Sitting of 12 June 1894

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (No. 1) BILL [Lords] (by Order.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, since he had put down his Instruction with regard to this Bill be had been told that it included a number of other lines besides those to which he, on behalf of his constituents, objected, and it would be inconvenient, to say the least, that the fate of the whole Bill should depend on his opposition to a small part. He had not the least wish to be unreasonable, therefore he was quite willing to let the Second Reading be now taken, provided he could move his Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill was referred to strike out such parts of the Bill as those to which he objected. He understood that could be done, but not to-day, and therefore, subject to the Speaker's ruling, he would allow the Second Reading to go without opposition and give notice of the Motion which stood in his name for next Thursday.
    Motion agreed to; Bill read a second time, and committed.
    *MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman moves his Instruction now it will stand over till Thursday.
    SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN: I beg to move—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is referred to strike out from the Bill so much thereof as authorises the construction and maintenance of the railways and works described as Railway No. 1 and Railway No. 2."
    The Motion being opposed, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Thursday.

QUESTIONS.

  MARRIED QUARTERS FOR PRISON OFFICIALS AT DARTMOOR.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, on account of insufficient house accommodation at Princetown, Dartmoor, the prison officers are, in many cases, separated from their families; and whether such accommodation will be provided as to prevent the necessity of such separation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): There are

  899
  several cases in which prison officers are separated from their families on account of insufficient accommodation at Prince-town; but I am informed that there are now ten quarters for married officers in course of construction, and that it is intended to build others, and so the defect will be supplied.

EXAMINATIONS FOE SANITARY INSPECTORSHIPS.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Maidstone, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has yet decided to grant to the Sanitary Inspectors' Association representation on the Joint Examining Board proposed to be created for the holding of examinations for Sanitary Inspectorships, and the granting of certificates of competency under Section 108 (2) (a) of "The Public Health (London) Act, 1891?"
THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,)(who replied) said: The preliminary steps have been taken to form such a Board, but the scheme is not at present in a sufficiently forward state to enable me to decide on the claim of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association for representation. Their claim will, however, have full consideration before the completion of the Conjoint Examining Board.

THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet ascertained whether any of the Local Authorities within the area of certain specified stations on the Metropolitan Railway have refused to afford reasonable facilities for the construction of openings into the streets above the tunnel for the purpose of allowing the foul atmosphere to escape; and, if so, will he state the name of the Local Authority or authorities who have so refused?
THE PRESIDENT or THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,): I have received a long and detailed communication from the Metropolitan Railway Company with reference to this question. It would hardly be right for me to occupy the time of the House by
900
reading it, but I will furnish the hon. Member with a copy.

MILTOWN MALBAY POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS.
MR W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a letter posted at Miltown Malbay at 7 o'clock a.m. on any day takes over two full days (52 hours) to be delivered at Lisdoonvarna, a distance of 15 miles; that a letter posted at Lisdoonvarna at 4 p.m. will not reach Ballyvaughan until two days afterwards, a distance of eight miles; and that nearly five days must elapse between the date of writing a letter from one of these places to the other and the delivery of a reply; and whether, considering the importance of these places as health resorts, he will make better postal arrangements for the convenience of the public visiting them?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension in thinking that the course of post between Miltown Malbay and Lisdoonvarna occupies two days. If posted at Miltown Malbay at any time before 5.5 p.m. a letter for Lisdoonvarna would be delivered next morning, and in the other direction a letter posted at Lisdoonvarna at any time before 4.20 p.m. would be delivered at Miltown Malbay next morning. As regards Ballyvaughan, the circumstances are different, the two places concerned being in different districts and served from different main lines of railway. During the summer months, however, beginning, as a rule, on the 1st of June, the communication is so far improved as to admit of a letter posted at Lisdoonvarna in the forenoon being delivered at Ballyvaughan the next morning. I hope it will be practicable to begin the Summer Service very shortly, but in the direction from Ballyvaughan to Lisdoonvarna no better arrangement than the present one can be made without incurring additional expense which the Revenue would not warrant.

DISTRICT BOARDS OF WORKS.
MR. C. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in the case of a District Board of Works,

901
it is competent for the Board before November next to elect an annual Chairman, or whether, until the appointed day, the Chairman can only be elected, as now, for the sitting?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): The view of the Local Government Board is that the election of a Chairman of a District Board under Section 31 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1894, should take place at the first meeting of the District Board after the annual election of members of the District Board in the present month.

COLONEL STEWART'S GRIEVANCE.
MR. RENTOUL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that Colonel Stewart, commanding the Donegal Artillery, applied to the Military Authorities, under Section 42 of the Army Act, on the 19th of April, for the redress of a wrong done to him by his immediate Commanding Officer, who had gravely impugned Colonel Stewart's professional conduct, and that, in direct violation of the Army Act, Colonel Stewart was refused a Court of Inquiry or any redress whatever; whether the Secretary of State for War has seen the correspondence, especially since the 16th of March last, which took place between Colonel Stewart and higher Military Authorities regarding the matter; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): As Colonel Stewart failed to show that he had received any wrong, and as the circumstances to which his complaint had reference had already been investigated, it was not considered necessary to re-open the case. There was no violation of the Army Act. I do not propose to take any further action in the matter.
MR. RENTOUL: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

BENGAL PILOT SERVICE.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Europeans of the Bengal Pilot Service appointed by the Secretary of State for India and sent out from England under covenants have been
902
refused by the Government of India the privilege of sharing in the exchange compensation allowance granted to European officers of the Government Service in India, on the ground that in 1856 the mode in which they were remunerated was changed to that of payment by fees instead of by salary, notwithstanding the fact that when these officers were asked to assent to the change they were assured by Government Order No. 1,030, dated 27th June, 1856, that—
"in all other respects their position, present and prospective, shall remain unaltered;"
whether he is aware that their juniors who are paid by salary are allowed the benefits of the exchange-compensation allowance; and on what grounds a discrimination is made in affording the relief offered by the Government to all non-domiciled Europeans in the Indian Government Service, against the superior pilots appointed in the same manner, who had received that assurance from the Government?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): There is no information on the subject in the India Office. All applications respecting exchange-compensation allowance have to be made through the Local Authorities, who alone can judge whether the applicant is entitled to it under the Resolution of the Government of India.

TREATIES WITH THE ABOR TRIBES.
MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Treaties concluded with the Abor tribes in Assam in the years 1862, 1863, and 1866 are still operative; whether the British Government is still under obligation to pay yearly to the Meyong Abors 80 bottles of rum and two seers of opium, to the Kebang Abors 40 bottles of rum and two seers of opium, to the Abors of Dehang Debang Doars 100 bottles of rum, and to the Bor Abors 100 bottles of rum and two seers of opium; and whether these payments are still made; and, if not, when they ceased to be paid, and what has been substituted?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am unable to say whether the Treaties to which the hon. Member refers are still operative. I cannot, therefore, answer his other

903
questions; but I will make inquiry on the subject.

THE GREEN PARK.
MR. HUGH HOARE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the park-keepers exclude the people from a triangular space of ground of about two acres in extent lying in the north part of the Green Park, and extending for about 100 yards westwards from a point opposite Down Street; whether there are any reasons for such exclusion; and, if so, what they are; and if there are no good reasons, whether he has power to order, and will at once order, that the park-keepers be instructed not to keep the people out any more?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): The ground referred to in the north part of the Green Park is thickly planted with ornamental timber. For the protection of the trees—many of which feather down to the ground—against damage by sheep, and for the preservation of public order after nightfall, I consider that the enclosure must be maintained.
MR. HUGH HOARE: Would not the same object be attained by keeping the railings as they are, and only admitting the public during the daytime?
MR. H. GLADSTONE: I do not think so, Sir; I am afraid I cannot make any change.

THE EXPLOSION ON THE "GALATEA."
MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any, and if so what, description of inquiry is to be made as to the cause of the explosion of the charges on board H.M.S. Galatea, when saluting the German Fleet in the Firth of Forth, and which resulted in the death of a gunner and the serious injury of his assistant; what compensation is to be awarded the latter and the relatives of the deceased gunner; and whether the Admiralty intend to take any steps to bring about some sort of International arrangement whereby salutes of etiquette may be abolished, and, in substitution, adopt a custom similar to that current in the Mercantile Marine—namely, of flags and signals?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY(Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): A full inquiry has been held in the usual course, and the Admiralty are satisfied that the cause of the very regrettable accident on H.M.S. Galatea was the defective loading of the cartridge by the Gunnery Instructor, who lost his life. The question of any possible award to his relatives will receive every consideration, and will be dealt with in accordance with the Regulations. The abolition or reduction of saluting would necessitate an International agreement. Much consideration would be needed before any alteration in the present Regulations could be entertained.

LAND GRABBING IN NEWCASTLE WEST UNION.
MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Athea branch of the Irish National Federation, in which they state that, as the grabber (a taker of Mr. John H. Danaher's lands at Dromadda and Athea) persists in defiantly holding them, they appeal to the Guardians of the Newcastle West and Listowel Unions for some expression of their indignation, and, further, that the grabber in this case has no claim whatever on the owner, or the lands in question; whether he is aware that, on the motion of Mr. Downey, seconded by Mr. R. Woulfe, a resolution to this effect was unanimously adopted by the Board of Guardians of the Newcastle West Union at their meeting on the 31st of May, and inserted on the minutes; and whether the Local Government Board has taken any action in the matter?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The resolution in question was, I am informed, adopted by the New-castle Board of Guardians at their meeting, held on the 31st of May, but all the ordinary business of the Union appears to have been duly transacted at the meeting, and the Local Government Board, therefore, in accordance with their usual practice in such cases, has taken no action in the matter.

ABSTRACTORS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.
SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, as so many Civil Service writers have been made abstractors without competition, those now remaining on the Register under the prescribed age (60) may receive the same treatment; and whether the whole, actual previous service of abstractors in any capacity above that of a boy writer may be allowed to count towards retiring allowance, and further consideration in the way of increased initial remuneration be shown to "older" writers, who are placed at a disadvantage in not being able to earn the same amount of retiring allowance?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): If the head of a Department cannot recommend a copyist for appointment as abstractor, on the ground of the merits of his previous service, it is not possible for the Treasury, in the interests of the Public Service, to require examination to be dispensed with. The Rule by which half previous service counts for pension already recognises length of service, and is a fair and liberal arrangement, and it is not possible to re-open it. On the question of initial salary, I can add nothing to my answer of the 26th of April last to the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alban Gibbs).

WICKLOW COUNTY OFFICIALS' RESIDENCES.
MR. SWEETMAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Adjutant of the County Wicklow Militia, the County Surveyor, and the Clerk of the Peace and Crown, reside in the County of Wicklow; and whether he can take any steps to secure that these county officials should reside near where their duties have to be performed?
MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that the Clerk of the Crown and Peace and the Adjutant of the Militia both reside in the County of Wicklow. As regards the County Surveyor, I am informed that he resides near Dublin, but I am not aware of any statutory obligation requiring him to reside in his county, nor have I any reason to believe that his
906
residence in Dublin interferes with the due performacne of his duties.
MR. M'CARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Clerk of the Peace for the County of Antrim resides in London for the greater part of the year?
MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say.

OFFICE OF NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
MR. W. KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the staff of the Office of Education in Ireland, existing at the date of the Order in Council of the 21st of March, 1890, were, up to that date entitled to certain official holidays exclusive of their annual leave; if they have been deprived of seven of these holidays since 1890, although the Order in Council preserved the rights of existing clerks; whether the staff of the Local Government Board of Ireland still enjoy the same number of holidays to which they were entitled before 1890; and if he will use his influence to have these holidays restored to the Education Office clerks?
MR. J. MORLEY: The reply to the first and third paragraphs is in the affirmative. As regards the second paragraph, I am informed by the National Education Board that they considered that the exigencies of the business of their Department precluded them from having two different sets of holidays for the official staff—exclusive of the annual vacation—and that they accordingly adopted the uniform limit of seven days in 1890. According to Treasury interpretation of the clauses in the Orders in Council on the subject of holidays, it is perfectly clear, however, that the Heads of every Department have the power of exercising an independent discretion, subject to a maximum number of holidays, and that the staff of a Department have no absolute right to that maximum.

KABA REGA.
MR. CROSFIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to a statement made by Major E. R. Owen, in which he states that the difficulties with Kaba Rega were primarily due to his refusal to provide food

907
for the forts in North Uganda, or to trade with the British or the Buganda; whether Major E. R. Owen was drawing pay from Imperial funds whilst engaged in this expedition; and whether be was authorised to force an unwilling chief to support a foreign army, and to engage in trade against his will?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Major Owen was in receipt of pay from Imperial funds, but, as I have previously explained, the cause of the expedition, as reported to us by Colonel Colvile, was the aggressive attitude of Kaba Rega himself.

"COBB V. THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY."
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of "Cobb v. the Great Western Railway Company "; and whether it is proposed to take any step to legislate in further protection of railway passengers?
MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the case, which appears to me to have been decided on the special facts of the case as the House of Lords took them upon the statement of the plaintiff. The effect of the decision would appear to be that when it is alleged that a Railway Company has obstructed or failed to assist in the taking into custody of a person charged with an offence against a passenger the proper course is not by a civil action, but by criminal proceedings. The case does not appear to show that the ordinary law is insufficient to deal with robbery in trains, and I do not, therefore, as at present advised, propose to introduce any amending legislation.

GOODS RATES ON THE NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANY.
MR. DALZIEL&c.): I keg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a representation from the Kirkcaldy Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the increased rates imposed by the North British Railway Company; whether he is aware that the increase on the 1892 rates is in several cases as much as 50
908
per cent., and in some cases 80 per cent.; and whether he can hold out any hope of a substantial reduction being speedily affected?
MR. BRYCE: Yes, Sir; I have received such a representation, and the Board of Trade have also received a communication from the Railway Company on the subject. The Company state that, although some rates have been raised, the actual charges at the revised rates work out, on the whole of the merchandise traffic from Kirkcaldy, to a little less than the rates in operation prior to 1893, the exact difference being a reduction of 0.ll per cent. The Board have referred the Chamber of Commerce to the provisions of Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and they will be happy to use their good offices to bring about a settlement in any specific oases of increase of rates brought to their notice. I may add that if the Bill now pending were to become law—a result which I much desire—it would deal with cases such as this.
MR. DALZIELthanked the right hon. Gentleman, and asked him whether he could tell the traders what, under the pressure of the Railway Companies, they ought to do pending the passing of the Bill? Were they justified in refusing to pay the charge?
MR. BRYCE: I am afraid that would open up a question which would require to be answered at considerable length.
MR. J. E. ELLIS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has satisfied himself in these cases that the Railway Companies are adhering to the honourable assurance they gave to the Board of Trade this time last year?
*MR. BRYCE: That, too, is a question that would require to be answered at considerable length, and it would be only fair that the Railway Companies should have notice of it before it is answered.

LONDON POSTAL APPOINTMENTS.
DR. R. AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, seeing that vacancies for clerkships in the London Postal Service and on the supplementary establishment of the Secretary's Office, London, are filled at present by limited competition among Post Office employés, one of the condi-

909
tions for candidature being a nomination by the Postmaster General, there is any reason why notice of these competitions should not be given in the Post Office Circular, as in the case of similar examinations for junior examinerships in the office of Controller of Stores; whether, in view of the fact that under present circumstances the knowledge that these examinations are held is confined to a very few of the candidates who are eligible, he will undertake to have all future examinations for these positions duly announced in the Post Office Circular; and what are the conditions, if any, attached to the granting of a nomination, and to whom should intending candidates apply for such nomination?
MR. A. MORLEY: I have carefully considered the suggestion of the hon. Member; but I do not think it would be desirable to take the course which he recommends. The method by which I obtain candidates for these limited competitions is by procuring from responsible members of the Staff a list of the most competent and efficient officers under their control, who are within certain prescribed limits of age, and by carefully selecting from the lists so obtained the competitors, whose names are sent in to the Civil Service Commissioners for the examination.

EMIGRANTS ON GERMAN STEAMERS.
SIR Gr. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state how many passengers have been carried in German steamers calling at Southampton since, say, the 8th of May; how many of those passengers were carried in excess of the numbers allowed by the British Passengers Act; what is the penalty for such excess under those Acts; has the Board of Trade enforced the Act in all the above cases; and if in any case the Act has not been put in force and the penalty imposed, what is the reason for such exemption?
MR. BRYCE: The total number of steerage passengers carried in German steamers calling at Southampton since the 8th of May was 1,917, and of these 531 were carried in excess of the numbers allowed by the British Passengers Acts. The penalty provided is a fine not exceeding £10, nor less than £5, for
910
each statute adult constituting such excess. The Board of Trade have not taken proceedings in any of the cases in question. They have accepted the explanations of the Companies concerned, that their agents abroad were ignorant of the law, but that instructions will be given to them to obey it carefully in future.

THE "HAVEL."
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg' to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken by the Board of Trade, and with what effect, in the case of the passenger steamer Havel, which was reported on the 9th of May by the Board of Trade Emigration Officer to be carrying a number of steerage passengers on the lower deck in excess of the number allowed by the Passengers Acts?
MR. BRYCE: I have communicated with the agents of the Havel, and am assured that the contravention of British law which occurred in that case arose entirely from ignorance of the law on the part of the Company's agents at New York, and that the Statute will be carefully complied with in future. Under these circumstances, the Board of Trade have decided not to institute proceedings in the case in question.

