause.
  MR. MATTHEWSdissented from the view of the Solicitor General, and placing himself in the case of the man who provided the annuity, said he ought not to be made liable for Estate Duty before he died.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, that under Clause 5 the executor would only pay Estate Duty on personal property of which the deceased at the time of death was competent to dispose, and he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Birmingham that the governess was not competent to dispose of the principal sum. Then Clause 9 provided that
  "a rateable part of the Estate Duty on an estate in proportion to the value of any property which does not pass to the executor as such shall be a first charge on the property liable to the duty."
  And it was further worked out by Clause 12, which provided for the recovery of the Estate Duty
  "by the person who has paid the Estate Duty on any property from the person entitled to any sum charged on such property, whether as capital or as an annuity or otherwise under a disposition not containing any express provision to the contrary."
  MR. HALDANEsaid, it appeared to him to be perfectly plain that the duty was not thrown upon the individual, but upon the property which represented the value of the annuity.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, under Clause 12 of the Succession Duty Act of 1853, where the successor
  474
  was also the predecessor, there was no duty payable.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, there was nothing in the Bill to show how the extent to which benefit should accrue was to be estimated. He directed the attention of the Committee to the difficulty of providing the machinery for carrying out the proposals of the clause. They had not only the executors to deal with, but other persons who were benefited by the dropping of large interests, and machinery would have to be provided for meeting their case. He thought that the question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Preston was a very fair one. He was glad to hear that the Solicitor General had promised to give his consideration to the matter.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, that the Committee had been debating this question for the last four hours, with the result that there was a conflict of opinion between the distinguished lawyers in that House as to the meaning of the clause and as to the effect of the Amendment. The result was, that they were absolutely unable to understand what would be the effect of this legislation.
  MR. BODKINasked the Chairman if the hon. Member was in Order in discussing the policy of the Bill?
  *THE CHAIRMANintimated that the hon. Member was in Order, so far as he had gone.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY,continuing, said, he was not attempting to discuss the policy of the Bill. What he was pointing out was that a very strong case had been made out in the course of the discussion which had taken place, that it was not possible that this Bill should be worked smoothly. If he, as a layman, should be called upon tomorrow to administer an estate under this Bill, and endeavoured to gather what was his duty, first from the Solicitor General, and then from advocates on the other side of the House in whom he had faith, he would be, hopelessly confused; and he ventured to say that he would not be more confused than any other Member on either side of the House.
  *MR. DARLINGsaid, he would like to put it whether it was not possible, under the words of the Amendment, and under the law as it stood, that the duty might be paid twice over? Was it not possible that, under this Bill, the benefit which was to accrue might be assessed and duty paid upon it as an interest in expectation, and that, upon the death of the person in respect of whom the interest arose, duty might again be demanded? The hon. and learned Solicitor General appeared to regard this as a jest.
  MR. R. T. REID: No, I was merely smiling at the variety of the questions which are put to me.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. BRODRICK MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford) moved to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting after the word "arises" the words "to the beneficiary."
  *THE CHAIRMANrequested the hon. Member to bring up his Amendment in writing.
  MR. BRODRICKproceeded to the Table and there wrote out his Amendment. While the hon. Gentleman was so engaged—
  MR. BIRKMYRE (, &c.)said, he must rise to Order. He wished to know if it was competent for an hon. Member to delay the proceedings of the Committee while he wrote his Amendment at the Table?
  *THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is an inconvenient practice.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert after the words, "accrues or arises," the words "to the beneficiary."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the object of the hon. Gentleman seemed to be that a particular method of valuation should be applied to this particular case. If that were so, he must say that he did not think the Amendment would carry out the hon. Gentleman's object.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid, it seemed to
  476
  him that the clause would be absolutely incoherent unless some such words as "to the beneficiaries" were inserted after "arises."
  SIR R. WEBSTERthought that in all probability the Solicitor General was right in saying it would be better to raise discussions on a later clause.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he owed an apology to the Solicitor General after the courteous way in which the hon. hon. and learned Gentleman had met the Opposition for troubling him with one of those issues which he would have preferred to have discussed upon Clause 6. The difficulty, however, was that in the 2nd clause there was given a vague outline of what property was to be subject to the novel experiments of the Government. One would have expected that the vile body on which these experiments were to be played would be presented to the Committee in an intelligible whole before the experiments were discussed. The Government had preferred, however, to define the value of property in Clause 6, and the nature of it in Clause 18. It was not too much to ask that Members should have a clear idea of what the general outlines were to be before they proceeded to deal with the Aggregation Clause. He wished to move to add the following words at the end:—
  "Provided that such benefits shall not have been the subject of purchase or value given."
  He would take the case of a man with £60,000 worth of personalty and a small landed estate. He assumed that he sold the fee simple for £20,000, reserving a life interest. When the vendor of the fee simple died the person to whom he had sold it would receive the fee-simple unencumbered even with the life interest. If the fee-simple had been bought for £20,000 with the life interest reserved, it was clear that the fee-simple without that reservation would be worth something more. The whole estate as received by the purchaser might be worth £30,000. If he (Mr. Wyndham) interpreted Clause 6, Sub-section 3, aright, the purchaser would, under these circumstances, receive a rebate of £20,000. He wished, in the first place, to ask the