THE BELFAST WAREHOUSE COMPANY.
MR. E. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware of the language used by the Vice Chancellor on a Petition for the winding up of the Belfast Warehouse Company, as reported in the public Press, to the effect that the said Company was a bubble and fraudulent Company; if he is aware that the said Company advanced to another Company promoted by it the large sum of £132,000, notwithstanding that the paid-up capital of the latter Company was only £40, and that several other Companies promoted by said Warehouse Company are also in liquidation; and whether, in view of the enormous liabilities of the said Company and of the widespread ruin caused in Ulster by the failure, and the failure of all the other Companies connected with it, the Government is prepared to take any steps to secure that justice may not be frustrated, and that the whole case be thoroughly

911
investigated, either by the Crown intervening as prosecutors, as in the Hansard Union case, or by an investigation by the Board of Trade under the Companies (Winding-up) Acts?
MR. J. MORLEY: The facts stated in the first and second paragraphs of this question may be accurate; but the Crown has no means at present of verifying them, as it has no control over the documents used in private litigation. As to the third paragraph, the Civil Court is at present engaged in winding up the Belfast Warehouse Company and in investigating its affairs and the acts of its Directors, and under these circumstances it is obviously undesirable for me to prejudice the case by saying at this stage of the case whether the Executive will or will not take action.

ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS IN WELSH LIBRARIES.
MR. F. EDWARDS: On behalf of the hon. Member for Flint, &c, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether complaints have reached him that the Reports of the Historical Manuscripts Commission upon the ancient manuscripts in Welsh libraries have been prepared by persons imperfectly acquainted with the Welsh language, and therefore incapable of appraising the historical and literary value of the manuscripts; whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience occasioned to Welsh scholars by the incomplete calendaring of Welsh manuscripts; and whether the necessary steps will be taken to have a competent Welsh scholar, able to classify Welsh manuscripts in accordance with their comparative value, appointed as Assistant Commissioner, with a view to making a complete list of the ancient Welsh manuscripts now in existence?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that no complaint of the kind indicated had reached the Historical Manuscripts Commission until I forwarded to them the article handed to me by my hon. Friend. Manuscripts in the Welsh language are very seldom brought under the notice of the Commission; but if any that would properly come within the scope of the Commission should be offered to them for examination, arrangements could be made to employ an Inspector conversant with the Welsh language.
912
The Commissioners do not appoint any permanent Assistant Commissioners, but employ from time to time historical scholars who are most competent to deal efficiently with the particular collections of manuscripts thrown open to the Commissioners.

DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS.
MR. LEON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, if a prima facie case is made out for conferring upon an Urban District Council the powers of a Parish Council in an application under Section 33 of "The Local Government (England and Wales) Act, 1894," the Local Government Board will forthwith make an Order granting such powers without necessarily holding any local inquiry? [The hon. MEMBER, in putting the question, said that by an alteration made at the Table after he handed the paper in the Bill was incorrectly described, and that the words "England and Wales" were improperly added.]
*MR. SPEAKER: The alteration was not made at the Table.
MR. LEON: Yes, it was. Sir.
*MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must have misunderstood. I have the best means of knowing that the alteration was not made at the Table.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The question as to the necessity for a local inquiry with regard to an application under Section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1894, must depend in each case upon the provisions to which the application applies, the probability of opposition, and the circumstances generally. I cannot lay down any general rule.

ENFIELD FACTORY WORKMEN AND THEIR GRIEVANCES.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a notice has been displayed at the Enfield Factory prohibiting the workmen from meeting for discussion of grievances, and threatening the workmen with dismissal or suspension if they transgress the notice; and whether such notice has been sanctioned by the War Office; and, if so, under what authority?
*MR. WEIR: At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether an Order has been recently issued by the

913
Department to the effect that workmen engaged at the Ordnance Factories at Enfield, who publicly assert a grievance of any kind, will be held to render themselves liable to dismissal or suspension; and whether it is the rule of the Department that workmen have not the right, at a public meeting, or by means of a deputation, to criticise the policy of administration of the. Royal Ordnance Factories?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I gave a full answer to a similar question by the hon. Member on the 26th of April, to which I must refer him, and to the same answer I would also refer the hon. Member for Ross-shire, who has question No. 38 on the Paper. The notice now issued merely gives formal expression to the warning then given.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: Is the Secretary for War aware that the notice has been taken by the men to mean that they may not meet to discuss such questions as the hours of labour and the rates of wages. Was the notice so intended?
*MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not, of course, know what is passing in the minds of the men. They are perfectly at liberty to discuss among themselves any grievances on such subjects, and to put them forward in the regular way to their superior officers.
*MR. WEIR: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the second paragraph of my question.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That is answered in the answer to which I referred the hon. Members.
*MR. WEIR: Are the men not allowed to criticise the policy and administration of the Royal Ordnance Factories?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member will be good enough to look at the answer of the 26th of April, he will see.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

COMPULSORY VACCINATION.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many Boards of Guardians are at present refraining from putting the compulsory clauses of the Vaccination Act into operation; whether the enforcement of the Act is optional on the part of the Guardians; and whether, pending the decision of the Commission now investigating the subject, he will advise
914
Boards of Guardians to refrain from putting the Act into force?
SIR W. FOSTER(who replied) said: I am unable to state in what number of cases Boards of Guardians are refraining from directing proceedings for the enforcement of the Vaccination Act. It is the duty of the Guardians to give the necessary directions for this purpose, and the appointment of the Royal Commission does not in any way affect their duty in this matter. The Board consider that the law should be enforced, and they cannot therefore advise the Guardians as suggested.
MR. KEIR-HARDIE: Have the Guardians any option in the matter? Are they compelled to act by law?
SIR W. FOSTER: They have no option given them by the law.
MR. CHANNING: Do not the Local Government Board in many cases draw the attention of Boards of Guardians to what is called the "Evesham letter," which expressed an opinion that they ought not to prosecute in cases of infringement of the law more than once?
SIR W. FOSTER: That letter is referred to occasionally in communications to the Guardians.

APPRENTICES IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state or would agree to a Return stating the total number of youths apprenticed (with payment of premium) to the sea in the Merchant Service during the last 10 years, the total number thereof who have deserted in foreign ports, and the total number thereof who have continued in the Service; and whether he has any reason to believe that in the majority or in any considerable proportion of cases these youths are not, during their apprenticeship, instructed in navigation, but are mainly kept employed on menial services, or on the same duties as boys entered before the mast who earn wages and pay no premium; and, if so, whether he will consider what steps can be taken to secure the more complete carrying out of the true intent of apprenticeship to the profession of the sea?
MR. BRYCE: I regret that I cannot give the hon. Member the information.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the information as to apprentices in general?
MR. BRYCE: I might possibly be able to get the number who have paid premiums, but I should doubt if the figures would be really reliable. I think the hon. Member will find a good deal of information in the Return which is annually presented to Parliament.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but am I to assume that he has no reason to believe that the state of things suggested in the second paragraph of my question exists?
MR. BRYCE: I may hold an opinion on that point as a member of the general public, but as President of the Board of Trade I have no official knowledge on the point which would enable me to act.

THE BRENTWOOD SCHOOL SCANDALS.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the trial at Brentwood, Essex, of Nurse Gillespie for cruelty to the little children at the Hackney Board of Guardians School at Brentwood; and whether some action will also be taken against Mr. Hadwick, the superintendent of the school, who was, as master, responsible for the conduct of the employés?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: My attention has been drawn to the trial referred to. I understand that the superintendent of the schools has been suspended from the performance of his duties. It is the intention of the Local Government Board to direct an inquiry by one of their Inspectors as to the management of the schools.

THE POLICE AND THE BELFAST NATIONALISTS.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the circumstances under which a force of police attacked with batons a crowd accompanying a Nationalist band in Belfast last Sunday evening, and inflicted serious injuries; and whether the attack and a number of arrests were immediately after a direction by the police to the band to cease playing had been obeyed?
MR. J. MORLEY: The following Report has been received from the Commissioner of Belfast, dated yesterday:—
"A large number of police were in readiness from 7.30 p.m. to see the bands home. At 7.45 p.m. they returned and played down as far as the Linen Hall Hotel with Mr. Dillon, M.P. After he went into the hotel one of the bands went home peaceably, via North Queen Street. The other two bands, 'St. Mathew's' and the 'Hearts of Down,' went down May Street on their way to Ballymacarrett. When approaching the May Street Presbyterian Church, where service was going on, they were asked not to play. The 'Hearts of Down' complied, but the 'St. Mathews' and their crowd refused. They played on, and became more and more disorderly. One man armed with a heavy brass-tipped Deacon pole assaulted several people, and although all possible was done, he had to be arrested, as he was mad from drink, and the pole was a regular spear. He was sentenced to one month's imprisonment to-day, and ordered to find bail or stay in gaol for another month. District-Inspector Seddall, who was in charge, having heard that a crowd had assembled in Ballymacarrett to attack the bands, drew some police across the Albert Bridge to get the bands to cease playing and go home over the bridge quietly. Head-constable Hussey went forward to the head of the crowd to ask them to cease playing. Head-constable Charlton was quite close to him. Both men were at once attacked by both band and crowd; Head-constable Charlton was struck in the face and also with two stones; Head-constable Hussey received a blow in the mouth from a stone. His hand was struck and injured by a Deacon pole, and he received very bad treatment. Head-constable Charlton's men, seeing this, drew their batons and rushed on the crowd, dispersing them in all directions and using their batons freely. I cannot find out that anyone was injured, but if anyone was injured he would keep away for fear of identification. Stones, bottles, and other missiles were freely thrown for a few minutes, and then order was restored. Some of the crowd got over the bridge and others ran away and hid in the street around Cromac Square, where their sympathisers live. The people around in the side streets assembled in Cromac Square, and materially aided the bands and their followers by throwing stones and bottles at the police from the corners and over the houses. Only two arrests were made at this place, but I hope to be able to make others amenable for their misconduct. One matter I wish to make perfectly plain, and that is that, although the crowd was very disorderly all along the route, and used very bad language towards the police, not a single man was struck or molested by the police (save the man mentioned as above, armed with a heavy brass tipped Deacon pole, and another for an assault, discharged to-day) until Head constables Charlton and Hussey were attacked and assaulted. I have seen the accounts in The Irish News and Freeman's Journal as to innocent people being injured by the police. I cannot find any such, and I was on the spot immediately afterwards. The entire affair

917
lasted only about three minutes, but the stone-throwing from houses, yards, &c, lasted for about ten minutes. The distance, however, saved our men from serious injury. The boy described in The Freeman's Journal, of 12 or 13 years, was only 14 years old, but he deliberately struck Head-constable Hussey with a stone in the mouth. He also kicked the head-constable in the abdomen, and even when in the police-office he kicked and struck the sergeant who was removing him to a cell. His case was heard today in Petty Sessions, and he got a month's imprisonment, which would have been six months were it not for his youth. All was quiet by 9 p.m., and there has not been any renewal of the disorder."

LEGAL PROCESS IN COUNTY KERRY.
MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on Friday last, bailiffs acting under a decree of fi. fa. at the suit of a landlord against one of his tenants near Listowel, County Kerry, blockaded the house in which the tenant's cattle were, and prevented the necessary feeding of the cattle, and whether, on Saturday, they broke into the house, seized the cattle, and removed them; and whether these proceedings were sanctioned and assisted by a force of police?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am aware of some of the facts connected with this seizure, but before replying to the question of my hon. Friend I should wish to be in possession of more detailed information dealing with all the circumstances of the case, as well as with some Press allegations, and shall be glad, therefore, if lie will defer the question until Thursday next.

CAB ACCIDENTS IN THE METROPOLIS.
SIR J. JOICEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of street accidents which have taken place in London during the period which has elapsed since the cab strike commenced; and the number of accidents which occurred during the same period immediately preceding the cab strike?
MR. ASQUITH: During the four weeks ended May 13, 1894, preceding the cab strike, there were seven persons killed and 608 injured, making a total of 615. During the four weeks ended June 10, 1894, there were 13 killed and 574 injured, making a total of 587.

THE DEER FOREST COMMISSION.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can take any steps to accelerate the work of the Deer Forest Commission; and whether he still anticipates that the inquiry will be concluded this year?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The Commission thoroughly understand the conditions of their own work, and will get it forward as fast as is consistent with its being well done. Before the Session closes, no doubt the Chairman will be able to inform me when the inquiry will be completed.
DR. MACGREGOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many members of the Commission are absent from their duty, and the cause of their absence?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think I answered that question sufficiently yesterday.
DR. MACGREGOR: In consequence of the reply of the Secretary for Scotland, I beg to give notice that, until the Government is prepared to give me a very different reply, in the interests of my constituents I shall feel it my duty to vote against the Government every time I have the opportunity.

CHELSEA AND KILMAINHAM HOSPITALS.
MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will be able soon to appoint the Committee to inquire into the question as to the feasibility of utilising the properties and revenues of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals for the purpose of paying out pensions to Army age-pensioners, on a plan similar to that adopted in connection with the funds of Greenwich Hospital?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir, I am appointing a Committee to inquire into the origin and circumstances of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, and whether their revenues could be more advantageously used for the benefit of the Army. The nomination of the Committee is all but completed.

CANADIAN CATTLE AND PLEUROPNEUMONIA.
MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any further cases of disease have been discovered by the special examination of Canadian cattle; and if he has come to any decision with regard to the exemption of Canadian cattle from slaughter at the port during the present season?
COLONEL WARING: At the same time, I will ask the right lion. Gentleman whether there have been any more cases of suspicious lung disease detected among the imported Canadian cattle; and what course he intends to pursue with regard to them?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD or AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Down, who also has a question on the Paper on this subject, I may state that an animal was landed at Liverpool on the 2nd instant ex s.s. Lake Superior from Montreal, and on examination a small portion of the right lung presented appearances similar to those found in contagious pleuro-pneumonia. With a view, if possible, to clear up the doubts which have been expressed as to the precise character of the disease with which the infected animals landed from Canada during the past two years have been affected, I am proposing to hold a special inquiry with a view to my hearing the views of the various experts who by my invitation inspected the diseased portion of the lungs of the Toronto animal, and I am happy to say that I have been able to secure the assistance in this matter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury and of Dr. Burdon Sanderson, the Waynflete Professor of Physiology at Oxford University, who have most kindly undertaken to act as my legal and pathological assessors. Pending the conclusions at which I may arrive as the result of my inquiry, the existing requirement of slaughter at the Port must of course be maintained, but it would be contrary to law for me to enter into any engagement either one way or the other as to my future action, which must depend on the facts and information before me from time to time.
MR. CHAPLIN: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has doubts as to the decision of the experts of the Board of Agriculture, and that he has ceased to place reliance on their opinions as to what is or what is not contagious pleuro-pneumonia?
MR. H. GARDNER: No, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman is to understand nothing of the sort. Certain scientific questions have arisen with regard to these lungs which it would be to the advantage of everybody to have decided, and I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that nobody is more anxious that this inquiry should take place than my own scientific advisers.
MR. CHAPLIN: May I ask where these doubts have arisen unless it be in the minds of those whose interest it is to send these animals to England? Is there any doubt in the minds of experts at the Board of Agriculture?
MR. H. GARDNER: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman that nobody is more anxious to have this inquiry than my own advisers.
Subsequently,
MR. CHAPLIN: I wish, with the permission of the House, to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can inform the House what are the special qualifications of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury to pronounce an opinion as to whether the lungs of a certain animal are affected or not with contagious disease; and what is the reason for employing an eminent legal authority in a matter where the question to be decided is whether the lungs of certain Canadian animals recently landed in this country are or are not affected with contagious pleuro-pneumonia?
MR. H. GARDNER: I am not concerned to answer as to the veterinary qualifications of the right hon. Member for Bury, but his eminence in the law is well known in this House and elsewhere. The inquiry which I propose is entirely for my own information as President of the Board of Agriculture. The Government do not abrogate its responsibility nor its authority, but for my own information I propose to examine experts in order to see whether the animals in question were affected as alleged or not.
MR. CHAPLIN: How does the President of the Board of Agriculture expect that the employment of an eminent legal authority is to throw any light whatever on a purely technical question?
MR. H. GARDNER: I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would know that the examination of experts is a very common practice in the Courts of Law.

MADAGASCAR.
MR. TRITTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of a large British Company being formed to work a concession in Madagascar, it would be under British protection?
SIR E. GREY: Madagascar is under the protection of France. British subjects engaged in commercial undertakings would be entitled, as in other foreign countries, to advice and assistance in case of need from the British Consular Representatives.

LAND GRABBING AT ROSSLEA.
COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution, passed at the Rosslea Branch of the Irish National League, condemning Robert Gillespie for "land grabbing," and calling on people of all classes and creeds in the district to mark their disapproval of his conduct; whether he intends to take any, and what, action in the matter; whether adequate protection will be afforded to Gillespie by the constabulary?
MR. J. MORLEY: It is a fact that a resolution of the nature indicated in the question was published in the Press, but the police inform me that no meeting was held to pass such a resolution. The person named has not, I understand, been interfered with beyond being shouted at on a couple of occasions when passing the house in which the evicted tenant lives. The police are watching the case and will afford every necessary protection to Gillespie.

THE ARMENIAN CHRISTIANS.
MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to give any further information
922
with respect to the Yozgat and Sivas prisoners?
SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government are not in possession of any further information beyond what was communicated in my answer to the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire on the 3rd ultimo. A telegram has, however, been sent to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople inquiring whether the examination of the sentences in concluded.

RIFLE RANGE FATALITY IN STAFFORDSHIRE.
MR.MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on Saturday last, the 9th instant, a boy named Henn, whilst serving in a shop in Tyston, in Staffordshire, was killed by a spent bullet from a rifle range in the vicinity; and whether, taking this fatal accident into account as happening so soon after the gravedigger being killed in the Putney Cemetery by a bullet fired from the Wimbledon rifle range, he will forbid any further rifle shooting in such dangerous localities?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The War Office have no information as yet with regard to this occurrence. I am told that the Coroner's inquiry is to be held to-day, and I will ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to put off his question for a few days.

CAR SERVICE AT DUNDALK RAILWAY STATION.
MR. D. SULLIVAN: In the absence of the hon. Member for North Louth, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, since the opening of the new railway station at Dundalk on the 1st of June, a serious dispute has arisen between the Great Northern Company and the local car driversl; is he aware that the Company has farmed out the exclusive right to supply the trains with a service of cars to one individual, and the car owners, some 30 or 40 in number, have come into collision with the railway officials by insisting on their right to enter the station premises as heretofore; that summonses have been issued against a number of the carmen for trespass, and the latter have addressed a Memorial to the Local Boards, asking

923
their intervention; that at meetings of the Board of Guardians and of the Harbour Commissioners sympathy with the claims of the men was expressed; and have the Board of Trade any power to secure that the right which the car drivers have exercised since the line was first opened shall not be interfered with?
MR. BRYCE: No, Sir; the Board have no power to intervene in such a matter.

THE OTTAWA CONFERENCE.
SIR. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Government will consider the desirability of appointing, to act in conjunction with the Earl of Jersey at the Conference of Colonial Governments, to be held on the 21st of June at Ottawa, a delegate, having no Colonial connections, specially to represent the interests of the United Kingdom?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): Lord Jersey will represent Her Majesty's Government on the Intercolonial Conference, and they have full confidence that in any part which he may be called upon to take in the proceedings of the Conference he will not overlook British interests.

HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a mud-hank some 10 feet high has recently formed at the entrance to Haulbowline Basin reducing the depth of water to about 22 feet, and thus preventing the passage of large ships into the dock; whether it is for this reason that H.M.S. Warspite, the guardship at Queenstown, is about to proceed to Devonport for overhauling, seeing that the requisite appliances for executing repairs now exist at Haulbowline Dockyard; and whether immediate steps will be taken to remove this mudbank?
THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): There is five feet of mud on the sill of the entrance, which would be removed when the caisson requires to be lifted, previous to docking any vessels. In the channel and over the sill there is other-
924
wise sufficient water for docking the Warspite. The depth of water, had nothing to do with the Warspite being sent to Devonport, for fitting improved ventilation to engine room, &c.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is the hon. Member aware that the removal of the Warspite to Devonport at a time when the shipwrights were being discharged at Haulbowline for want of employment has caused a deep feeling of indignation in Cork and Queenstown?
MR. E. ROBERTSON: I believe there has been some expression of feeling of that kind. But the reason for the course taken was that the local tenders were something like seven or eight times higher than the expenses at Devonport.
CAPTAIN DONELAN: But what about the Government Dockyard? Is there not one at Haulbowline?
[No answer was given.]

THE COLONIES AND THE NEW ESTATE DUTY.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government have received any communications from Foreign or Colonial Governments protesting against the new Estate Duty being levied upon property situate in those foreign countries and British Possessions; and, if so, will he state which Governments have already sent in such protests; and will he at once lay upon the Table of the House the text of these protests?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): No representation has been received from any foreign country on this subject. A representation has been received at the Colonial Office to-day. I have not had time to read it, but it will receive most careful consideration. I will point out, as I have said before, that there is not and never has been any proposal to tax any property in the colonies which is not at present subject to taxation.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Would the Bill not, in some instances, increase the taxation eight times; is not the tax now only 1 per cent.?
SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not agree with the hon. Member's figures. It is quite true that property in the colonies will under the Bill be subject to

925
higher taxation, just as property in England will be subject to higher taxation. But there is no property of any kind in the colonies taxed for the first time under this Bill. I only mention that, because it has been said that this is a proposal similar to that which led to the American War. A statement of that kind was absurd and hardly worthy of notice.
MR. J. LOWTHER: Has there ever been any protest against the existing taxation? Is not this the first time that a tax has been imposed against the colonies in the face of their protest?
SIR W. HARCOURT: The protest is going to be considered. I only want to make it quite clear that we are making no proposal to tax any colonial property which is not and has not been for many years subject to taxation.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: By "subject to taxation" does the right hon. Gentleman mean subject to taxation by the Imperial Parliament or by the Colonial Parliaments?
SIR W. HARCOURT: By this Parliament.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: Is there nothing in this new taxation which affects any property in the colonies which was not affected by the taxation of, say, last year?
SIR W. HARCOURT: You may see the words in the Bill. It taxes only property which is now subject to Legacy and Succession Duty.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is not the right hon. Gentleman under a misapprehension as to the words of the Bill? Are not the words "or would be liable" to the Legacy and Succession Duty but for the relationship of the persons; and will not that affect property coming to a widow on which not a farthing of duty is now paid?
SIR W. HARCOURT: It is only persons domiciled here who are taxed at all. The words to which the hon. Member refers are necessary in order to meet the case where persons are exempt altogether. What I want to be clearly understood is that the proposal only is to tax property which now is taxable with Legacy and Succession Duty. We tax nobody in the colonies at all. The rationale of the thing is this: that in the view of the law all classes of property
926
are assumed to be where the person is domiciled. Therefore, in the eye of the law we are not taxing foreign property at all. We are perfectly prepared before the Bill leaves this House to come to a thoroughly good understanding on this subject with the colonies. Any idea of our attempting to force taxation upon the colonies in their own country independently of their own Legislatures is a thing of which we have never dreamt, and which I venture to say the Bill does not do.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Were not the previous taxes in every case imposed upon the colonies before they received their independent Legislatures?
SIR W. HARCOURT: No, I think not. I think there have been alterations in the Succession Duty since that date.

APPROPRIATION OF EXCESS NAVY VOTES.
MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the last Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the Navy Estimates for contract shipbuilding and works, in connection with the dockyards since 1877–88 to to 1892–3, showing that for contract shipbuilding in 1887–8 £144,849 less was expended than what was voted in the Estimate; in 1888–9, £137,405; in 1889–90, £485,326; in 1890–91, £41,814; in 1891–2,£186,617; in l892–3,£235,106, making a total of £1,231,117 less spent than voted by Parliament; and for Admiralty works, in 1887–8, £36,013; in 1888–9, £18,490; in 1889–90, £19,683; in 1890–1, £41,536; in 1891–2, £39,137; in 1892–3, £46,260, making a total of £201,119 less spent than voted; and will he state how and for what purpose these large sums of money have been appropriated, and by whose authority?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to answer this question. The points referred to by my hon. Friend have been the subject of evidence this Session before the Public Accounts Committee, who will doubtless report upon them. In most cases, when savings on contract shipbuilding have been appropriated for other Naval Services, they have been used in aid of other parts of the Shipbuilding Vote. In every case

927
in which a saving cm one Vote or on one section of the Shipbuilding Vote has been used to meet a deficit on another Vote or section, the Treasury, acting under then-statutory authority, have approved the transfer. There was a surplus surrendered to the Exchequer in each of the years mentioned, except 1891–92, when an excess Vote became necessary.

THE DEATH DUTIES.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state, either exactly or approximately, as regards the property whereon Death Duties were levied in 1891–2, amounting in all to £241,453,000, what amount of that sum represented realty passing in fee simple on which Succession Duty was levied, and what amount thereof represented personalty in respect of which Succession Duty was levied; and whether he will inform the House what portion of his estimated increased receipt from Death Duties of £3,500,000, or £4,000,000, will be represented by the increased receipts arising from Succession Duty being charged on the principal value of realty passing in fee simple instead of being charged as heretofore on the value of an annuity?
SIR W. HARCOURT: NO recent statistics are available; but applying to the present figures the proportions discovered by an analysis made by the Legacy Duty Office some time ago, the amount of realty passing in fee simple on which Succession Duty was levied would be about £25,000,000, and the amount of personalty on which Succession Duty was levied would be about £10,000,000. It is only possible to estimate approximately, but in round figures we anticipate that the increase of receipts arising from the change referred to will be slightly over £100,000. The hon. Member will, of course, bear in mind that under our proposals a great deal of realty now paying Succession Duty will become exempt, because it passes to lineals, and the payment of Estate Duty will therefore exempt it from Succession Duty.

DESTITUTE EAST INDIANS AT SWANSEA.
MR. BURNIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India on what grounds the India Office,
928
after causing inquiries to be made, have decided not to aid the two young East Indians who are now in a destitute condition at Swansea to return to India; whether he is aware that but for the charity of strangers they would have to starve or go into the workhouse; whether he can suggest some way, official or otherwise, by which these well-deserving young men may be enabled to return home; and whether he is aware that similarly distressed Europeans in India would be enabled to return to their respective countries?
MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is not the general practice of the Secretary of State in Council to defray out of the Revenues of India the passage to India of natives who, like these two oculists, have come to this country for purposes of their own; it is only for special and exceptional reasons that he does so, and it was held after consideration that such reasons did not exist in this case. It is true that destitute Europeans in India are, under the provisions of the European Vagrancy Act, 1874, sent to Europe if they have been arrested as vagrants and have passed through a workhouse.

THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
MR. HANBURY: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War as to the order in which the War Office Votes will be taken to-morrow? It was understood that opportunity would be given for a general discussion.
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Vote 7 will be the first, and on that a general discussion can take place. We also wish, for administrative reasons, to be allowed to take the Vote for Works to-morrow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.—(No. 190.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 11th June.
  [ELEVENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he wished to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Waltham stow Divi-

  929
  sion of Essex. The object of the Amendment was to secure that the executor should get probate within a reasonable time, and thus be enabled to commence dealing with the property of the deceased. How long it would take him to complete his dealing with the property was another matter altogether; but, at any rate, there should be no delay in handing to him the document which empowered him to commence the performance of his duties. The provision of the clause on this point was—
  "(2) The executor of the deceased shall pay the Estate Duty in respect of all personal property (wheresoever situate) of which the deceased was competent to dispose at his death, on delivering the Inland Revenue affidavit, and may pay in like manner the Estate Duty on any other property passing on such death."
  But there was no direction as to how and where he was to get probate or letters of administration, which alone would entitle him to commence the duties of his office. He noticed, however, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had put down an Amendment which to a certain extent dealt with this point, but it involved considerations as to the value of real property which, from their point of view, somewhat detracted from its value. All they desired was that probate should be procurable within a reasonable time, and the Amendment which he had to propose would secure that the executor should have an immediate prospect of getting control of the estate in order to obtain funds out of which he could pay the duties chargeable upon it.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 23, after the word "affidavit," to insert the words
  "or at such later time as the Commissioners may allow, and upon such payment he shall be entitled to have probate or letters of administration forthwith granted to him."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. REID,&c.)said, the Amendment raised two points, one of which was to enable the Commissioners to allow time for payment. That power they already possessed under the Act of George III. relating to Succession Duty, and he took it, therefore, that that was not the main object of the hon. Gentle-
  930
  man opposite. The second, and presumably the material, point was that letters of administration should be forthwith granted to the executor. This would, as a matter of fact, happen whether the words were inserted or not. On presenting the Inland Revenue affidavit the executor could get his authority to proceed, and therefore the words were really superfluous. He could not, under the circumstances, accept the Amendment.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, this was one of the points to which on a previous occasion he ventured to call attention, when he pointed out the delay which would inevitably occur owing to the difficulty of dealing with estates for which different persons were accountable. He was informed on high authority that probate was not granted on the Inland Revenue affidavit until it had been stamped, and that stamping was not allowed until the executor had accounted for all the various classes of property, although he himself had no legal control over it. He proposed on the 7th clause to move an Amendment, the object of which would be to secure that the delivery of the certificate should not be delayed by reason of property other than personal property in the United Kingdom not being included in the account. He hoped the Government would give careful consideration to this question, as serious delay would ensue unless some such alteration as that suggested in the Amendment under discussion was made.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, his information, coming from authentic sources, was exactly contrary to that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, but he would inquire further into the matter, and the point could be dealt with on Clause 7.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The point is, to have the estate vested in the executor as quickly as possible.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the Government would not lose sight of the difficulties with which executors would have to cope. He had had some personal experience in this matter, and knew that sometimes arrangements had to be made to enable them to surmount the preliminary obstacle—i.e., the payment of the Probate Duty. An executor, in order to perform his duties, had to make himself master of a vast number of intricate details of process which involved the

  931
  expenditure of much time and money, and this Bill, ho feared, would only increase their difficulties. He expected that as a result large numbers of executors would refuse to act, and they would decline to make themselves responsible in an affidavit under heavy penalties for statements respecting matters as to which they were not really responsible. He hoped that the Government would be prepared with some solution of this difficulty.
  *MR. HENEAGEsaid, he, too, had had experience as an executor, and as a result of his study of the Bill he had come to the conclusion that executors would renounce, and that the administration of wills and estates would fall more and more into the hands of solicitors, with a consequent great increase of expense and time. It was almost a question whether the Government ought not to bring in a Bill for the appointment of an official trustee. In the case of large estates it would be almost impossible for executors to do their work without an immense amount of legal advice; and for all practical purposes the solicitor would become the executor. This was one of the most difficult questions in the whole Bill, and he hoped the Government would consider it before they reached Clause 7.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, one point had been lost sight of in the course of that debate, and that was that it was proposed for the first time to make an executor liable to pay Estate Duty on property abroad which he could not touch and in respect of which an executor abroad might be appointed. There might be £1,000 worth of property here and £1,000,000 worth in Victoria, and the executor here would have to pay duty on that £1,000,000. Surely that was never intended; if it were it was a most nefarious proposal. No executor ought to be held liable for more property than passed into his hands. He had proposed to insert words to provide that the duty should be payable only on such property as was
  "capable of being received or recovered by such executor by virtue of his office."
  He submitted that this was a most reasonable limitation, and he trusted that the Government would accept it when the time came for him to propose it.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, lie would not put his out-of-date legal experience against the knowledge of the Solicitor General, and as the hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed his belief that the object of the Amendment was covered by Clause 7 he would not press his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he wished to propose the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), to omit after "affidavit" all the words to the end of the subsection, i.e.,
  "and may pay in like manner the Estate Duty on any other property passing on such death."
  He said, the Committee would observe that the earlier part of the sub-section related to personal property, and, therefore, it was to be presumed that "other property" meant real estate. Their contention was, that if the words were allowed to stand they would enable the executor to dispose of property with or without the knowledge of beneficiaries or other persons concerned. Such a power would at the best be of questionable advantage, and under certain circumstances it might prove absolutely dangerous. Their reasons for so thinking rested on the words of Sub-section 5, Clause 9— namely—
  "A person who pays the Estate Duty on any property shall have power, whether the property is or is not vested in him, to raise such duty, by the sale or mortgage of that property, or any part thereof."
  The words which he now proposed to ask the Committee to omit from Clause 5 would enable the executor to dispose of property without the knowledge of the beneficiare; and it might place him in a false position, as he thought the Solicitor General would admit. The omission of the words would involve, of course, a further alteration, but it could be dealt with in the Amendment of the Solicitor General, which came next on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 23, after the word "affidavit," to leave out to end of Sub-section (2.)—(Sir R. Temple.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. R. T. REIDpointed out that the Amendment would deprive an executor of power which in certain circumstances it might be convenient to exercise. The sub-section was merely permissive, the word used being "may" and not "shall." Supposing, for example, personal and real estate both passed to the same person, it would be convenient for the executor to pay duty on both at the same time, and therefore it was desirable the words should stand. Any limitation that was required was provided by the next Amendment on the Paper in his name, and if carried it would read thus—
  "The executor may pay in like manner the Estate Duty on any other property passing on such death, which by virtue of any testamentary disposition of the deceased is under the control of the executor, or which, if not under his control, the person accountable for the duty thereon consents to such payment."
  The insertion of these words would, he thought, meet the objections of the hon. Baronet, who need not, therefore, press his Amendment.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that under the circumstances he would withdraw the Amendment, the understanding being that the words quoted by the Solicitor General be added to the sub-section.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not quite understand where the executor was to get the money from with which to pay the duty. Was it to be from the estate which passed to him or from an estate belonging to other persons who were to consent to his making payment? He did not think it desirable that the executor should interfere in that way with estates with which he had nothing to do.
  *MR. H. MATTHEWSsaid, he hoped the Solicitor General would throw a little further light on this matter. Already there were serious difficulties in the way of the payment of Probate Duty; they could not touch estates without probate, and they could not get probate until the duty was paid, and he had known cases in which the executor had had to pay the money out of his own pocket or pay it on his own responsibility. Let him take a simple case. A man left property worth a million. The executor would have to find £80,000 before ho could get probate. How was he to do it?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Committee were
  934
  at some disadvantage in this matter, for while the hon. and learned Solicitor General dealt ably and lucidly with all the legal points, he was not unnaturally silent when financial questions were raised. He thought it would be desirable that there should be some financial gentleman on the Treasury Bench to assist the Solicitor General. It was not reasonable to expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be constantly in attendance, but some financial Member of the Government should be present. Here was a difficult case put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham. No one was present on behalf of the Government to say how the obstacle could be overcome; the Government seemed to be content to allow it to be met as best it could without explanation. If the difficulty was great at present it would be considerably enhanced by the increase of the duties, and it was the duty of the Government to find a remedy.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was most grateful for assistance, financial or otherwise, but he really did not think the point raised by this Amendment was a difficult one. The question was whether an executor should be allowed, if he liked, to make certain payments. If he had not the money he would in all probability prefer not to pay; but if he had it and felt disposed to pay, no obstacle should be placed in his way. Although he did not pretend to be an authority on financial matters, he would submit that it required no financial skill to settle this point.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was germane to the point to see how the money was to be raised. He trusted that the Government would give attention to this subject.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONinquired if the consent of the person for whose benefit the money was to be paid was sufficient, what about the person from whose property the money was to be taken? In an ordinary executorship, with property also under a settlement, it might be desirable that the duties on both classes of property should be paid at the same moment; but the question was, whether the owner of the unsettled property passing under the will would allow his money to be taken to pay the duty on the settled property? Should not the consent