  477
  Solicitor General whether this would be so.
  MR. R. T. REID: It has often been said that it is easier to ask than to answer a question; but if I understand the hon. Member's question aright, the substance of it is this—supposing that a man goes into the market or to the owner of property and buys an estate subject to the life interest of the present owner, would any Estate Duty be payable on the amount of money which had already paid full value? I think that no duty would be payable on the amount of the purchase money.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he was satisfied with the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer as far as the purchaser was concerned, but he had one other question to ask. When the man who had sold the fee-simple died possessed of the £60,000 personalty and the £20,000 which he had received for the fee-simple, would the fee-simple of the estate which would go to the purchaser be added to the pool of the aggregation in assessing all persons who derived benefit from it?
  MR. R. T. REID: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to say that one has to concentrate one's mind on the questions that arise as the Bill goes on, and if I am to be asked questions relating to aggregation upon this clause I must say that, with every desire to inform the Committee as far as I can, I do not think I ought to be called upon to answer them. I confess that I do not clearly follow the hon. Gentleman's point.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman would admit that the graduation of the taxation on the younger children in such a case as he had put would be assessed on the value of the whole of the property which passed at the father's death. Would the tax be assessed on the personalty or on the whole estate, including the landed property which went away to the man who had purchased the fee simple? If the Government said that the estate consisted only of the personalty, the fee-simple having passed away because value had been given for it during the lifetime of the original owner, he should be satisfied, but otherwise he felt that the younger children would be robbed.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, that these were very difficult questions to get hold of. As he understood the hon. Member's question, however, there would be no aggregation of the value of the estate dealt with in the manner suggested by the hon. Member. He did not think that there was any danger to be apprehended on the point.
  *MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that one-half of his hon. Friend's question had been answered, but the difficulty respecting the estate of the man who had bought the life interest had still to be dealt with. When the life interest came to an end the money that had been paid would form part of the personal estate. Would the estate be liable to Estate Duty upon the life interest of the deceased?
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the explanation, so far as it went, was satisfactory, but he must enter one caveat. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Lothian had said that every case was covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, he had not meant to convey that. No exception of the kind referred to was necessary under the present law; but if it was desirable to have things made plain the wording of the section might be extended.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the hon. and learned Member no doubt spoke with authority on these questions. The only exception the Amendment referred to was the case of a transfer wholly for the deceased's own use and benefit. The Opposition were not satisfied with the Amendment, but must reserve to themselves the right of proposing further Amendments at the proper time.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he was satisfied with the expression of opinion he had elicited from the other House, and would not press his proposal.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that the Bill as originally brought in would not have met the ease of hardship which had been pointed out.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had handed in an Amendment to the Amendment to add at the end,
  "but exclusive of property which reverts to any person under disposition made by himself."

  479
  He had asked the Solicitor General a question as to the effect of the Bill on marriage settlements — where property through the death of one of the parties to the marriage settlement came to the other party. He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that in such a case no Estate Duty would be payable. The hon. and learned Gentleman in proof of that had referred to his Amendment to Clause 6. But that Amendment had no reference to the case he (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) was now putting. He did not wish to press his Amendment if the hon. and learned Gentleman would give him an assurance that the point would be dealt with in some other way. It should not be left in doubt.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the point the right hon. Gentleman referred to would certainly be met in Sub-section 3 of Clause 6.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, on that understanding he would not move his Amendment.
  Amendment (The Solicitor General) agreed to.
  *MR. BYRNE*MR. BYRNE moved, in page 2, line 10, after "person," insert
  "other than and except property belonging to a charity or to an Ecclesiastical Corporation in which the deceased had a beneficial interest ceasing on his death."
  He imagined that, in such cases as the Master of Trinity College, or the Temple, or a Rector of a parish, it was not seriously proposed that Estate Duty was to be payable.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, after the word "person," to insert the words—
  "other than and except property belonging to a charity or to an Ecclesiastical Corporation in which the deceased had a beneficial interest ceasing on his death."—(Mr. Byrne.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, it would indeed be a strange thing if, on the death of a Rector, his family had to pay, and by the Bill as it stood he did not think that would be the case. Perhaps these words would meet the views of the hon. Member. At the end of his own (Mr. Reid's)
  Amendment, page 2, line 10, he proposed to insert these words:—
  "But excluding property, the interest in which of the deceased or other persons was only an interest as holders of an office or recipients of the benefits of a charily or as a corporatus sole."
  SIR R. WEBSTERobserved that the Amendment of his hon. Friend had been down some days, but they had only just heard the words of the Amendment of the Solicitor General. It seemed to him, as he caught the words, that they were satisfactory, although, not having seen them, they could not judge of them absolutely.
  MR. BYRNEexpressed himself satisfied with the Amendment of the Solicitor General.
  Amendment (The Solicitor General) agreed to.
  MR. BARTLEY MR. BARTLEY moved, in page 2, line 10, at end, to add—
  "Provided that this shall not apply to leases for lives of which the deceased was one life."
  He said, that leases for life were very common, particularly in Cornwall. Although condemned by a Committee of this House some years ago, a great number still existed. The name of some well-known personage was put into these leases, such as the Prince of Wales, and on the death of the person named in the leases, a large quantity of property might change hands. He claimed that these were annuities and reversions. They would fall under the purview of the Bill, and would be called upon for the Death Duties when they collapsed either as reversions or annuities, and they had, therefore, no right to be charged in any sense in this way. The persons concerned were really the owners of the properties. They were let on this system, the individual named in the lease had nothing whatever to do with the property, and on his death there should be some exemption by which the properties should not be seized upon for Death Duties. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney did not in any way touch leases for life because the deceased in no way benefited by them, but was simply named in the lease for the benefit of other persons. They were altogether departing from the principles upon which the Death Duties were founded, and were imposing taxation on a system altogether

  481
  apart from Death Duties, but merely arising from an individual being named in the lease. This raised so serious a question that it was absolutely necessary something should be done to set it right. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 10, after the word "person," to insert the words—
  "Provided that this shall not apply to leases for lives of which the deceased was one life."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that as he understood the Amendment it was designed with the object of providing that a lease which was for a life should not be subject to Estate Duty it being otherwise free from taxation. The object of the Government was the same as that of the hon. Member. The Government did not think that estates of the nature indicated were those which should be subject to the duties, and they did not wish them to be dealt with as subject to such duties. He hoped that that would be considered a satisfactory answer so far. He had before called attention to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney at the end of the clause which dealt with—he would not say this particular case, but with cases in which valuable consideration had been given. He would suggest that knowing the object of the hon. Member and the Government was the same the hon. Member for Islington should withdraw his Amendment now and allow the question to be raised at the end of the clause.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Hackney was totally different to his. The hon. Member's Amendment said—
  "Nor in respect of property passing under a disposition made bonâ fide for full consideration in money or money's worth wholly for the deceased's own use or benefit,"
  and it, therefore, limited this alteration entirely to the one case where it was wholly, and not even partially, for the deceased's own use or benefit. In the case of these life leases not one farthing was for the benefit or interest of the deceased in any way.
  482
  When the Prince of Wales died—and he hoped that day was far distant—a great number of these leases would terminate, and it could not be argued that the clause of the hon. Member for South Hackney could possibly apply to them, because that clause said, "wholly for the deceased's own use or benefit." The Prince of Wales had not received one farthing's worth of benefit from them, and never would.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he had the greatest admiration and respect for the hon. Member for South Hackney, but he would like to make this remark. They were producing an Amendment here which ought to be considered, and they were relegated to a particular place where a private Member had put down a particular Amendment. The hon. Member for South Hackney might be a Jew, and he (Sir R. Webster) a Samaritan, but it was not because they were to be divided into two herds that the hon. and learned Solicitor General should decline to allow them to have justice done them in the proper place. Nobody denied that they had brought forward a substantial case which must be met. They were very much indebted to the Solicitor General for the favourable way he had considered their Amendments during the last two or three hours, and so promoted the improvement of the Bill and facilitated the discussion. Take the case of Ireland. He believed it was not an uncommon thing in days gone by to insert the landlord's and agent's names when leases of lettings were being granted. As had been pointed out by the Member for Islington, it was a common practice to insert the names of distinguished persons, like the Prince of Wales or the Duke of Wellington, for the simple reason that by publicity it was known when the lives dropped. That being so, the Solicitor General admitted that there was a case to be met, but he said it was covered by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Hackey. He did not think that the hon. and learned Solicitor General would suggest for a single moment that any lawyer or layman reading the language of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney would think it would include the cases designed to be met by the