  935
  be required not only of the persons for whom the duty was paid, but of the persons interested in the general estate from which the money with which to pay the duty was taken?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That point arises on the next Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that as the Solicitor General had courteously undertaken to give his attention to the point raised by his right hon. Friend, he would not dwell upon it; but he would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman on what ground he came to the conclusion that the difficulty was one very easy to overcome?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 24, after the word "death," to insert the words
  "which by virtue of any testamentary disposition of the deceased is under the control of the executor, or, in the case of property not under his control, if the persons accountable for the duty thereon request him to make such payment."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
  MR. BYRNEasked the Solicitor General if he had considered the desirability of extending this provision to the case of administrators in intestacies?
  MR. R. T. REIDreplied, that he thought there was no necessity for such extension. The administrator would have the power.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he differed from the view of the hon, and learned Gentleman. He held that the administrator of an intestate's estate should have the same power as an executor to pay the duties with the consent of the persons interested.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that if the hon. Member would look at the Interpretation Clause, he would find that the word "executor" included "administrator."
  MR. BYRNEsaid, that might be so; but he submitted that it ought to be clearly set out on this clause.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, as he understood the matter, the Amendment of the Solicitor General met the first point, but the second point still remained open. Where an executor, on his application for the grant of probate, limited his application to certain property, he ought not to have to pay the Estate Duty except in
  936
  respect of that property. The words of the Amendment he had put down were—
  "An executor whose application for the grant of probate shall be expressly limited to the assets of the deceased in the United Kingdom shall not be liable to pay the Estate Duty in respect of property situate elsewhere."
  He thought, however, that the same object would perhaps be obtained if his hon. and learned Friend would consent to leave out the words
  "by virtue of any testamentary disposition of the deceased."
  It was important that an executor should not be bound to assume a responsibility which he could not fulfil. He begged to move, as an Amendment to the Solicitor General's Amendment, to leave out the words
  "by virtue of any testamentary disposition of the deceased."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words
  "by virtue of any testamentary disposition of the deceased."—(Sir J. Lubbock.)
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would effect the purpose at which he aimed by the omission of the words mentioned. He would venture to suggest that it would be better to go upon the words of the old Amendment. There could be no objection to insert, after the word "which," "in an intestacy, or."
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment to the Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "which," to insert the words "under an intestacy, or."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, it was difficult to follow this Amendment, but he should suggest that there were other words which would have met both cases—for instance, "and which is recoverable or receivable by the executor in virtue of his office."
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he could understand that it might be convenient in certain cases, where the executor had a considerable sum of money in hand, that he should pay the duty out of that money. That, of course, would be very well where the cash belonged to the people who were in-

  937
  terested in the property; but where the money in hand belonged to one person and the property to another the duty ought not to be paid in this way. If the consent of the persons accountable for the duty was to be obtained, the consent of the persons out of whose money the payment was to be made should also be obtained.
  *MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman what the first words of the Amendment implied? The subsection required the executor to pay the duty in respect of all personal property in respect of which the deceased was competent to make disposition on death, and then there was another sub-section which enabled the executor to pay duty in respect of property which was not vested in him by virtue of his office.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that to compel an executor to pay duty upon an estate with which he, as an executor, had nothing to do would be an improper abrogation of executorship duties, and nothing short of a breach of trust. The proposal would give the executor power to part with moneys without consulting the beneficiaries—that was, to pay duty on settled estate with which the persons entitled to the executorial money might have nothing to do. The question of convenience was another matter; but, at all events, it was as well that the Committee should have in their minds what it was that they were sanctioning.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, this raised a serious question in the case of a man dying intestate but who had a certain amount of real property which passed to his heir-at-law. The administrator of the estate might be an entirely different person, but he had the power to take personal property which passed through him as administrator without reference to those to whom it belonged, and to pay the duty on real estate, and then under a subsequent clause to sell it or mortgage it. That, of course, was a very important matter. Taking the case of a person who came into the enjoyment of a large sum of money, where there was a real estate also and where there were settlements under trustees, although the executor might be at law with the other parties, he was entitled to take the money due to the residuary legatee and to employ it for payment of the duty on the real estate, against the will, as it might be, of the
  938
  residuary legatee and of the successors to the real estate and of the trustees under settlements; and having done that, he was able to come down upon the real estate and sell it or mortgage it in order to repay himself. The executor ought to be liable only for payment of duty in respect to the whole of the property that came to him in virtue of his office. They should follow out the old plan in that respect; but in respect of money which did not so come to the executor, they ought to follow the beneficiaries and make them pay.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought the words proposed ought to be allowed to drop.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that some time since he had expressed the opinion that the insertion of these words was unnecessary, but it was put to him that they could not do any harm, and so he accepted them. He did not want the words himself. All that he intended to do was to meet the desire of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he entirely agreed in the course which had been taken. He proposed the introduction of these words in order to protect the executor from payment of duty not only upon property mentioned in the Bill, but upon all other property.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that before the Amendment of the Solicitor General was further proceeded with it was desirable that the Committee should have some idea as to what it was that the Government proposed. The duties of an executor were at present extremely onerous, but they were, at all events, confined to dealing with properties of which he had for the moment the legal control. As he understood it, under the proposed Amendment to this clause the executor would not, as he had hitherto been, be confined to dealing with moneys of which he had immediate control, but would have to render an account of moneys that were not his at all, and to make himself responsible for them before he could obtain probate.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that he had already pointed out that under the existing law credit for probate would be given.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that even supposing that the executor could obtain credit for probate, he had to make himself responsible either by a ready-money payment or otherwise for property over which he had no control. It had been pointed out that the executor would have power to divert money which he received from a certain source to the payment of the Estate Duty; but there was something to be said, perhaps, for an anomaly of that kind, having regard to the wide duties now thrown upon him. Very great delay might arise before the executor could obtain probate unless he had this power. In the case of a landed estate, especially of an estate in settlement, a mortgage would undoubtedly have to be negotiated before the Estate Duty could be provided. In certain cases, where the executor found himself in possession of a considerable sum of personalty, he could make the payment of duty both in respect of personalty which was under his control and of real property which was not under his control, and might exercise powers of recovery of duty paid upon such real estate. But he understood that the executor must make himself responsible for an account of the property for which he was not responsible. In the great majority of cases an executor would be very both to commit himself, to any undertaking of a personal character or to involve himself in any way as to property which was without the discharge of his own personal duties. To adopt this proposal would be to force the executor into a position widely different to that which he had ever before been called upon to occupy, and not only to enlarge his responsibilities, but to actually invite him to commit what had hitherto been regarded as a breach of trust. As the hon. Gentleman for North St. Pancras had suggested, any executor who took such a course would find himself in a very unpleasant position. He hoped some provision would be introduced which would make it clearer what the duties of the executors were to be.
  MR. CARSONsaid, he should like to have some assurance from the Solicitor General in respect of this clause. He had an Amendment down to which he hoped the Solicitor General would turn his favourable attention, and that was to strike out alto
  940
  gether the words referring to the executor. The Government were attempting to introduce into the law a new principle in the administration of estates by executors. He could not conceive how an executor was to administer a personal estate if he was to be allowed to pay Estate Duty with respect to property over the administration of which he had no control whatever. Supposing in Ireland an executor were to pay Estate Duty in respect of real estate, how long did the Solicitor General think it would be before he could administer the personal estate which it was his duty to administer within a year? During the last 12 or 13 years he (Mr. Carson) believed there had not been a single landed estate sold in Ireland except under the Land Purchase Acts. He wished to know whether the administration of an Irish estate was to be tied up for perhaps 13 years and then for another 18 years as far as the purchase money retained by the Commissioners was concerned. For what reason and on what principle was an executor who had nothing whatever to do either with the settled estates or the real estates of the deceased to be allowed to apply money put into his hands for a different purpose in payment of the debts of another man—for it really came to that—and to the detriment of his own cestui que trust? He could see no possible reason why there should be so complete a change in the law as was-suggested. If this new burden was to be thrown upon executors, there certainly ought to be some means provided of recouping the estate advanced. He should like to know what would be the personal position of the executor in the event of his paying more than he really ought to pay under this provision? Would he under such circumstances be personally liable? If so, all he (Mr. Carson) could say was that it would be found much more difficult in the future, to get executors than it was at present. If the executor was not to be personally liable, were his cestui que trusts to lose through what had occurred, not through the fault of the executor, but through unforeseen circumstances in relation to property in which they had no interest whatever? It appeared to him that if the provision of the Bill were passed it would be impossible in future to administer personal estates.
  *MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid that, if he rightly gathered the meaning of the Government in regard to this clause, his view of the provision differed from that of his hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken. He took it that the devisee of real estate would be empowered to go to the executor, instead of to a money-lender, and to say, "I wish to raise money on my realty in order that I may pay my Estate Duty." Clause 9 (5) provided for a loan from the executor to the devisee, and the duty borrowed under that clause might be made a first charge upon the land, or the land might be sold so that the money could be recovered.
  MR. W. AMBROSEthought the explanation of the sub-section pretty obvious. It seemed to him that the Government were very anxious to make special provision for getting the Estate Duty in case there was any difficulty in getting it under the ordinary law. There were some properties that were absolutely unsaleable. It sometimes happened in Lancashire that a millowner had a mill which he could not sell at any price, and which was, therefore, a white elephant upon his hands. If such a man died, and the mill were left to a particular devisee, while the personal estate which was comparatively small was left to other persons, it would be difficult under the ordinary law for the Government to get the Estate Duty upon the mill. The present provision, however, would enable the executor to use the personal property left to other persons to pay the duty on the mill. The persons to whom the personal property was left would, no doubt, be able to follow the duty, and should be relegated to the position of mortgagees of the mill. This was the first time within his recollection in which an Act of Parliament, even in the interest of the Revenue, had sanctioned a course which would place the executor in a position to commit a breach of trust. A breach of trust it would certainly be, and one which would do a great deal of injury. He would propose that the Amendment should be amended by inserting "and the beneficiaries entitled to the money" after the words "the duty thereon."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, after the word "thereon," to insert the words "and the beneficiaries entitled to the money."—(Mr. W. Ambrose.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."
  MR. R. T. REID: I regret that I have had so often to address the Committee on this Amendment, but I. am obliged to do so owing to the successive questions that are put to me. I do think that the substance of the Amendment is sufficiently before the Committee to enable it to come to a conclusion upon it. The point is that it may be for the convenience of the estate and of the successors to the property of the deceased that one payment shall be made for all, having regard to the fact that there is aggregation, and that you have to pay upon the rate at which the property is aggregated. That being so, the hon. Gentleman opposite proposes that the discretion of the executor shall be fettered by requiring the presence of all the beneficiaries. The executor is a responsible person, and I am not aware that it has ever been attempted before to fetter his discretion in dealing lawfully with matters under his control. To do so would be to reduce the Amendment to an absurdity. It would mean that the executor would have to get the consent of every legatee, for such sums even as £20, to take a course which he thinks it convenient to take. We propose to enable him from no interest of his own, but simply from administrative convenience, to make the payment. Under these circumstances, I am afraid the clause would be useless if we were to require the consent of all the beneficiaries. I would suggest to the Committee that we might take a decision upon this question now, as there has certainly been a free exchange of views upon it, and I really think that Members know their own minds respecting it.
  MR. W. AMBROSEsaid, it was his intention that the Amendment should be made utterly ineffective, because he thought that if it were effective it would sanction fraud.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was a substantial point in the case of his hon. and learned Friend. If

  943
  they adopted the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite the whole power of the executor would go. To obtain the assent of every legatee and beneficiary would he a bar to the exercise of discretion on the part of the executor, and it might be convenient that he should have the power of settling the questions contemplated in the clause with the Inland Revenue at once. The question might arise whether giving this power to the executor to do this thing would not exonerate him from civil liability if he found that he could not recover over. The liability of the executor, therefore, should be strictly guarded. If he used this power he should not do so at the risk of the persons entitled to the estate; therefore, it was necessary to put in words safeguarding the liability of the executor in that respect. The proposal of the hon. Member for Harrow went too far— stopping the action of the executor altogether.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would venture to ask the Solicitor General whether, if and so far as these words made no alteration in the law with reference to the power or liability of the executor to pay duties on property with which he had nothing to do, it was worth while to insist on the change? It appeared that the hon. and learned Gentleman had departed from the scheme of the clause as originally framed. As it originally stood the choice rested with the executor. He might pay duty on every property for which he was not accountable, and raise that duty by sale or mortgage of any part of the property on which he had paid it. Now he could do nothing except at the request of persons accountable for the payment of the duty on the property. It had been suggested that they, whether as trustees or otherwise, might not always represent the wishes of the beneficiaries, and an Amendment had been moved to insert beneficiaries also. Seeing that the executor could not act in respect of this matter except under such conditions as certainly were a departure from the original scheme of the clause, he (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General whether it was worth while to adhere to his proposal, and whether it would not be well to leave the law as it at present stood?
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that those who were familiar with the practice thought the Amendment a desirable one for administrative convenience. As to the question the right hon. Gentleman opposite asked, the condition of the executor would remain as at present with regard to liability. He would have to give an account not only of what he had received, but of what with proper and fair care he ought to have received. Therefore, there was substantial liability on him at Common Law with regard to his action as executor. He (Mr. R. T. Reid) did not think they could further define the graduating shades of responsibility.
  *MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he did not think the Committee could rest content with the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer. The hon. and learned Gentleman would allow the executor in his discretion, and acting in good faith, to use money belonging to the owners of real estate to pay debts that those who had the personal estate might owe. He (Mr. Matthews) thought the real estate owners were entitled to some better protection than they would have under the clause as the hon. and learned Gentleman would draft it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 178; Noes 235.—(Division List, No. 90.)
  Words inserted.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, he had an Amendment which would come in at the end of the last Amendment.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCK: On a point of Order, said he had an Amendment on the Paper which ought to come in at this point.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I understand there is a prior Amendment which contains a proviso, and would properly come in here.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: Mine also is a proviso.
  MR. R. T. REID: On the point of Order, may I ask whether my words would not come in exactly at this point, as they are part of the same words that were dealt with by the last Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If so, they would have priority?
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, that his Amendment was a proviso, and had reference to the portion that had just been passed by the Committee. His Amendment related to the question that was raised by the late Home Secretary and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Goschen) respecting the position of the executor under the sub-section—namely, the necessity of paying the Estate Duty in respect of the whole estate. It was pointed out by those two right hon. Gentlemen, and it had been before pointed out, that the executor would be in great difficulty in many cases in having to produce so large a sum of money as might be required upon tendering his affidavit. In the past this difficulty had been found to be very great, as there were a great many large estates where the available ready money was exceedingly small, and consequently there were no funds upon which the executor could lay his hands for the purpose of paying the duty. An executor would have great difficulty in getting an advance which should enable him to pay the duty, because before probate was granted he had no power of charging the estate or dealing with Consols. This difficulty, which had been felt to be very great in the past, would be greatly increased in the future, on account of the large additions that were to be made before probate was granted. Therefore, what he proposed was to put in, at the end of the words last passed by the Committee, these words—
  "Provided that where the executor cannot obtain sufficient funds to enable him to pay the duty lie may state that fact in the Inland Revenue affidavit."
  He proposed to stop there in the Amendment he made, but the words he proposed were only preliminary to others prescribing the exact method in which the relief he suggested should be given. He wished to leave the method to the choice of the Government. They might like to give the Inland Revenue Commissioners power to sanction an arrangement proposed by the executor; or they might give power for granting a provisional probate to enable the duty to be raised from the estate.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, after the last Amendment, to insert—
  946
  "Provided that where the executor cannot obtain sufficient funds to enable him to pay the duty he may state that fact in the Inland Revenue affidavit."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. R. T. REIDthought the hon. and learned Gentleman would be one of the first to admit that if he (Mr. R. T. Reid) accepted the words proposed they would be entirely inoperative, for the Amendment did nothing in the way of suggesting a remedy.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, he thought he had explained that he had only gone so far because he did not wish to hamper the discussion by putting forward any suggestion of his own, but that if the words were accepted it would then be necessary to add other words.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, it was in the nature of a fishing Amendment: the hon. Gentleman gave the Amendment and expected the Government to find solid substance for the form of his Amendment, by stating what was to be done where the executor was not in a position to pay the duty. The arrangements that had worked, satisfactorily in past times would probably be sufficient in the future, and under them the Commissioners had had the power in certain cases to give credit to executors in respect of the payment of the Probate and Succession Duties. He thought that the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be inoperative, and therefore he was unable to accept them.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONthought the hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out a matter that was a source of very considerable inconvenience. Executors had wills handed to them and were not able to get, at once, possession of the money required to pay Probate Duty, and the result was they had to make arrangements to obtain it; that was to say, they had to go to the bankers of the deceased, or to borrow from their lawyers, or make some other arrangement that involved expense and delay. It would be a great convenience if some provision were made by which the duty could be postponed for a short period until the executor could make use of the testator's property to get the necessary money. Some executors had had a good deal of delay and trouble and bother before they could get probate simply because they