  483
  Amendment of the Member for Islington. Take the case of a lease to Brown for the life of Smith, the property passing to the landlord Jones when Smith died. It was said there was no Estate Duty to be charged
  "in respect of property passing under a disposition made bonâ fide for full consideration in money or money's worth wholly for the deceased's own use or benefit."
  But there would be no disposition at all in that sense. The landlord might have said to the tenant, "I will give you a lease for three lives, the last of which shall be the Duke of Wellington." That being so, they would not get rid of the difficulty by having it postponed. Did anybody suggest that this was not the proper place?
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that the Amendment was intended to apply to leases for life which were for valuable consideration. It was suggested that the language of the hon. and learned Member for South Hackney was not applicable to the purpose. The Government agreed that language should be inserted for carrying out that purpose— although they did not think it necessary —and the only question was where it should be put in. What they desired was to have this thing mentioned once and for all, and they considered the proper place for mentioning it was at the end of the clause. Was it not wiser to deal with every kind of valuable consideration together? That was the only point of difference between them.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: This is not the case of a valuable consideration at all. In the first place, it is the case of property where the interest passes to another person in consequence of death. I have read every line of Section 2, and I know no other part of Section 2 to which this exception could apply. The exception we are anxious to put in is not dealt with by the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Hackney, and the only place where the exception could be appropriately met is that taken by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, if they were to accept the Amendment they would again have the words "for valuable consideration" at the end of the clause. It all came to a question in the nature of a commercial transaction.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he saw no sub-section to which the proviso need be added except Sub-section (b) of Clause 2, because that was the only case in which words were inserted to which the exception was necessary—thiswas no case of valuable considerations moving either from or to the person whose life was going to drop. The limiting words ought clearly to be added to Sub-section 2, for it would be wrong to insert the proviso at the end of the section where it might be made to apply to other sub-sections to which that proviso had no application. It was not a case of valuable consideration, but a lease for life, whereby other persons had secured an interest dependent upon a life.
  MR. MOULTONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that, because the question to which he referred was one in which no question of valuable consideration could enter, therefore these words were appropriate, and should be added to the clause. If it was intended to evade the tax nothing could be easier to do it than by means of a lease for lives, or for a life, of which the tenant was to be the life, and who paid only a nominal rent. The consequence was, that, to have a general proviso that it should not apply to a lease for life, of which the deceased was one life, would certainly go much too far, and before they could put the clause in order—to except the case to which his hon. and learned Friend referred — they would have to consider very carefully the method of evasion which could be practised under the guise of leases. He quite agreed that the Amendment which stood in his own name did not deal with the ordinary case of a commercial lease, and he called the attention of the Committee to the statement of the Solicitor General that he was quite prepared to except, or see that satisfactorily, this case of an ordinary commercial lease for life was excepted from the Bill. But there was higher legal authority for saying that no special words were necessary for it.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: What legal authority?
  MR. MOULTONsaid, the late Master of the Rolls, who was a high legal authority, decided in more than one case

  485
  that such things as commercial leases for life were so different to others on all questions of Death, Succession, and Legacy Duties, that they could not he supposed to be included therein. Whether or not that was sufficient to render unnecessary any special words might be a question, but it was quite clear that words like those in the present Amendment could not be admitted without giving an opportunity, under the guise of leases, of evading a great deal of the Death Duties.
  *MR. MATTHEWSremarked that the decision of the late Master of the Rolls on a question of Succession Duty was quite beside the Death Duty. Really the question raised by his hon. Friend was the same question as was raised some hours ago by the right hon. Member for Bodmin. The whole question was whether the Bill was not radically wrong in imposing Estate Duty upon the death of a person who had a casual life and no other interest, ending completely on the death of that person, because on that death the Government said the Estate Duty was to be levied, although the estate of that person did not benefit in any way.
  MR. BARTLEYintimated that he should press his Amendment to a Division. It was, he said, unfortunate that the Bill was managed in this way. They had the Solicitor General, for whom they all entertained the highest respect, but the real rulers and people who settled these matters were the two hon. Members behind him (Mr. Haldane and Mr. Moulton), who were not even Members of the Government. He thought that a Bill of this kind had never before been managed, not by the responsible Government, but by two hon. and learned Members, and it was not an arrangement calculated to be conducive to carrying out the Bill in a way that would satisfy anybody. He protested entirely against the Bill being settled by non-responsible Members of the House. He considered they ought to have the responsible Leader of the House present.
  MR. R. T. REIDdid not think the observations of the hon. Member were very generous. He (Mr. Reid) was
  486
  put in the position of answering for the Government because the Attorney General, who was one of the most accomplished conveyancers and one of the greatest lawyers of the day, was at present unable to be in the House because of illness. For his part, he must say he was deeply grateful to his hon. and learned Friends behind him for doing what they could to assist him.
  MR. BARTLEY: They are not the Government.
  MR. R. T. REIDhoped he need not say more than that.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, the Bill they were now discussing was a fiscal Bill. One of the Rules laid down in the House of Lords, and never departed from, was that they could not apply to a fiscal Act of Parliament what was sometimes termed a benevolent construction. That was to say, if the Act in terms imposed certain duties upon a subject, if the words of the Act were such as to catch individuals, they must not depart from the letter of the law, and must not adopt a benevolent construction. It was equally true, on the other hand, that they could not bring a subject within the meshes of the net spread by the Legislature unless the words were clear. It was for this reason he sought, by an Amendment he submitted the previous day, to have an exact and precise definition of the property put into this clause. They were not going to have it. They were going to have a clause which said they were to include this, that, or the other. The result of that, of course, was that they must bring up as many exceptional cases as they could possibly think of in the course of the Bill going through the House, and which ought to be excepted, in order that they might take care that the Act was so framed as that it should not include property which really was not intended to be included. There was a definite case before the Committee. It was vain to cite other Acts of Parliament, such as the Legacy and Succession Duty Acts, which were framed on a totally different footing. To say that because certain decisions had been arrived at under those Acts therefore similar decisions would be arrived at under the present Act was quite beyond his comprehension. It

  487
  could not be so, and they must judge of this Act by the exact words they found in it, and having hit upon a blot they said an exception ought to be made as suggested by the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 116; Noes 153.—(Division List, No. 76.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved, in page 2, line 11, to leave out paragraph (c). The sub-section set forth that there should be included amongst the property passing on the death of the deceased—
  "(c) Property which would be required on the death of the deceased to be included in an account under Section 38 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881. as amended by Section 11 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, if those sections were herein enacted and extended to real property as well as personal property, and the words 'voluntary' and 'voluntarily' and a reference to a 'volunteer' were omitted therefrom; and."
  That professed to be a definition subsection, but instead of containing a clear definition it contained a number of bewildering references and cross references and alterations in references to other Acts of Parliament; so that the unfortunate persons who had to administer the Act and the persons liable for duty under the Act would, in order to find out the property on which they would have to pay, have to refer to the two Inland Revenue Acts and then adopt them with a difference. The definitions ought to be embraced within the clause, instead of mere references to other Acts of Parliament. He was certain that was the view of the Inland Revenue authorities.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, to leave out paragraph (c).—(Mr, Gibson Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That the words of the paragraph to the word 'and,' in line 16, stand part of the Clause."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that the clause was intended to include within the operation of the Estate Duty substantially the cases which were included in the Account Act of 1881. The hon. Member had taken objection that the clauses of the Bill were not set out at greater length, and that in some instances instead of definitions references had been
  488
  given to other Acts of Parliament where that particular information could be found. He did not think that this would give rise in practice to any real difficulties in this case; for though he was no admirer of cross references in Acts of Parliament, they were now dealing with an Act of Parliament that had stood the test of 15 years.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESreminded the hon. and learned Gentleman that there were variations in the Act of Parliament.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that was true; but the variations were not of a substantial character.
  *MR. BYRNEsaid, the plan of referring to other Acts of Parliament was, in his opinion, unsatisfactory, because in many cases a considerable amount of doubt as to the construction to be placed upon them existed. Indeed, in the case of one of the Acts referred to there was at the present time an appeal pending, in order to have the opinion of the Court as to the meaning of a particular clause. In the present case they were introducing a measure that would affect a new class of property, and difficulties would be sure to arise as to the exact construction that was to be placed on many of the more important clauses of the Bill, and it was therefore of the utmost importance that those in charge of the measure should set out in the Bill in the fullest and most simple way what they really intended. He must enter a protest against this method of levying taxes—by referring to other Acts of Parliament in a manner which only lawyers could understand.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he agreed that legislation by reference was bad, but legislation must be accommodated to the necessities of the House of Commons. If there was a chance of the House of Commons passing an Act setting out all former Acts dealing with these matters it would be a good thing to turn their hand to such legislation, but a great many weeks would be required to discuss such a measure. They had to deal with Acts as they had been administered by referring to them as briefly as possible in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite

  489
  said there was a case pending in the Courts which involved the interpretation of one of those Acts; but that could be said of any Act of Parliament. There were always cases pending as to the interpretation of Acts of Parliament. Perhaps there was no Statute about the interpretation of which there had been more question than the Statute of Frauds. There had been innumerable cases pending as to that Statute, but that was no reason why its provisions should be set out at length in other measures. The Government were obliged to draft not ideal Acts of Parliament, but Acts which the House of Commons was likely to pass in a reasonable time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he should never have conjectured that a subject so intrinsically gloomy as the Death Duties, and a technical discussion so dull as that they had been obliged to enter upon, could have been enlivened with such strokes of humour as the draftsman had found himself able to incorporate. If they looked at it from an artistic point of view, there was something extraordinarily comic in the manner in which the Bill was drawn. It began with a series of general abstract propositions. These had to be defined, and the process of definition began with Clause 2. Clause 2 by itself was quite unintelligible without Clause 18. Clause 1 was defined by Clause 2, and Clause 2 was defined by Clause 18, and when they came to Clause 18 they should probably have to add a new clause to elucidate it. That did not exhaust the comedy of Clause 2, for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own confession, the clause which was intended to be a defining clause itself contained abstruse cross references. It contained in one sub-section a reference to an Act which was amended by another Act, which was amended by this Act, and which had still to ho decided upon, apparently, by the Courts of Law. With its references to "voluntary," "voluntarily," and "volunteer," it was the oddest piece of English he had ever read. The Definition Clause would itself require elucidating, and in the interests of the unfortunate individuals who would have to administer the measure in the Inland Revenue, and the less unfortunate solicitors and barristers who would have
  490
  to deal with it—he trusted with much profit to themselves, whilst preserving the interests of their clients—it would be possible to amend the clause so that it would be understood by those who drew up wills. He still trusted something would be done to turn the section, with the defining Clause 2, into something which approached ordinary secular English which an ordinary Englishman could apprehend.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) would consider what was the language and what were the clauses of the Acts of which he complained he would find that every word of every line, with the exception of slight alterations made by the Government in the present Bill, carried the verbal inspiration of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who took the Act of 1881 and reviewed it by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1889. They had here language that was well understood, and to complain of such language was to neglect the fact that it bore the seal and imprint of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who passed it under review. This language was now familiar to the Inland Revenue Authorities and to those gentlemen who were pursuing an industrious and he hoped not over remunerative profession. It was language about which they were glad to learn there was only one appeal pending at present.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: There is one in the Scotch Courts also.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, he should think there was at least another one pending in Ireland. Taking it so, here they had language which was well understood. [Laughter.] Well; everything in this world was relative. It bore the imprint of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the alterations made in the language of the existing Acts were very slight. The whole principle of the Bill had been to deal with property passing at the death, and the necessary safeguards had been introduced into the Bill. This was quite consistent with modern Parliamentary procedure.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, it appeared to the Opposition that the Government were