  947
  were not persons of means themselves. If some arrangement could be made by which a provisional grant of probate could be obtained, especially as they were increasing the duty, it would be no loss to the Revenue, and would be most convenient to executors and all concerned.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the first Amendment of the Solicitor General referred to an old Act of Parliament under which the Commissioners might do certain things. He assumed the learned Solicitor General referred to 55 of George III., Section 45. Credit might be given under that, but he should like the Committee to notice the conditions under which credit was to be given. The section provided that in all such cases of credit security should be first given by the executors or administrators, together with two or more sureties to be approved, by bond for the payment of the duty within six calendar months, or pay interest at the rate of 10 per cent, for any delay. That was the section that gave the Commissioners under the present law power to allow credit. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if that was the full power?
  MR. R. T. REID: Yes.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, before they went further they ought to know whether the Government intended to meet this question. He himself had an Amendment down later by which he proposed that the Commissioners should be empowered to take possession part of the property for the payment of the duty. Unless the Government agreed to some such proposal there must be difficulty where there was not cash in hand to meet the duty.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the Government were very ready to consider any proposal that would facilitate the discharge of their duties by executors. He agreed that the present system under which executors were given credit in respect of Death Duties imposed onerous obligations upon them, and that that system ought to have a more modern practice substituted for it. The matter was now under the consideration of the Government, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would be satisfied with the discussion, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he should, of course, withdraw the Amendment; but he might say that he had been approached in the matter by solicitors who had considerable experience in the administration of estates, who had come to him and brought this matter up as a point of great importance, as a point which had given them great trouble in the past, and which would give them, with increased duties, more trouble in the future.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, the Amendment he now proposed was one of considerable importance. It was a very frequent practice now to have two executors, one to deal with the property in this country and the other to deal with the property in foreign countries or the colonies, and the Amendment proposed to enable the executor to deal with the property in this country, and to disassociate himself from any interference with the property on the other side of the world. This was of considerable importance to a great many estates, and he therefore hoped the Government would give it favourable consideration.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the last Amendment, to add the words—
  "Provided that an executor whose appointment is expressly limited to the assets of the deceased in the United Kingdom, or an executor whose application for the grant of probate shall be expressly limited to the assets of the deceased in the United Kingdom, shall not be liable to pay the Estate Duty in respect of property situate elsewhere."— (Sir J. Lubbock.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the Amendment raised very great questions, and applied to all property abroad. The question relating to property situated in the colonies was now under the consideration of the Government, and he hoped that the portion of the Amendment relating to that subject would not be pressed. But as regarded property situated abroad generally the result of the Amendment would be to enable a man by investing his money abroad to avoid payment of the Estate Duty in respect of that part of his property. He had never been able to understand the extreme anxiety of gentlemen to protect foreign

  949
  investments from fair contribution to the State. In the case of a man who left investments of £50,000 here and of the same amount in investments abroad, the effect of the Amendment would be to tax the property here and to allow the foreign property to escape. In the case of the estate of a person having £50,000, who had invested half of it in Consols and the other half in foreign securities, under this Amendment the former would pay duty while the other half would escape altogether. As the right lion. Gentleman had stated, it was the usual practice to appoint an executor abroad of foreign property. Why should not the Exchequer get at it for the purposes of duty? He could not understand this extreme anxiety to protect foreign investments from fair contribution to the State. Whatever difficulty there might be in collection in the case of foreign property it was reasonable and desirable that it should contribute, and the Government could not agree to the Amendment.
  MR. FORWOODsympathised with the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that whatever duties were imposed property, whether abroad or in the United Kingdom, should be subject to the tax.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Personal property.
  MR. FORWOODsaid, he also sympathised with another point raised by the Amendment, and that was as regarded the position in which an executor might be placed. Beyond doubt the duties of executors became more onerous every year, and increasing responsibilities were placed upon them, and if these proposals were carried out great difficulty would be found in getting private persons to undertake such duties. In the United States it had become customary for great Corporations to act as trustees and executors, and that custom would be accelerated in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was no doubt perfectly aware that in the United States powerful Companies were formed whose sole business it was to act as stakeholders of money awaiting decisions of the Courts, or as trustees and executors. Those large Companies were managed by leading men. An attempt was made in this country a few years ago to imitate them, but those Companies went outside the lines of the American
  950
  Companies and got into trouble. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was proposing to make executors liable for the duty on foreign investments, and it was quite possible this state of things might arise: people might begin to consider how far they could place their property beyond the reach of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose of duty. He had made inquiries at one of the leading American Trust Companies in New York who undertook to act as executors, administrators, trustees, guardians, receivers, and in all fiduciary capacities, among their Directors being a man worth £10,000,000 sterling. The question was put to the Company—
  "Will you receive, as custodians, a transfer of his property, register it in your name, pay over to the transferor during his lifetime the dividends arising on the Stock, follow his directions as to its disposition during his life, and on his death distribute it among such persons as he may indicate without the production of a will or probate?"
  The reply was—
  "The style of business which you mention has been and is done by us. We cannot touch real estate, especially in the United Kingdom, as it cannot be transferred to us like personalty. Our way of doing business is to draw the deed which constitutes us custodians or trustees of the property. This document confers the right of transfer, to purchase or sell the securities as may be thought proper; it also secures to the transferor payment of the dividends during his life; and on proof of his death, the transfer of the property to the named beneficiaries without production of a will or proof of probate having been obtained in England."
  It was quite conceivable that an executor to a will in this country might obtain knowledge that property belonging to the testator was lodged in a foreign trust, and that he could not get particulars, for these Trust Companies could not give them. Therefore he would be fixed with notice of that property, the amount of which he might not be able to ascertain; yet by this Bill if he proved the will he would become personally liable for the duty upon that property when its amount should ultimately transpire. These Company custodians of property at a comparatively small cost would on the death of the testator simply send a cheque to A, B, C, or D for the proportion of the property in their hands without any further explanation; and thus the executors in this country would come under an unknown liability without

  951
  being able to obtain any information unless some of the beneficiaries, pricked by conscience for evading the Act, might, by sending "conscience money" to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, raise the whole question, when the parties concerned might be placed in a very awkward position. This would illustrate the way in which people whose property would be heavily taxed upon their death would place it beyond the reach of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the purpose, and prevent him from exacting the duties he would be entitled to under this Bill.
  *MR. RATHBONEhoped the lawyers would be able to prevent such evasions of a just and right claim. Taking his own case, he had had the benefit of the costly Navy, Army, Diplomatic Service, Constabulary, and Government of this country in acquiring his means, and having provided moderately for his children, he could live without labour on the income. It seemed a most extraordinary proposal that he should be relieved, if he invest abroad, from paying the Death Duty on property thus acquired, and that he should actually be penalised for investing it in this country. He would escape by at least one-half by investing in foreign countries. That seemed very unjust, and he could not understand the line of argument which had been adopted throughout the discussion on this Bill, that it was right for people to evade their fair proportion of the taxation of the country. It did not seem just to evade paying one's proper share of taxes to the Exchequer (which to a large extent, it should be remembered, had to call upon a very poor population), in fraud of the Exchequer and taxpayers of the country.
  *SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had considerably widened the discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not understand why people who had property in the colonies should escape taxation. That was not the object of the Amendment. It was not a question of evading taxation, but it was not fair that people should be compelled to pay the tax two or three times over. Supposing a man possessed £100,000 and his property was in several countries, each of which might raise
  952
  10 per cent, upon it; he might have to pay 50 or 60 per cent, upon it. Some International arrangement should be made that the same property should not pay in more than one place. That seemed a natural thing to propose. Another point was that for every £1 levied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreign countries might levy £1,000. To impose this taxation would, therefore, be a very shortsighted policy on our part. The questions referred to were not raised by this Amendment, though he would be quite ready to argue them when they were reached. The point raised in the present Amendment was the extraordinary difficulties which executors would have to face under this proposal. Unless this Amendment were adopted those difficulties would be increased. Surely in cases where a testator possessed property in different parts of the world it was unreasonable to compel an executor to take out probate for property in another country which he could not properly administer. If that were the case no man would be willing to undertake the duties of an executor, not knowing the risks he might run.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member had referred to the point taken by the Solicitor General, and he would only urge, in reply, that there were methods by which it would be possible to evade payment of the duty. Methods of evasion were adopted at present, and he did not think it was the highest development of civil virtue to devise a method by which duty might be evaded. The right hon. Gentleman said that the duty should not be levied twice over in both countries, and that some International arrangement ought to be arrived at whereby the duty would be levied in one country only. But the effect of that arrangement would be to cause the duty to be levied in the country where the property could be laid hold of. Property, for example, in Australia contributed, first of all, 10 per cent, to Colonial taxation when left to a stranger, and it would be an unwise course for the House of Commons to adopt of excluding foreign property from contribution towards the Imperial Exchequer. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow all foreign property to escape taxation, and he trusted that the Committee would not adopt it, as there was no reason whatever why property abroad, left by a

  953
  deceased person, should not contribute to the English Revenue as at present.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, it would do so under his Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, where an executor was appointed he would be liable to contribute in respect of the estate left in his charge. He hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.
  *MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he was unable to see that the result of adopting the Amendment would be such an exemption of foreign property as that spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer was attempting to do was to oblige an English executor to pay out of English assets the Estate Duty on foreign property—in other words, to pay out of English assets, belonging in all probability to one set of beneficiaries, an Estate Duty on foreign property belonging to a different set of beneficiaries. That was far from being a convenient arrangement, and would be an extremely harsh and unjust way of dealing with those beneficiaries. The Amendment applied to cases where the executor would only be able to pay out of English assets. The right hon. Gentleman said that this Amendment would relieve foreign estates which would not pay the duty. That was not the case. Somebody must take out administration of the foreign estate, and the foreign executor would be the person liable to pay the Estate Duty. He did not see why the English executor was to pay, and the English beneficiaries were to lose their money in order to pay the duty on the foreign estates in which they took no share or interest. Any person domiciled in England entitled to an English estate who wanted to claim a foreign estate must do so through some duly accredited representative of the deceased, who would have the administration of the foreign estate, and who would be liable to pay the duty. The whole point of the Amendment was that it was not fair, practically, to make the English legatees and beneficiaries pay Estate Duty on an estate they never got, and which did not belong to them at all, which was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was seeking.
  MR. R. T. REIDwas confident if hon. Gentlemen had really thought out what the meaning of this Amendment was
  954
  they would not press it. The proposal of the Bill was to tax the estate left by the deceased. Take the case given by the Member for Carnarvon, who said he had made his fortune under the British flag, and that half was in England and half abroad. He thought hon. Gentlemen would think it was desirable that an Englishman domiciled here ought not to be able to escape paying his Estate Duty by diverting from this country into foreign investments any portion of his fortune. That was a principle they would all agree to. What was the method of carrying that out. The Member for Liverpool gave an illustration early in the course of this Debate. He said there were Trust Companies existing in New York who were prepared to invest the money and keep it in investments during the lifetime of the Englishman in England, and afterwards distribute it without reference to any probate or testamentary instrument in this country, and would defy the English Estate Duty and foreign probate, and the hon. Member for Liverpool said that was a practical evasion of the duty. How was that going to be met? It could be met only in one way, and that was by saying this estate was one entire estate, and that entire estate had first of all to have taken out of it the portion belonging to the British Government before it was distributed to anybody. And how could that be done? Only by dealing with the executor in this country whom they caused by the Bill, in Clause 5, Sub-section 2, to pay the Estate Duty in respect of all personal property of which the deceased was competent to dispose, at his death, where so ever situated. That was the only method by which they could get it.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: That part of the estate abroad may be worth paying for; that which is here may not be.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, it was obvious that a man was not liable to pay on more than he got. An executor was not liable to pay out of his own goods any debt due to the State, but out of the goods of the testator and to the extent of the goods in his hands he paid such Estate Duty. If he had not got any assets he was not liable to pay. What was proposed to be done by the Amendment was this. It was proposed that the executor in the case where his

  955
  appointment was expressly limited in the United Kingdom was not to pay on the other estate at all. In other words, the Amendment provided the most potent method devisable of evading the duty. But that was exactly what they all desired to avoid. Take, again, the ease of the Member for Liverpool, who spoke of Trust Companies who were ready to take the investments of a British subject and hold them out in New York. This Amendment would make it impossible for anybody to get those assets. If this Amendment were not passed then the executor here would be bound to pay duty on all the personal estate of the deceased to the extent of the means. Inasmuch as none of them could desire to put this vast premium upon foreign as against English investments, or to enable the most facile methods of evasion to be resorted to with the greatest possible ease and simplicity, he could not think that hon. Members would press this Amendment.
  SIR W. MACFARLANEdesired to put a case where evasion could take place, he believed, under the Bill. Suppose a man owned an estate in England of £100,000 and disposed of that estate by will, in England appointing English executors for that purpose; and that he owned an estate in France worth £100,000, which he left by will in France, appointing French executors to deal with it. It might not be officially in the knowledge of the English executor what the French estate was, and how would duty be got upon it, the English executor having no means of knowing its value? He was not speaking in support of the Amendment, but pointing out a difficulty and a possibility of evasion which already existed, and which he should like to know how the Government proposed to deal with.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, it was impossible for them to prevent every evasion. If the executor did not know of the property, then, of course, they could not help it. What they were trying to prevent was mere evasion.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that undoubtedly the Committee would desire to prevent such an abuse as the diversion of English investments abroad, and they would desire if this Estate Duty was to be levied upon property in England that it should also be levied upon property
  956
  abroad—in which he did not include the colonies, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had drawn a distinction, although there was no distinction in the Bill. This difficulty of levying duty on property situated abroad, and where a foreign executor was appointed, existed in the Bill as it stood just as much as it would in the Amendment. He was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was beginning to understand his own Bill. He (Mr. Gibson Bowles) raised this important point on the Resolution on which the Bill was founded, and he asked how were they going to levy the duty on personal property abroad when a foreign executor had been appointed? What was the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? "We can do so if the House gives us the power." The right hon. Gentleman had now found out that he could not levy it even if the House gave him the power, because he had avowed that afternoon that this very difficulty was a real one, and he had now discovered that in the case of property situated abroad with a foreign executor he must give up all hope whatever of securing that duty. This much the right hon. Gentleman had learned in the course of the Bill, and he had much more to learn. This matter of foreign property seemed to have been imported into the Bill in one of the later stages. Not a word of it was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing the Budget, and not a word as to it was to be found in the Resolution upon which the Bill was founded, or in the explanatory Memorandum of the Budget. That was surely a most remarkable feature of a remarkable Bill which for the first time assumed to throw the net of English taxation over all foreign property whatever. He did not know how foreign property had got in, but he thought he could guess. A consistent, coherent scheme of Death Duties having been presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he grafted upon it this entirely new—he would not say absurd, although he thought so—principle of aggregation, and therefore it was that he had to bring in the foreign property, because in the not unusual case of a man who had a small property in this country and a large one abroad, if they merely taxed the small property in this country

  957
  and left the large property abroad untaxed, they had made a very clear and insufficient kind of aggregation. Therefore it was that the foreign property was introduced. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Carnarvon thoroughly realised what this increase of charge on foreign property meant. The hon. Member had told them that half his invested property was abroad, and that might be taken as £500,000. Had the hon. Gentleman realised that under this Bill his widow, who otherwise would not pay one farthing on that property, would now have to pay £35,000 in consequence of this new taxation imposed upon foreign property? He said that, Amendment or no Amendment, they would be in a terrible difficulty—a difficulty which would practically entirely prevent their aggregation of property for the purpose of duty. They would always be in the difficulty he had before pointed out, that when there was foreign property with a foreign executor they would never be able to get a farthing of their Estate Duty. But suppose they gave up the taxation of foreign property. They were immediately in the position the Chancellor of the Exchequer described—that having imposed a new and very heavy tax upon investments in this country if they let off investments in foreign countries they would necessarily drive English investments abroad. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had adumbrated his determination to let off the colonies. He was glad to understand it, but he submitted to the right hon. Gentleman that he would get into another series of difficulties, because he would be forcing English capitalists to invest in the colonies. Of course that was better than investing in France or Russia, but they would be driving English capital out of England into the colonies, and giving up, as regarded colonial property, the whole scheme of their aggregation. He had again and again pointed out that aggregation was nonsense when they brought it into practice. It might be all right as a pious opinion, or enter-tainable as a scheme of taxation in a future life, but it would not do here. The true gospel of taxation was that if they wanted to get taxes they must go where the property was they meant to tax. As they could not go abroad they must give
  958
  up all notions of taxing property abroad. Here where they had property they could tax it, but this scheme of throwing the English net of taxation over the whole of the habitable world was a wild and impracticable one, and nevertheless, unless they carried it out, they were forced to give up—as they must give up sooner or later—this nonsensical principle of aggregation.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had tried to misrepresent the Amendment which was brought forward, not with a view of excluding from taxation property abroad, but with the view of facilitating the administration of property in this country, and to prevent the long delay that must necessarily ensue if an executor of property in this country had to go all over the world looking after such property as was possessed by the hon. Member for Carnarvon. The Amendment was also designed to prevent the executor in this country, who might have a very small property to administer, having the responsibility of administering the property in other countries. The executor in England, though he might have no knowledge of the property abroad or be able to administer it, might have a general knowledge of the property abroad, and it would be therefore impossible for him to go to the Inland Revenue and get a certificate from them that he had done all he could with regard to the estate he had to administer. That was the great difficulty of the Bill, and one which arose, no doubt, owing to the aggregation clauses. In order to get everything into the pot, the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought all this difficulty about; but it appeared to him another result might arise under the clause now. An executor might find in the end that he had no property to administer at all, because if every other country was to follow the lines the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed to take in this Budget, and property was to be heavily taxed in different countries, the whole of it might disappear under the burden of such taxation.
  *MR. LEES KNOWLESsupported the Amendment, on the ground that it was not designed with a view to evading the duty, but to give relief to devisees.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, they were all agreed, in the first place, that it was undesirable to put a premium on English investments abroad, or to do anything that would make people try to evade the Death Duties by means of false declarations or any kind of fraud. But no Treasury had ever asked the subjects of the Crown not to distribute their property or arrange their consumption of taxable goods so as to incur the least possible amount of taxation. That was a liberty of the subject which had always been accorded by the Treasury. If a man, without doing anything dishonourable or wrong, thought he could pay less duty by adopting a particular course of action, he would take that line of action which would save him from additional taxation. The Government, in defence of the clause, had not only dealt in these generalities but had made an appeal to them (the Opposition) to get them out of the difficulty in which the whole scheme of their Bill was involved. He entirely granted that the Government were in a difficulty over this Bill. They had determined to raise a new and very heavy duty upon foreign property. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that duty was already raised upon foreign property in the case of the Legacy Duty, so that they were only doing what had been done before. Do not let the Committee be under any delusion. The Government were doing what had never been done before or been thought of, and which he did not believe they would be able to do now. They were attempting to do an entirely new thing; they were attempting for the first time to collect Probate Duty from foreign property. At this moment they were not collecting Probate Duty from foreign property, therefore under their existing taxation there was that very premium upon investing money abroad of which the Government justly expressed themselves to be afraid, and the reason that premium was safely placed on English property abroad was that the premium was a small one and not sufficient to induce a person to change the whole course of his investments. Now they were changing the whole duty, and for the first time the Death Duty was being made so heavy that it would compel or induce them to do what they would not otherwise have
  960
  done, and that was invest their money abroad. Therefore, let the Committee understand they were doing something quite new in, for the first time, levying Probate Duty upon English property situated abroad, and the reason the Government were driven to adopt that novel course was that they had made their duty so heavy that unless they tried to raise it upon English property invested abroad there would be so great an inducement to Englishmen to invest it abroad that Englishmen with money invested at home would suffer. That was one of the consequences of the Government proposals. The second novelty proposed by the Government followed as a direct logical consequence of the first novelty. The first novelty being the imposition of this very heavy duty upon property abroad, the second was the peculiar machinery by which that duty was to be collected. There was no machinery by which the Government could collect it, and they took hold of the unfortunate executor, and imposed upon him a duty which they knew he could not perform, and which they had not pretended that he could. Was not that an absurd and ridiculous position for them to have placed themselves in? Because they could not collect this money abroad, they went to a private individual, who gratuitously took upon his shoulders the very ungrateful task of acting as executor, and threw upon his shoulders the additional duty of finding out what a man's property was abroad. They did not give him one single bit of assistance, but left him at large to make what discoveries he could, to indulge in what conjectures he pleased, and they relied upon him alone to bring into the coffers of the Government the money they desired to levy upon this foreign property. He could not conceive how anybody under these circumstances would ever undertake the duty of executor. They were making a position which was not a pleasant one at any time, one of enormous responsibility, and one which would become perfectly intolerable. Possibly this novelty might be a necessary part of the Government plan, but if so that plan stood convicted of being in itself impracticable, of being so essentially intertwined with difficulties of detail that no ingenuity that either the Government or

  961
  the Opposition could bring to the consideration of this Bill would relieve it of all these collateral absurdities. He did not argue now whether it be just or unjust to levy this tax upon the
  corpus of a deceased person's property, or levy it rather upon the property that came to the legatees. But he said that just as successive financiers had, in attempting to establish a graduated Income Tax, found practical difficulties which were insuperable, so when they were now brought face to face with the practical details of this Bill they found in almost every sentence of every clause practical difficulties which did not touch the equities of the case, but which, nevertheless, would have to be surmounted when they tried to work their Bill, and which, by themselves, apart from broad considerations, to which they had drawn attention before and should do again on other stages of the Bill, were sufficient to wreck the measure.
  MR. H H. FOWLERsaid, that the difficulties of which so much had been made would not arise in the actual working of the Bill. English people who held property abroad were far more numerous than the natives of any other country who held property outside that country. The scheme of the Government was that the estate of all subjects of the Queen dying in this country should, on their death, pay a tax to the State. It made no difference to the value, the distribution, or the taxation of the property that it was invested partly in England and partly in foreign countries. An ordinary will did not make any distinction between English and foreign investments. It seemed to be assumed that property abroad was left to people abroad, but seven-twelfths of the property passed from parents to children, both being domiciled in this country. If they accepted the principle laid down by the Leader of the Opposition that it was right and fair that the property of subjects of the Queen should pay its fair share towards taxation, there was no ground for the Amendment. There might be practical difficulties in the way of taxing property abroad. The Solicitor General had not denied that, but there were also difficulties in getting hold of English property. Let them not put a premium on
  962
  the evasion of the Estate Duty, for that was what the Amendment would do. Do not let it be proclaimed that the Estate Duty might be evaded by investing money abroad, and that the way to escape it was to invest in the French funds instead of the English funds. In the great bulk of cases, foreign property was administered by the same executors as English property, and it was divided amongst the same class of legatees; and there was no more difficulty in finding out the value of that property and paying duty upon it than there was in arriving at the value of English investments.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that he should protest against the wrong interpretation placed on his Amendment by the Secretary for India. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Amendment declared that if money were invested in colonial funds it would not have to pay duty, while it would have to pay duty if invested in English funds. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know that investments in colonial funds must pay the colonial Death Duties. The object of the Amendment was simply to facilitate the administration of estates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not understand why anyone should wish property abroad or in the colonies to escape taxation. Of course, it would be pleasant to raise taxes in the colonies and in foreign countries, provided they did not retaliate. Already, however, the colonies were up in arms. Moreover, if other countries followed the example of this Bill, those who had investments in several countries might have to pay over and over again. In fact, their whole property might be absorbed by taxation. He merely indicated these objections, but did not think it would be convenient to discuss this important question at the present moment. It was really not raised by this Amendment, which he hardly thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have considered. Unless the Amendment were accepted, the delay and difficulty of winding up estates, which were partly in this country and partly out of it, would be very great.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 154.—(Division List, No. 91.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 24, after Sub-section (2), to insert—
  "(3) Where the executor does not know the amount or value of any property which has passed on the death, he may state in the Inland Revenue affidavit that such property exists but he does not know the amount or value thereof, and that he undertakes as soon as the amount and value are ascertained to bring in an account thereof, and to pay both the duty thereon and any further duty payable by reason thereof on the other property mentioned in the affidavit."—(Mr. H. T. Reid.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, it appeared to him that this Amendment would place responsibility on the executor in regard to property that did not vest in him. The fact that there was some other property with regard to which the executor had not full knowledge was not to delay the administration of the estate; but the executor was to give an undertaking that as soon as the value of that other property was brought in he would furnish a return of it and pay the duty. He thought words should be introduced into the Amendment making it clear that the obligation to pay would be only in respect to property vested in the executor, and that the executor should not be held liable for an unascertained amount of property altogether outside his control.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he would like to know how the executor was to deal with property which was within his knowledge, and on which he proposed to pay duty with the prospect of other property, not within his knowledge, coming in afterwards; for the property of which the executor was not fully informed, but came in afterwards, would, of course, under the graduation scheme of the Government increase the duty on the property in respect to which he was fully informed. Was the administration of the estate to be postponed until the executor became fully informed of the property about which he had insufficient knowledge, and if he parted with the property of which he had knowledge, how was he to recoup himself for the additional duty consequent on the property which might come in subsequently? He thought there should be some provision in the Bill
  964
  which would enable the executor in such a case to complete the administration of the property with regard to which he had knowledge, so that such property should not be held in suspense until some uncertain time in the future when the executor would obtain knowledge of the other property. Possibly the Revenue would lose a little under such an arrangement; but the Revenue ought to run some risk in the circumstances.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, one thing was quite clear, and that was that the Bill would abolish the executor in the future, and absolutely extinguish every executor now in existence. If the Amendment were carried it would place the executor in a strange position. It provided that when an executor did not know the full amount of the property he had to administer he was to undertake, when he got to know of it, to furnish a full account of it, but meantime that he was to pay duty upon it. Why should the executor undertake to pay duty on property about which he knew nothing? The clause added to the horrors of trusteeship, which were sufficiently great already, and it was perfectly certain that if the Bill passed it would be absolutely impossible for a man to get an executor to his will. It should be remembered that the chain of responsibility was complete from executor to executor, and, therefore, if through some cause or another an estate was not fully accounted for in the lifetime of the executor, the executor of the executor would be liable-for the arrears of Estate Duty, and so on ad infinitum.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was in the unfortunate position that when he attempted to provide machinery to lessen the miseries of the executor he was treated to a repetition of the grievances of the-executor by hon. Members of the Opposition. In answer to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, he had to say that the executor of the deceased was expected to pay Estate Duty in respect of all personal property which the deceased was competent to dispose of at his death—that was to say, more than would be recoverable under probate at present, and the Amendment enabled the executor to lay hold of property situated abroad, without

  965
  which he could not get it at all. But the Government could not accept any words that would appear to limit the responsibility of the executor in any property vested in him in trust, which was, indeed, a point that the Committee had already decided. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, if the hon. Gentleman would look at Clause 10 he would find a provision which would, on the one hand, secure that the Exchequer got what was due to it; and, on the other hand, prevent any vexatious tying up of property in the hands of the executor. When they got to that clause, if there was any difficulty found in the way, the Government would endeavour to set it right. In reply to the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, he had to say that an executor was liable only for the amount of property entrusted to him.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid, he would like to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the clause was intended to put an additional liability on the executor or not; or, in other words, was the executor by the clause to undertake to pay duty that he was not otherwise liable to pay?
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the executor was liable to pay duty on all personal property of which the deceased was competent to dispose.
  MR. BUTCHERasked if the sub-clause was intended to impose an additional liability? The effect of the clause was to impose a duty which the executor was not otherwise liable to pay. He would not know the details of all the property, and would have to pay duty on everything which was settled, though it had never come to him at all, and he was not accountable for it—for all property passing on the death of deceased on which duty was payable. To avoid such result, he proposed to omit "thereon," in line 5, in order to insert "for which he is liable."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the word "thereon," and insert the words "for which he is liable."—(Mr. Butcher.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'thereon' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. DODDsaid, the executor had to pay the duty, which was enough. If it were found between this and the Report that the words as they stood were not sufficient the Amendment suggested could be accepted.
  *SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the words as they stood were doubtful, as they would include any amount of the property ascertained. The obligation of the executor was clearly pointed to. Take the case of an executor not knowing the value of the realty—for the duty on which he was liable—which would come in to increase the total amount, when it became known to him, on which total amount, consequently, he was unable to pay the duty he was required to pay. The Amendment would relieve the executor under such circumstances.
  MR. DODDasked whether the insertion of the words "payable by him" after the word "duty" made the thing dear?
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he thought it might be well to adopt the words "for which he is, or may be, liable."
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'for which he is, or may be, liable' be there inserted, put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he desired to move an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lynn Regis, to leave out "six months" and insert "twelve months" in that part of the section which provided that the accounts should be presented within six months of the death of the person from whom the estate passed. He said that the words "six months" were printed in italics, which implied that they were not the actual words intended, but were put forward as a suggestion. He was glad that at last a point had been reached at which the Government might listen to Amendments. It could not be said—seeing that the words in italic were to be considered as a blank—that in moving words to be there inserted hon. Members were reflecting on the draftsmen of the Bill, whom they knew from the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  967
  were immaculate and infallible. In Clause 7, Sub-section 3, they found the definition of the people who were to be accountable. The sub-section said—
  "Every person to whom any property passes on the death of the deceased for any interest in possession, and also, to the extent of the property actually received or disposed of by him, every executor of the deceased, trustee, guardian, committee, or other person in whom any interest in the property so passing or the management thereof is at any time vested, and every person in whom the same is vested in possession by alienation or other derivative tithe shall be accountable for the Estate Duty on the property, and shall, within the time required by this Act or such later time as the Commissioners allow, deliver to the Commissioners and verify an account of the property."
  These were the persons who had to bring in the account within six months, and, as a matter of practice, Somerset House utterly declined to give any notice to the persons accountable for the duty. There would be no inducement for people to become accountable under the Act; indeed, people would avoid it, and before it could be settled who had to bring in the accounts the Law Courts would have to determine who were the persons referred to in Sub-section 3 of Clause 7. The sub-section they were now engaged in was not consistent with that sub-section. They were enacting that the account would be brought in within six months, but Sub-section 3 said
  "within the time required by this Act or Bach later time as the Commissioners allow,"
  so that as the Government went on with the Bill they began to realise that six months was too short a period. People had an awkward habit of dying at a time inconvenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the trustees and the beneficiaries. If the trustees happened to be abroad at the time of the death of deceased they would have to get home and understand the Act and bring in the account in six months. They had provided that the executor had to pay duty on all personal property of which the deceased was competent to dispose at the time of his death. Here was another opening for the consumption of time—all out of the six months. Supposing the account was not brought in within six months. Sub-section 5 of Clause 7 said—
  968
  "A person who fails to comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall be liable to pay one hundred pounds, or if Estate Duty is payable, a sum equal to treble the amount of the Estate Duty for which he is accountable, according as the Commissioners elect."
  Under this enormous penalty people had to bring in their accounts within six months. He had another objection to this period of six months being in the clause instead of 12 months. Twelve months was the period allowed by the present practice in the case of Succession Duty. Clause 15 mentioned the period of 12 months after the date on which the succession occurred as being the period during which, in accordance with present practice, Succession Duty was to-be accounted for. That was perfectly plain from Clause 7. They might take it, then, that 12 months were given as the period for accounting at present for the duty, at any rate on real property. Why should they cut down that year of grace in a Bill which placed so many fresh obligations on executors? It would be very difficult in so short a time as six months to find out who was accountable for the duty; and tremendous penalties were imposed for non-performance of the obligation to present the accounts.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 27, to leave out the words "six months," and insert the words "twelve months."—(Mr. Grant. Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'six months'stand part of the Clause."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. He was told by those who knew the administrative arrangements of Somerset House that the period of six months was ample, and that to extend it to 12 months would simply mean the encouragement of dilatory habits. He believed that six months were quite enough time in which to accomplish anything.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he often wished he possessed the energy and vigour of his hon, and learned Friend the Solicitor General, for then he would be able to do things more quickly. He could assure his hon. and learned Friend that the Amendment had not been moved with the object of encouraging dilatory habits on the part of the executor.