  491
  not dealing fairly with those persons who would have to pay the duty. There was an ambiguity in the references, and whether that ambiguity was owing to the action of the late Government or of the present Government did not much matter. The question they had to ask the Government, when they deliberately left out the words "voluntary," "voluntarily," and a reference to a "volunteer," was whether they intended to bring in a class of property which had hitherto been exempt from duty; and, if so, what classes of property did they intend to bring in. Would money settled on marriage be liable to duty?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Certainly.
  MR. DARLINGasked why it was not so stated in plain words. Was that the only object in view?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No.
  MR. DARLING: What other property is included?
  MR. R. T. REID: Marriage settlements are included, and settlements for partial consideration.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, the words did not stop short at cases of partial consideration. Were no cases of settlement for total consideration included? He thought the best way to proceed would be to state specifically what was to be included, and omit all reference to what was to be excluded. Here were new Acts of Parliament, one of which was only five years old, and an appeal was pending upon it at this moment. Could it be contended for a moment that to incorporate such Acts was at all the same thing as to refer to so well-established a statute as the Statute of Frauds, which had been in existence some 200 years.
  MR. GRAHAM-MURRAYsaid, the whole idea and essence of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1889 was voluntary conveyance. It was ridiculous to say that it was a slight change to take out the word "voluntary." The Government were practically introducing a new code; therefore, what it was proposed to do should be clearly stated.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 150; Noes 119.—(Division List, No. 77.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL. (No. 246.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, read.
    SIR R. WEBSTERinquired whether it was not possible to take the Bill at an earlier hour, say at 11 instead of 12 o'clock? Hon. Members knew it was a Bill in which much interest was taken, and that there were some important questions involved.
    MR. BYLESsaid, he should like to support the hon. Gentleman's appeal. He was daily receiving communications upon this subject, and hoped that some reasonable time would be given for discussion.
    *MR. BARTLEYsaid, this Bill was passed by a Select Committee last year, and was one that was urgently needed to be passed into law.
    Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Monday next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (PROCEDURE) BILL [Lords]—(No. 258.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. M. HEALYasked whether the Bill affected Ireland?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. REID,&c.)said, it involved no interference of the privileges either of the Irish or the Scotch Courts.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 235.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,)said, there was nothing in the Bill to which he thought objection could be taken, and he hoped that the House would allow it to be read a third time.
    MR. DANEsaid, he must protest against Bills of this description being brought on at such a time of morning. The Bill was one which affected his constituency.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he had promised the hon. Gentleman to consider any objection which he had to the Bill, and he had consulted the authorities, and found that the proposal in the 4th clause was the outcome of an arrangement between the Irish Laud Commissioners and the Board of Works.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that when this Bill was last before the House he objected to proceeding with it after 12 o'clock, but at the request of the hon. Member for Down he withdrew his objection. He understood that the arrangement arrived at between the two parties was a satisfactory one.
    MR. DANEsaid, he was sorry he could not accept the assurance of the Secretary to the Treasury. When the parties interested in these matters found themselves in a Court of Law they would find no benefit from a section of this kind, which had been passed without any discussion at all.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Would not Home Rule be the best remedy?
    MR. DANE: I differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 261.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    SIR C. PEARSONasked for an explanation of the measure.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,)said, that they had received representations from Paisley in favour of an extension of the number of the Corporation from 18 to 24. That was a very reasonable proposal, and they were, therefore, desirous of amending the Act in that respect.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND) (WOMEN) BILL.—(No. 241.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the object of the Bill was to enable women to be elected as Poor Law Guardians in Ireland just as in England.
    Objection being taken to Further Proceedings, Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.—(No. 236.)
    Read a second time, and committed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 237.)
    Read a second time, and committed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.—(No. 245.)
    Read a second time, and committed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.—(No. 220.)
    Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.—(No. 232.)
    Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.—(No. 226.)
    Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 227.)
    Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
    ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 164.)
    Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
    COMMONS REGULATION PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON) BILL.—(No. 223.)
    Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

    NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.—(No. 144.)
    Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
    Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 149.]
    Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee to be printed. [No. 149.]
    Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 272.]