  969
  Having had some experience in the winding up of estates, he said there was always great difficulty in carrying out the work in six months, and in some instances it was quite impossible. The executor would have to institute inquiries about the estate, not only at home but abroad, and in the case of the colonies those inquiries would take at least two months. It was a very serious thing that an executor should be held liable to a penalty of £200 if he did not perform within six months the very onerous and complicated duties which would be imposed on him by this Bill.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that speaking with some practical knowledge of the question, he should urge the extension of time to 12 mouths, because there were many circumstances which frequently prevented the executor from proving the will for some considerable time; and in dealing with some complicated estates especially, it would be utterly impossible for him to furnish the return within six months. If the clause were passed unamended what would happen was that an incomplete return would be sent in within the six months, and that return would have to be amended subsequently at an additional expense to the estate. That was a practice that ought not to be encouraged.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, there was no doubt that a great many of the smaller accounts could be dealt with in six months; but the error of the clause was that it provided that all estates, large and small, must be dealt with in that period. In the case of a large estate it took a month before the papers were got properly together; and if the executor had to communicate with the colonies or with foreign countries in respect to portions of the estate situated abroad, it would mean at least two months more before an answer could be obtained. It was absurd to suppose that an executor would do all that by telegraph. It could not be done by telegraph, and if it could it would be too expensive. Then, again, when an answer was obtained from abroad, it might require a further communication to clear up. The result would be that a sort of half-and-half account, not pretended to be correct, would be sent in at the end of the six months merely to satisfy the provisions
  970
  of the Act and prevent persons being charged with those heavy penalties. There could be no doubt whatever that in the case of a complicated estate 12 months would elapse before a proper and correct account could be rendered. Of course, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue said it was possible to do it within six months. But all that those gentlemen were interested in was to get in the money, and they knew nothing of and cared nothing about the difficulties in the way. All they wanted was to grab as much as they could and to get it as soon as they could. But anyone with any experience in the matter knew perfectly well that it was absolutely impossible to treat the large estates within a period of six months.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the question was whether the Government were to accept the judgment of the authorities of the great public Departments, who assured them that six months were ample for the purpose, or the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite who entertained strong views with regard to those duties. It was obvious that the Government must under the circumstances accept the views of the public Departments. But he had a proposition to make which he hoped would satisfy hon. Gentlemen opposite. That was that instead of assenting to the period of 12 months, they should allow the term of six months to stand, and add "or such further time as the Commissioners may allow."
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he would advise his hon. Friend to be satisfied with the words suggested by the Solicitor General; but, at the same time, they were justified in relying on their own judgment, and in submitting it to the House, rather than on the judgment of the public authorities. He had had many years of close contact with the authorities of Somerset House, and he had every respect for the ability of those gentlemen, but he believed they themselves would be the first to admit that the first consideration with them was to get the money in, and that they did not regard or consider the trouble imposed on the persons who would have to perform the duty.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the words suggested by the Solicitor General were already in the Bill in Clause 7,

  971
  Sub-section 3; and as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue already considered that six months were ample time, that would be the period they would think sufficient, and they would not allow any further time. However, he would be sorry to act contrary to the advice of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, and he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in line 28, after the word "duty," to insert the words "or within such further time as the Commissioners may allow."—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR R. WEBSTERmoved, in page 3, line 29, to leave out the words "every estate," and insert the words—
  "Property liable to Estate Duty of which the deceased was, at the time of his death, competent to dispose."
  The Committee would observe that Subsection 4 of the clause began with the words—
  "Every estate shall include all income received or accrued from or upon the property included therein between the death of the deceased and the date of the delivery of the Inland Revenue affidavit or account."
  He submitted that, having regard to the intention of the Government as expressed in the Bill, many difficulties would arise if those words were retained. The words "every estate" would include settled property, and that surely was not the intention of the Government. The intention of the Government—as the clause suggested—was to bring in the income arising or accruing from the property between the death of the deceased and the date of the delivery of the account, and that could only apply to unsettled property.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 29, to leave out the words "every estate," in order to insert the words—
  "Property liable to Estate Duty of which the deceased was, at the time of his death, competent to dispose."—(Sir It. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'every estate' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was not quite sure that he really comprehended the proposition; but if he did really comprehend it, it was this—that the income from the property between the death of the deceased and the delivery of the account should only be exacted in cases of property of which the deceased was, at the time of his death, competent to dispose—
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Or property liable to Estate Duty.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that property which the deceased was not competent to dispose of was liable to Estate Duty. The deceased's death was the epoch at which the duty would be payable. Bringing in the income instead of charging interest was only a convenient way of doing the same thing. If the hon. and learned Member opposite would prefer that interest should be payable instead of the income, he (Mr. R. T. Reid) would inquire from those who were skilled in the administration of the Department whether such a proposal could be carried out, and, if it could be, he would, of course, endeavour to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid, he wished to draw attention to the position of the yeoman farmer under this clause. He would have great difficulty in getting his estate wound up, and he would be unable to get a bank to advance him money to pay the Death Duties and at the same time to lend him enough to carry on his business. The other day he (Sir A. Acland-Hood) asked a gentleman connected with a bank how much he would advance to a yeoman under such circumstances, and the banker replied, in comic but not quite Parliamentary language, "Not a bob." The yeoman who inherited a farm would therefore be left between heaven and earth, unable to move hand or foot.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that this is relevant to the Amendment.
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOODsaid, he had hoped that at all events the Government would consider the question with reference to the stock sold by the yeoman farmer before the affidavit was handed in, as the price received would go to swell the estate.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he could not find any definition of the word "estate," which did not occur anywhere else in the clause.
  MR. R. T. REIDreferred the lion. Member to Clause 3, page 2, line 33.
  SIR R. WEBSTERremarked that the reference did not apply. The point which hon. Members were striving to bring out was that the deceased had no right to the income after the date of the death.
  * MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, strictly speaking, the deceased was not entitled to any of the income of property passing within the meaning of the clause. He was not at all sure that the first sentence of the sub-section was really necessary, as the custom was either to charge interest or to ask for an account of the receipts between the date of the death and that of the rendering of the account; and that custom was to be continued under Clause 7. Was it intended to carry the custom further than it was carried at present?
  MR. R. T. REID: I am not aware that it is. Of course, I cannot carry in my mind all the practice, but I am not aware that it is intended to do so.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONobserved that, under those circumstances, he did not see why it was necessary to insert the provision in this portion of the Bill. Probably the Solicitor General would consider the point before the Report stage.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he was in considerable doubt as to what the true meaning of the Solicitor General's Amendment was. By giving a concrete case he would be able to explain his difficulty. He would suppose that there was an estate of which part consisted of personalty, amounting, with interest, to £1,100 and part consisted of a separate property worth £95,000andproducing£ 4,000ayear. The executor passed his accounts of the personal estate within six months of the death of the deceased, but the duty on the realty was not paid for 18 months. In that case the amount on which duty would be payable would be £1,100, plus £95,000, plus £6,000 for 18 months' income of the real estate, or a total of £102,100. The Estate Duty would therefore be 6 per cent. Suppose, however, that the real estate account were passed
  974
  within six months, the amount on which duty would be payable would be £1,100, plus £95,000, plus £2,000, or a total of £98,100, and the Estate Duty would be only 5½ per cent. What he wanted to know was why the £1,100 was to bear a heavier Estate Duty if the duty on real estate was not paid for 18 months? That, as far as he could see, was the obvious and clear result of the Government proposal, but he did not think it was a result that was really intended.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that when hon. Gentlemen suddenly came forward with masses of figures and with combinations or various contingencies on one of the most difficult and complicated Bills that had been before Parliament for a long time, he could hardly be expected, although he had every desire to satisfy their legitimate curiosity, to reply to them on every detail. The Amendment now before the Committee had really nothing to do with the increase of duty by right of aggregation.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he had taken a concrete instance which, he thought, was a simple and clear illustration of the way in which the clause would work, and he thought he had been clearly understood by those around him. He would put the same proposition in a very simple way—
  MR. DODDasked if the hon. Member was in Order in putting all these various illustrations?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and learned Member was perfectly in Order.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he was not putting this point for the sake of asking conundrums. He believed that the result of leaving the clause unamended would be that one portion of the estate would have to pay a higher rate of duty in many instances in the event of the payment of the Estate Duty on the other part being postponed. He should be glad if the Solicitor General would answer that question, as if it were not so he would at once admit that his contention was groundless.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he would like to put the case of a man who, in order to meet this new duty, insured his life for the amount—which, in the case they were considering, would exceed £6,000—and wished to

  975
  know whether that sum would be treated as property that passed to the estate
  "between the death of the deceased and the date of payment of the duty,"
  and would be taken into consideration in fixing under the graduated scale the tax that would be payable. It was not right that an estate should be taxed on a higher scale because the deceased had been prudent enough to insure against the heavy loss, which would otherwise fall on those who followed after him.
  MR. COHENsaid, he would press the Solicitor General for a reply to the concrete case which had been put so succinctly and forcibly by his lion, and learned Friend (Mr. Byrne). No doubt, had the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General foreseen many of the difficulties that had been pointed out as likely to arise under the Bill during the Debate they would have taken care to provide against them. When instances were pointed out where injustice would be done the Committee were entitled to an assurance that those evils would be rectified. Under those circumstances, he did not think it was too much to expect that when an Amendment was rejected the grounds for that rejection should be clearly stated by some Member of the Government.
  MR. HENEAGE: Can I have an answer to my question?
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that in the case put forward he believed that no Estate Duty would be payable on the money received from the insurance offices.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he should like to know why that class of property was excepted from the payment of duty? What was the difference between a life insurance to pay Government duty and an insurance to provide money for any other object?
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the question was outside the point referred to. He had answered out of courtesy. Because he answered one question he was immediately asked to explain another legal problem.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, it was not a legal point at all; it was purely one of finance. [Cries of "Divide!"] He undertook to say that not one gentleman who cried "Divide !" knew anything about the subject. The hon. and learned
  976
  Gentleman had not answered the question as to whether the personalty in the case put forward would have to pay a higher rate of duty in the event of the payment on the realty being postponed for a year and a-half.
  [No reply was given.]
  MR. BARTLEY: Will you answer? I suppose you cannot do it.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, it was most unfair for the hon. Member to say that. He had risen at least ten times to answer questions put him on that Amendment alone. The answer he would make to the hon. Member was that the question he put forward was entirely beside the mark. In computing the aggregate value of an estate no property would be included that accrued to the estate after the death of the deceased.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 80.—(Division List, No. 92.)
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the next Amendment he proposed to move was to leave out those words on which they had already had some discussion—namely, the words from the word "therein," in line 30, and up to the word "and" in line 32—that was to say, the words—
  "Between the death of the deceased and the date of the delivery of the Inland Revenue affidavit or account."
  and to insert these words, "until the date of the death of the deceased." This Amendment would raise the point whether the aggregate estate should include any part of the income from the estate after the death of the deceased, and if agreed to would prevent many of the difficulties and complications that would otherwise arise. Everything up to the time of the death of the deceased should be included; and surely that ought to be the limit. The Amendment would do away with the extreme hardship that would otherwise fall upon small traders—namely, hampering them by taking away the money that was coming in in order to add to the corpus of the estate. He did not profess to be a lawyer; but this was not a legal question in any sense; it was a matter of common honesty. For himself, he could not see any equity or fairness in the proposal of the Government,

  977
  and, what was more, he could not see any facility in it for working. He would emphasise the point of his hon. and learned Friend, that if this clause passed as it stood it was certain that the absolute income derived from the estate after the death of the man might raise the estate above these limits and margins where the Estate Duty rose, so that a higher duty might have to be paid than the property ought to have borne at the date of the death. To him that appeared to be absolutely unjust. If a man died on a certain day his property was worth a certain amount, and if they charged interest upon it after the death until the duty was paid it would be a near thing to do, but it would be something definite, and everyone would know what it was for, and it would come to infinitely less than the proposal of the Government. But whether it was more or less it would be a fair, though a near, thing to do. He thought it would be more simple and fair if, after death, interest were charged on the amount rather than to adopt the system proposed by the clause. His Amendment would provide that up to the death of the deceased the estate should be reckoned with, but not beyond that. He therefore begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 30, to leave out from the word "therein," to the word "and," in line 32, and insert the words "until the date of the death of the deceased."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid that, inasmuch as this was a matter of substance and not a merely technical point, he trusted he might be permitted to put before the Members of the Committee who were now present, but who did not hear the last discussion, exactly what they were debating about. The learned Solicitor General proposed, for purposes of calculating the Estate Duty, income should be included up to the passing of the account, be it six months or be it longer, on both settled and unsettled property. The consequence of that would be that the result of the aggregation of the income during the period after death
  978
  might take the total estate to a different class and cause a much larger duty to be paid. He understood the learned Solicitor General, in reply to the last Amendment, expressed the opinion that that was not so, but he was at a total loss to understand under what words in the Bill any such conclusion could be come to. The object of the last Amendment, to leave out the word "estate," and insert the words "property of which the deceased is competent to dispose," was to limit it to what the deceased had at the time of his death. The hon. and learned Gentleman declined to accept that Amendment, however, and they thought the result was that income to which the deceased was not entitled was to be brought in for the purpose of swelling the total amount, and one of the consequences of that would be to take into the account a sum that would render a larger duty payable. The other point was still stronger, and he asserted again, with very great respect, with regard to settled property the dead man's estate had no right to the income at all. It had been a rule that, with regard to free personalty which would be dealt with under the executor's account, income up to the date of passing the accounts was paid in, and it might be said when fixing or levying the Estate Duty they were to adopt that old principle; but with regard to income it stopped at the death of the deceased; the income then belonged to those in possession, and by what law or equity were they to suggest that they were to take some hundreds a year and add it to the dead man's estate? He submitted his hon. Friend had raised this question at the proper time, and that the Government might well consider what the position was, and both in equity and justice draw the dividing line at death. He submitted they wanted to do this the more, because they were bringing in fresh Estate Duties. The artificial rule with regard to free personalty, of including everything up to the passage of the accounts, would work a monstrous injustice if applied to settled property. If the Amendment were not accepted the executor would never know, until the accounts were passed, what was the total amount on which duty was payable.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that in point of fact he adhered to the opinions he had

  979
  already expressed, and he could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The fact was, that this Amendment would confine the estate, so far as income was concerned, entirely to the income preceding the death. These words would be quite unnecessary, because that might be done by the operation of the general law. But the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) proceeded further. It was quite true that there were characteristics of this new Estate Duty which differed from some of the characteristics of the Probate Duty. One of these was that the new duty was to extend to realty or settled personalty. But the rule as to the Probate Duty was that interest was taken from the death till the date of the payment of the duty which was deemed to be due on the death. The question was whether the old practice of charging interest, or the equivalent of interest, from the date of the death was to prevail in regard to the new duty or not. The Government maintained that it should, their contention being that up to six months after the death the income arising from the property was to be brought into account, and after that that interest was to be payable. If, however, hon. Gentlemen opposite desired that instead of income interest should be brought in, the Government would do their best to consult the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on that subject. The principle was, however, the same. The proposal of the Government excited the indignation of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight. It was said that it might have an injurious operation by reason of the aggregation introduced into this tax. That was, however, a point upon which he had the misfortune to differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite. But, as he did not want to leave the matter in doubt, he would accept an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) that—
  "Such income shall not be included in calculating the aggregate of the estate for the purpose of determining the rate of duty."
  He was prepared to accept that, and under those circumstances it seemed to him they had really tried to meet hon. Gentlemen on this question.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that having got rid of the one only obvious
  980
  injustice, it might be followed by another concession. He understood that, whatever might be said about the interest accruing upon the estate between the date of the death of the deceased and the time of passing the accounts, at all events the accruing interest would not be added to the capital sum of the property so as to bring it under a new scale of graduation. So far so good. The question, though one of substance, was one of less importance than the one upon which the Solicitor General had made a concession. The whole plan of the Government appeared to be that they might tax a man while he was alive, and in addition when he was dead he was to be scotched. The fact that when a man died he ceased to have any concern with material mundane wealth might be admitted even by the Government as covering their dealings with the Death Duties. He had always thought the theory of taxing the dead was an absurd theory, but this was an appendix to the theory; that the dead might invest their money in excellent securities, and get large interest for it, seemed to him to be even more grotesque. If any gentleman, being dead, had the misfortune to have an executor who was very slow in making up his accounts, the estate would be more heavily taxed than the estate of a dead man whose executor made up his accounts very rapidly. He did not quarrel with the principle that interest should be paid upon the duty as from the death; but then the Government should carry that out consistently. If the Government wished to carry out the principle, they should embody it in their Bill and let the interest accrue from the date of the death. They should not cut the theory into two halves, during the first of which the Government were to be entitled to dividends, and during the second only to get interest.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, there was no mystery as to the rule for ascertaining the amount of the estate upon which Probate Duty was payable. It was the personal estate of the testator; and the executor's strict duty was to turn the estate into money as soon as possible, and to distribute the residue of the proceeds of the sale after payment of debts. In law there was no distinction between income and capital for this pur-

  981
  pose. The estate, therefore, upon which duty was payable was the value of the testator's property, after deducting debts at the time he obtained possession of the estate, or, in other words, when he obtained a grant of probate. There was therefore no analogy which applied in the case of the present Estate Duty.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid, on the question of principle these words were in flagrant contradiction with the intention expressed by the Government from the very commencement of the Debate, to deal with this Estate Duty as a posthumous charge on the estate of the deceased person. The Government had relieved the Opposition from one of the results they were fearing by giving up much of, if not all, the advantage of retaining the words of the Bill as they stood. The principle embodied in the words which the hon. Gentleman moved to omit was in direct contradiction to one of the principles on which the Government had harped as a recommendation of this Bill. From the first they had said that the Estate Duty was a posthumous duty; but the Solicitor General now compared the income accruing after death to the interest payable upon a debt due under the rule in probate. The objections were—first, that the income was not at all the same thing as the interest upon a debt; and, secondly, the Government had over and over again repudiated any supposed analogy between this duty and Probate Duty. They quoted the analogy when it told in their favour, and repudiated it when it was against them. If they adhered to the theory that this new duty was only an improved graduated Income Tax, if they stuck to the plan of taxing the estate according to this drastic method of taxation, they were bound to accept the Amendment.
  SIR F. S. POWELLsaid, it would be necessary to know what was meant by income, whether it was gross or net income, whether reductions were to be made for repairs that were going on, and whether, if the interest due on a mortgage turned out to be a bad debt, duty would have to be paid upon it? That was a point of considerable importance. It was often difficult to say what sum was necessary to be expended on repairs,
  982
  and in that case an open account must be kept and difficulty would arise.
  *SIR SEYMOUR KINGsaid, the Government wanted, in charging interest on the Estate Duty, to profit by their own ill-doing, and they ought to give the right to take out a provisional certificate for the payment of duty where large estates scattered all over the globe were to be aggregated, just as probate could now be taken out in 10 days on the payment of a provisional sum, which could be afterwards increased or reduced as might be found necessary.
  MR. BUTCHERdesired to raise the question whether this part of the duty was really covered by the Budget Resolutions at all. Could it be said that this income or interest was property which in any conceivable way passed on the death of the deceased? Were not the Government exceeding the Budget Resolutions in proposing this tax, a tax which, he submitted, was in accordance neither with reason nor justice? The Government were acting in this matter upon an unsound and illogical basis.
  MR. R. T. REID,in answer to the question whether "income received or accrued" meant gross or net income, said that unquestionably net income was meant, and if necessary that would be put right. Of course, interest which had not been received, as upon a mortgage, would not be included, simply because it had not been received. The point of Order which had been raised by the hon. Member for York with regard to the Budget Resolutions was a question for the Chair.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that, having considered the point of Order, he was bound to say that he thought the subsection went beyond the terms of the Budget Resolution.
  MR. R. T. REIDproposed that instead of "income" the clause should read that "interest" received or accrued, &c, should be payable. That seemed a reasonable thing.
  MR. WYNDHAMasked whether the hon. Member for Islington would accept, at the end of his Amendment, as an addition, the words—
  "and interest at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum on the total value of the Estate Duty so ascertained."
  MR.R. T. REIDsuggested that in view of the Chairman's decision on the point of Order, and as this was a highly technical matter, the whole question should be reserved to be dealt with on Report.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that would hardly be in Order. In order to be within the Rules of the Committee the sub-section must be adjusted in some rough-and-ready fashion now, and, if necessary, it could be amended on Report.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the best and shortest way would be to accept the words proposed by the hon. Member for Dover, and, if necessary, they could be amended at a further stage.
  MR. BARTLEYurged that his Amendment should come in first.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words inserted.
  SIR R. WEBSTERproposed to insert in Sub-section 4 the words, from another portion of the Bill—
  "Up to the date of the delivery of the Inland Revenue affidavit or account, or the expiration of six months from the death of the deceased, whichever first happens."
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 3, line 32, after the first "account," insert—
  "But such interest shall not be included in calculating the aggregate of the estate for the purpose of determining the rate of duty."
  MR. GRANT LAWSON(in the temporary absence of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis) moved the following Amendment:—Page 3, line 32, after "and the," insert "estate." The object, he explained, was to make it clear that the duty referred to was the Estate Duty.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 32, after the words "and the," to insert the word "estate."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'estate' be there inserted."
  MR. REIDthought it would be undesirable to press the Amendment, as they should then have to go on repeating the words "Estate Duty" instead of "duty" merely all through the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  On Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 3, line 32, leave out "when collected."
  On Motion of Mr. R. T. REID, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 3, line 33, after "account," insert "or the expiration of six months from the death, whichever first happens."
  Page 3, line 34, before "real," insert "an account of."
  Line 34, leave out "at the option of the person paying the duty."
  MR. R. T. REIDmoved, in page 3, line 35, after "or," insert—
  "The expiration of six months from the death whichever first happens, or, at the option of the person paying duty."
  The Amendment was amended so as to read at the option of the person "accountable for," instead of at the option of the person "paying," the duty.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  SIR R. TEMPLE SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston) (on behalf of Mr. HANBURY) moved the following Amendment:—Page 3, lines 35 and 36, leave out "with interest at the rate of three per centum per annum." He said the sentence to which the Amendment referred was as follows:—
  "Except that the duty on real property may, at the option of the person paying the duty, be paid either on the delivery of the account, or, with interest at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum, by eight equal yearly instalments."
  Considering that this tax was levied in a lump sum, and that when it reached a large sum it might become very burdensome on the payer, they were very thankful it should be spread over a term of eight years by instalments. The effect of that mercy, however, was somewhat impaired by the condition as to interest which had to be paid on the unpaid portion of the duty. He believed there was no precedent whatever for the levying of interest upon instalments of taxes. If there was a precedent at all, it ran in a direction opposite to this. There was, he believed, a precedent for a discount deducted upon a tax being paid down on the spot, but no precedent whatever for this levying of interest. This arrange

  985
  ment would fall with peculiar severity when the tax was levied upon real property. In the case of personal property it was possible for the executor to raise the amount speedily by the sale of Stock or other means, but in the case of real property it became necessarily difficult. Therefore, the levying in a lump sum of taxes of this nature on one man was a very difficult matter, and, if the amount were large, would fall upon a poor man with oppressive severity. In these circumstances, while they admitted that the Government were quite right to spread the amount over a term of years by instalment, they submitted that the Government were wrong, very harsh, and very hard in proposing to levy interest upon the unpaid duty, and the words relating to interest at 3 per cent, per annum ought to be struck out.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words—
  "With interest at the rate of 3 per cent, per annum."—(Sir R. Temple.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'with interest' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the hon. Baronet could hardly expect that this Amendment could be accepted, because it had been a part of the proposal of the Budget from its very introduction by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this charge should be made, and he ventured to submit that no reason had been adduced since that date which should induce them to alter the arrangement. Real property was treated in this Bill with exceptional indulgence as compared with personalty. ["Oh, oh!"] He was sorry if lion. Gentlemen did not agree with him, but let him point out what was the proposal of the Bill. In the case of personalty this duty had to be paid down within six months or thereabouts, but in the case of realty they could either pay them or, if they thought fit, they could take eight yearly equal instalments in which to pay it. He could not imagine that anyone could deny that in that respect realty was treated with exceptional indulgence as compared with personalty. Surely in the matter of a payment it was preferable to have the option of paying in instalments in eight years, or paying
  986
  down rather than to be constrained to pay down without having the option of instalments in eight years. He would have thought that that was a self-evident proposition to hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the case of personalty the duty had to be paid within six months; in the case of realty, however, the duty could either be paid within a year or in eight equal yearly instalments. That preference in favour of real property was founded on the ground that real property was in an exceptional position; and, therefore, ought to be treated exceptionally. But he thought that it would be unjust to extend the preferential treatment of real property any further by exempting the yearly instalments from the payment of interest.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, that with the exception of the Solicitor General, no one yet, in all the discussions on the Bill, had ventured to say that in the Bill there was an advantage given to realty as compared with personalty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the few hon. Members on the Benches behind him who had taken part in those discussions had always endeavoured to justify the fact that the Budget proposed to equalise the treatment of real and personal property; and it had never been said, except by the Solicitor General, that in this particular there was a distinct advantage given to realty. He denied that realty was unduly favoured as compared with personalty, because the owner of realty was penalised by having to pay interest on the deferred amount due to the State. How could that be described as an option which gave an advantage to realty? It was the State that would have the advantage in the transaction. The State would have in the land good security for the amount of the original debt, and for the accruing interest, which it would be difficult for it to get in the case of any other property. He did not know what were the reasons which induced the Government to make this proposal with regard to the payment of interest. The difference in the two kinds of property ought to be borne in mind. While personalty could be easily realised in order to pay duties to the State, no one would contend that the owner of realty would be able

  987
  either to sell a portion of his estate or the whole of it with the same facility and satisfactory result; and, therefore, to charge the owner of realty with interest under the circumstances was one of the most unjust proposals in the Bill. The unfortunate owners of realty were already overburdened with debt; and the Solicitor General knew very well that the option, which he described as an advantage in favour of realty, the owners of realty would in 99 cases out of 100 be compelled to adopt, owing to their inability to pay the duty down, or to realise it by the sale of portions of their property.
  *SIR MARK STEWARTpointed out that proprietors of land usually received their rents twice a year—oftentimes months after they were due, in some cases unpaid till January and August, instead of November and May; and as they were not allowed to pay the duty to the State in half-yearly instalments, but must pay it in one yearly instalment, half the instalment would lie in the bank, earning no interest whatever, while 3 per cent, interest would have to be paid to the Government. The Solicitor General seemed to think that there was a large sum of money always lying at the bank ready for the Government when the day for the payment of the instalment arrived. But he himself knew of numbers of instances in which a large expenditure had to be made on landed property in order to keep it up to the proper mark, and as there was absolutely no return for this outlay, was it not too much to ask this very high tax in the shape of interest from owners of realty?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he believed that this system of payments by instalments had been devised by the Government solely with the view of getting rid of an intolerable difficulty they would otherwise have found themselves in. It would be impossible for men whose property consisted of realty to pay this tax down in a lump sum, and if there was not the option of instalments the only other course left the Government would have been to seize the land in order to realise the sum required. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was too wide awake to do that, however, for he was fully aware of the difficulties of
  988
  selling lauded property in England. He very strongly objected to the Government persisting in their statement that the Bill was framed with special regard to the interest of the landowner. To say that the offer of payment by instalment was a concession was simply absurd. How could anything be a concession for which you had to pay 3 per cent, interest? No old Jew money-lender even would venture to call it a concession. It had been stated in the House only the other day that money could be borrowed by the Government at ½ per cent. Yet the Government proposed charging the unfortunate landowner 3 per cent. The fact of the matter was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer got the money at ½ per cent, and lent it to others at 3 per cent. That was what the proposal of the Government came to. Real estate had never yet been saddled with Probate Duty. Why should it be charged now? The framers of the Act of 1858 recognised that real estate could only be regarded as income for the purposes of the imposition of any tax. It was not on the same footing in any way as personalty. They never could compare a property consisting of acres with one consisting of sovereigns. They could never take the acres in the hands and hand them about as they could the sovereigns. He therefore submitted that real estate should only be called upon to pay this new duty by instalments, and that no interest whatever should, during the period of eight years, be charged by the Government on the outstanding debt.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that in this case the Government would be demanding interest from people who would have to borrow money to pay them. Take the case of an Irish proprietor of land, who was supposed to receive rents from his tenants. The rents due on the 25th of March were not paid till November, if they were ever paid at all. Therefore, in order to pay his yearly instalment the Irish landlord must borrow money at 4 or 5 per cent., and besides that must pay the Government 3 per cent, interest on money that perhaps he has never received himself. The Government proposal was really an unjust attempt to get out of land that which the land had never yielded, and at the same time to save the

  989
  Government from the difficulty of having to seize the land to realise their debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have forgotten that very much of the estimated capital value of land produced no income to the owner at all. Take, for example, the case of timber which the owner for life was restrained from cutting down. He had to pay interest on a thing he could not sell. The same argument applied to cottages. All such improvements effected on farms paid no interest on the outlay, and in some instances hardly paid their upkeep. As a matter of fact, as far as the Bill had gone, the landed interest were going to pay on what they had not received, and interest in addition. He protested against the obvious inequality as between realty and personalty which was about to be perpetrated.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he had made a calculation as to what would be the extra burden which would be put on the payers of the duty in instalments by the 3 per cent, interest, and he found it worked out at 10½ per cent, of increase of duty.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYreminded the Committee that Ireland was not the only portion of the United Kingdom in which the rents were received months after they were due. There was hardly a county in England in which it was not the rule that rent was not received for a number of months after it was due. Therefore to ask landowners to pay instalments, with interest, at a time when the rents were still due, was to ask them, most distinctly, to pay on that which they had not received. It had been proved conclusively that there was nothing in the alleged act of kindness on the part of the Government which was deserving of the name at all. It was a mere matter of business, and should be treated as a matter of business.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, ho claimed the indulgence of the Committee to say a few words in answer to the Solicitor General who said he had given no specific reasons for his Amendment. He submitted that he had. He had pointed out that the levying of such a large sum as was involved in the proposal must necessarily, in the case of realty, be by instalments, and that the allowance of instalments was not a matter of grace
  990
  but a necessary concession, and, therefore, interest ought not to be charged. On the other hand, the Solicitor General had not given as against the Amendment one single reason that would hold water.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 154; Noes 111.—(Division List, No. 93.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL.—(No. 234.)

    CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
    *MR. T. H. BOLTON: I object. The Bill has not been reprinted.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped the hon. Member who objected would take into consideration that there was nothing new in the Bill except that it would not apply to Scotland. One or two little points that the hon. Member objected to had been cut out of the Bill.
    MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, he would join in the appeal to the hon. Member not to oppose the Bill.
    *MR. SPEAKER: The Bill was ordered to be reprinted, but there has not been time for the reprinting. It cannot be taken before to-morrow or Friday.
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.

  POOR LAW UNION OFFICERS (IRELAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL. (No. 240.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, this was a Bill dealing with the superannuation of Poor Law officers in Ireland. He admitted that it should not be brought on after 12 o'clock at night; but inasmuch as the Chief Secretary for Ireland desired it referred to a Select Committee, he would ask hon. Members opposite who were interested in the measure to allow the Second Reading.
    MR. CREAN: I object. It is a Bill which should be considered in a Second Reading Debate.
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 13) BILL. (No. 269.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 19) BILL.—(No. 262.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  COCKENZIE FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 146.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  TROUT FISHING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 20th June, and to be printed. [Bill 279.]

  SELECTION (JOINT COMMITTEE).
  Sir J. MOWBRAY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee on Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills:—Sir Albert Rollit, and had appointed in substitution: Sir Richard Paget.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.—(No. 149.)
  Reported [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time Tomorrow.
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS. That they have agreed to,—
  Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 8) Bill.

  STEAM TRAWLERS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 200.)
  Order for Second Reading To-morrow read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]
  ARMY (MILITARY SAVINGS BANKS).
  Accounts presented,—of the Amounts due by the Public to Depositors on 31st March 1892, and of Receipts, Interest, and Disbursements during the year ended 31st March 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 159.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (SURREY).
  Copy presented,—of Order of the County Council of Surrey for amalgamating the Parish of Reigate Borough with the Parish of Reigate Foreign [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (WEST SUFFOLK).
  Copy presented,—of Order of the County Council of West Suffolk for the constitution of the Parish of Higham by the division of the Parish of Gazeley [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1400–1408 (Amoy, Tainan, Ichang, Aleppo, Madrid, Newchwang, Wênchow, Pakhoi, and Hankow) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND) (MACKEREL, HAKE, AND HERRING).
  Return ordered, "showing, so far as records are available, (1) the quantity and estimated value of mackerel exported from Ireland to the principal English markets during each of the years 1864 to 1893, inclusive; (2) the quantity of mackerel sent by rail from Kinsale in each of the same years; (3) the quantity of mackerel landed at Kinsale during each of the same years; (4) the quantity and value of mackerel landed at most of the principal fishing places (including Kinsale) on the south-west coast during each of the same years; (5) the quantity of hake sent by rail from Kinsale in each of the same years; (6) the quantity and value of hake landed at the principal fishing places on the south-west coast (including Kinsale) during each of the same years; and (7) the quantity and value of herring landed at the same places in each of the same years."—(Mr. Seymour Keay.)
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The Earl of Carnarvon—Took the Oath.
PRIZE COURTS BILL.—(No. 56.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, reach.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, this is a Bill upon which I need not trouble your Lordships with an explanation at any length. It is a measure which has been for a considerable time under discussion at the Colonial Office. The discussion of the question commenced during the time of the late Government, and I believe that this measure meets the views of the noble Lord who presided formerly over the Colonial Office, and of the noble Marquess who is now at the head of the Office. It is a matter which I have myself considered, and I am satisfied that in its present shape it can properly be passed. It is merely a measure providing a mode in which, when necessary, Prize Courts can be established in British possessions, a matter in reference to which some doubt has existed heretofore as to the proper mode of proceeding.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  *LORD KNUTSFORD: My Lords, I may be permitted to say that this subject was under consideration when I had the honour of being Secretary of State for the Colonies, and was very carefully considered. The object of this Bill is, in truth, to supplement the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, which was passed in 1890. The subject is not free from difficulty, and I may refer to two points which required careful consideration. In the first place, care had to be taken to secure that the Vice Admiral, or in other words the Governor of the Colony, should not prematurely declare that war had broken out. That is secured, I think, by the 2nd sub-section of the 2nd section of the Bill. The Vice Admiral of any
  894
  possession may, when satisfied by information from a Secretary of State or otherwise, that war has broken out between Her Majesty and any foreign State, proclaim that war has so broken out. And there is also this safeguard: that his powers with regard to action in this direction are subject to instructions from Her Majesty. In that way sufficient precaution is taken that Governors shall not prematurely declare war. The second difficulty which arose with regard to Prize Courts was that, speaking generally, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty created by the Act of 1890 might be safely trusted to act as Prize Courts. This would be the case in all the important colonies; but there are a great variety of Courts in the different colonies of more or less weight and influence, and therefore it was quite necessary to preserve to Her Majesty the power of modifying the composition and Regulations of the Court in any particular colony so as to act as a Prize Court, and also the power of establishing special Vice Admiralty Courts to act as Prize Courts. Those difficulties appear to me to be removed by this Bill, and therefore I heartily support the Second Reading.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 90.)

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREwished, before the Bill was read a second time, to direct the attention of the noble Earl in charge of it to one point. He had no wish to delay; the present stage of the Bill, but a point arose on the fourth clause relating to Ireland which would require serious consideration, because it would affect the position of the sureties for some of these public loans in Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the noble Earl would consent not to hurry on the Bill, but would delay the Committee stage to Friday or some other day that might be convenient.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSEBERY): I am rather sorry about this, because the

  895
  Treasury are extremely anxious to get it through, and I was going to move the suspension of the Standing Orders in order to dispose of it on Thursday. The Treasury is extremely anxious to get it through; but if the noble Lord will state what his point is I will call the attention of the Treasury to it, and deal with the matter on Thursday.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREwas sorry it was not in his power to make a statement at once. His attention had only been called to the matter that morning, and he had not the information required by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Perhaps the noble Earl would communicate privately with me to-morrow.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid he would do so.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

PISTOLS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 40.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 102.)
MUSIC AND DANCING LICENCES (MIDDLESEX) BILL.—(No. 69.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 103.)
COMMISSIONERS OF WORKS BILL. (No. 68.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
ARBITRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.] (No. 78.)
Reported from the Standing Committee with Amendments: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 104.)

INDIAN RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. (No. 101.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment: The
896
Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 41.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.] (No. 55.)
Read 2a (according to Order).
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BARRY, &c.) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 54.).
Read 2a (according to Order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. (No. 71.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
WEMYSS. &c, WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—(No. 80.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 34.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.
WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]—(No. 44.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL [H.L.] (No. 47.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL [H.L.] (No. 50.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Amendments made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Thursday next.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 42.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 43.)
Order for receiving the Report of Amendments read, and discharged.
BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1892, AMENDMENT BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 105.)
NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 106.)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 10) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 107.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.