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES) . TRADE, &C.
    SIR J. MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. J. Wilson; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Crombie.
    SIR J. MOWBKAY further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following Member, appointed in respect of the Market Gardeners' Compensation Bill: Mr. Hozier; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Laurence Hardy.
    Reports to lie upon the Table.

    CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL.—(No. 234.)
    Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
    DIVORCE BILLS.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on Divorce Bills do consist, of,—The Lord Advocate, The Attorney General, Mr. Carson, Mr. Knox, Sir John Mowbray, Sir Charles Pearson, Mr. Stansfeld, Sir Richard Webster, and Mr. Wodehousc.—{Sir J. Mowbray.)

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 14) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. J. Morley, Bill to confirm two Provisional Orders made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, under "The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878," relating to the urban sanitary district of the township of Kingstown and the rural sanitary district of Mountmelick, ordered to be brought in by Mr. J. Morley and Sir J. T. Hibbert.
    Ordered, That Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be read the first time.—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 271.]

    LAUNDRIES.
    Copy presented,—of Reports of the Inspectors of Factories as to Hours of Work, Dangerous Machinery, and Sanitary Condition of Laundries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    SHOP HOURS ACT, 1892 (INSPECTORS APPOINTED.)
    Return presented,—relative thereto [Address 20th March; Mr. George Russell]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
    Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1383 (Naples), 1384 (Constantinople), 1385 (Buenos Ayres), 1386 (Caracas), 1387, (Vienna), and 1388 (Madeira) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.)
    Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commerical Interest, No. 329 (Germany) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHISTS.
  Return ordered, "showing the number of Telegraphists employed by the Post Office, their wages and other emoluments generally, and conditions of employment in 1872 and 1894, stated separately for London and for the rest of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Provand.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—{The Lord Monkswell.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the noble Lord to state what was in the Bill. A great many Provisional Order Bills were put down on the Paper, but they were not on the Table. Perhaps the noble Lord would have no objection to explain what they contained.
  *LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he had no further information.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNinquired whether anybody knew what it was the House was asked to pass?
  *LORD MONKSWELLsaid, the Bills were on the Table. By the title this Bill related to the urban sanitary district of Lisburn, and the Order was set out in the Schedule.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I ask why these Bills are not printed? It is not as though we were very economical about printing, and I think we might spare a little for printing such Bills as these.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, a copy was always placed on the Table.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. (No. 45.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—{The Lord Hawkesbury.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the same question about this Bill. For anything their Lordships knew, they
  390
  might be passing anything. A great deal of mischief was done in this way. It was frequently found afterwards that difficulties arose from Bills having been passed in the particular form drafted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am entirely in accord with the noble Lord in this matter. I have been on Committees where things have been quoted against us. As the noble Lord opposite has just said, we have no means of knowing what is being passed if no chance is given us of looking at the Bills.
  *THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, in answer to the noble Marquess, these Provisional Order Bills were now more innocent than they used to be at one time. Some time ago some extraordinary things might have crept into Provisional Orders; but now the Orders were confined to the purposes for which they were intended, and the Bill simply confirmed the various Orders. The Bills were printed and could always be placed on the Table if desired.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is very desirable. The noble Lord knows the old legend which used to be told at Oxford of the ward and the waterman who got leave to marry in a Turnpike Bill.
  Motion agreed; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

ARBITRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 78.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD WATSON,in moving the Second Reading, said, that as the law stood at present in Scotland, where two parties agreed to refer a question to arbiters named, the reference was effectual and binding upon them both, and excluded either party from resorting to a Court of Law in order to obtain a settlement of the dispute. On the other hand, should the parties make an agreement binding themselves to refer to arbiters not named in the agreement, or merely designated as the holders of an office or appointment, as in the case of an agree-

  391
  ment to refer to the Lord Advocate for the time being, that agreement was of no value in law, and either of the parties could withdraw from it and resort to the ordinary tribunals of the country. That was not the ancient law of Scotland; the rule was introduced by judicial decision about a century ago. Since that time members of the same body who introduced it had referred to it in not very complimentary terms, which have been re-echoed by noble and learned Lords in their Lordships' House. Not only so, but what was of more importance in considering whether a change ought to be made in the law, it had become a very serious inconvenience to the mercantile community. Companies and other large concerns frequently entered into contracts having currency during long periods of years, and they found it quite impossible to name a series of arbiters with any certainty of the gentlemen named; being in a position to take up the reference when a dispute emerged, the consequence being that on some occasions it had been necessary to incur the cost of applying to Parliament in order to obtain statutory authority to do that which they could not bind themselves to do by contract. Again, in ordinary business transactions Scotch merchants dealing with foreign or English merchants, where the law was otherwise, found it was not to their interest that they should be constantly setting their hands to agreements which were not binding upon them, and strong expressions of opinion had emanated from many commercial bodies in the country to the effect that an alteration should be made in the law. In those circumstances, he presented this Bill. The second was the leading clause. It declared simply that henceforth agreements of reference in Scotland should not be invalid, although arbiters were not named, or only described by their office. The other clauses of the Bill were simply auxiliary. They gave to the Sheriff or to any Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session the power to name an arbiter where the party who was bound to do so declined to perform his obligation. This explanation would probably be sufficient to induce their Lordships to grant a Second Reading to the Bill. Its details could then be considered in Committee.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Watson.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, there are some respects in which the Scotch law differs from the law of this country, and sometimes I think the Scotch law is superior to our own. But the experience which I have had in listening to appeals in this House has led me to the conclusion that this undoubtedly is not one of those instances, but that in the present case it would be an advantage to Scotland to bring its law into conformity with that which prevails here. I am led to that conclusion for two reasons. In the first place, inconvenience is undoubtedly experienced from the present state of the law in Scotland; and in the next, that condition of the law has not been and cannot be rested upon any satisfactory basis. I therefore support the Motion for Second Reading.
  LORD HALSBURY: I only wish to express my entire concurrence in this proposed alteration of the law. Within the last 12 months two cases, at all events, have come before this House in which that condition of the law of Scotland has been brought prominently forward, showing the great inconvenience which has resulted from the state of the law as it now exists.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

POLICE (SLAUGHTER OF INJURED ANIMALS) BILL.—(No. 74.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the object of this Bill was to enable police constables and other officials to order horses and other animals when mortally injured to be slaughtered without waiting for the arrival of the owner. The Bill proposed to give that power under conditions. By Section 2 any constable on receiving information that an animal had been seriously injured might obtain the opinion of the nearest duly registered veterinary surgeon, and upon his giving a certificate that the animal was either mortally or so seriously injured as not to be, probably, fit for use

  393
  again, the constable might cause the animal to be slaughtered. Section 3 provided for the expense which might be incurred in so slaughtering animals being charged to the owner, but the cost of the veterinary surgeon's certificate would be charged to the rates of the parish where the animals were found.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELDsaid, he was pleased to inform the noble Lord that as far as the Home Office was concerned no objection would be offered to the Second Reading of the Bill. On the contrary, as it gave statutory authority to a practice which had been already initiated by the Home Secretary under the Metropolitan Police Regulation at the commencement of the present year, it met with their hearty support. At the same time, to make the measure more practical and workable, the Home Office considered it would be necessary to introduce Amendments in the Committee stage. When the Bill was under discussion in another place those Amendments never came before the Committee, owing to some misunderstanding between the promoters of the Bill and the Homo Secretary. It would therefore be his duty at a future stage to move the same Amendments in this House.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS BILL [H.L.] (No. 39.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid, he wished to take the opportunity of stating his satisfaction that the Bill was to become law, and of thanking the Lord Chancellor for having taken the wise course of limiting it as it finally stood. He hoped the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would not forget also that the other part of the Bill was, in the opinion of many people, very essential, and that a much
  394
  shorter limitation ought to be fixed for bringing actions than the period at present. Evidence was brought before the Commission on the Debtors' Act upon the point, although that was not actually the point before them, and he felt sure that the trading classes would welcome a limitation of the period with regard to contracts.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL.): I may assure the noble Viscount that I will bear the matter in mind. It is, of course, a difficult question to deal with, because agreements may have been arrived at. But some shorter period seems to be desirable, and that matter will no doubt be considered as to how far we should go when the question comes to be dealt with hereafter. I beg to move the Amendment of which I have given notice. The first part of it is merely drafting; and the latter portion is that which I stated in Standing Committee my intention to move, with regard to the form in which the action should be brought.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a.
  On Question, "That the Bill do pass,"
  Amendment moved, in Clause 1, page 1, to leave out all after ("discovered")in line 12 to the end of the clause, and insert—
  "At the time when it was committed, the period of limitation shall run from the time when the wrong might with reasonable diligence have been discovered in like manner as if the wrong had been then committed: Provided that this shall not extend the time for bringing any action commenced after the passing of this Act for any longer period than would have been applicable if this Act had not passed. This section shall apply to an action founded on contract, where the action is brought in respect of a wrongful act, neglect, or default which might have been made the subject of an action founded on tort."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  HIGH SHERIFFS.
  Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed. (No. 84.)

  TROUT FISHING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 49.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next;

  395
  and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 85.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 70.)
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.—(No. 16.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 17.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 9.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 31.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  COMMISSIONERS OF WORKS BILL. (No. 68.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  INDIAN RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. (The Lord Reay.) (No. 86.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.