Sitting of 15 June 1894

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY, AND CITY OF DUBLIN JUNCTION RAILWAYS BILL [Lords] (by Order.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he supposed it would now be in
  1206
  Order for him to move the Instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for the College Green Division of Dublin (Dr. Kenny)—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert clauses to enable the public to take sand and gravel from Killiney foreshore."
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Instruction is not in Order. I do not think the taking of sand and gravel from the foreshore relates to the subject-matter of the Bill. That is quite a sufficient reason for me to rule it out of Order; but if it also invades the rights of the Crown, which I am not certain of at this moment, that would be an additional reason for me to rule it out of Order, because no consent has been given for such an invasion of rights. I do not think this Instruction is relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill.
  COLONEL NOLANdid not think that the Crown claimed so extensive foreshore rights in Ireland as in England, and he did not think there would be any invasion of Crown rights.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That may be so; I am not very sure on the point, and I will take what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says. He is not empowered to move the Instruction for another hon. Gentleman; but to save time, once that I have thought it best to state at however, the Instruction is out of Order.

QUESTIONS.

  ADVERTISEMENTS IN RAILWAY STATIONS.
  MR. JACKS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the great inconvenience caused to the travelling public by Railway Companies so covering their stations with advertisements as to make it impossible to observe the names of the stations; whether he will in future cause a clause to be inserted in all new Railway Bills to prevent this evil; and if he can do anything with the existing lines to remedy this cause of inconvenience?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BRYCE,: Yes, Sir; the inconvenience is a great one, especially in London, and generally on stations of lines in or near great cities. I should be glad to do anything to remedy it; and, so far as new railways are concerned, the evil will be met by the re-

  1207
  quirement of the Board of Trade that Barnes of stations are to be shown on boards and on platform lamps. I have, however, no power of compulsion as regards existing stations.
  MR. MACDONAinquired if the names of the stations, when reached, could not be exhibited in the railway carriages by some means?
  MR. BRYCEreplied, that no doubt that would be very convenient, but the mechanism necessary for it would add to the expense. He preferred to take the simpler course of requiring the names of stations to be shown in such a way as to prevent their being mistaken for advertisements or notices.

  SCIENCE AND ART EXAMINATIONS IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR J. LENG: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has received representations respecting the inconvenience arising from the lateness of the hour fixed for the yearly examinations of the Arts and Science classes in secondary and higher grade schools in Scotland; and whether it is possible to make provision for the examination within school hours of pupils attending day schools?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,: I have received representations on this subject, and am giving attention to it. But the holding of a second examination in the year, especially one which might be ultimately used in a way hardly contemplated when the Science and Art examinations were established, is a matter requiring very serious consideration before it is determined upon. It is not merely a question of day or evening examinations, but much more than that, and I think it may be desirable to wait till the Royal Commission on Secondary Education has reported before coming to any decision.

  THE FATALITY TO "TAMAR" SEAMEN.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty have further considered the claim for Greenwich pensions, under Article 2225 of the Queen's Regulations, of the widows of those petty officers and seamen who were drowned by the capsizing of the boat in which they
  1208
  were returning from shore leave to H.M.S. Tamar, on the morning of the 12th of December last; whether the Admiralty have denied their liability upon the ground that these men were not drowned on duty, inasmuch as the boat from which they were capsized was not a ship's boat but a waterman's; and whether he is aware that H.M.S. Tamar made no provision for conveying men to or from the shore on liberty leave, and that, in the absence of such, these men had no alternative but to use shore boats; and that, had they failed to report themselves on board at the regulation hour, they would have been subjected to punishment for leave-breaking?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,: The Board of Admiralty have now decided that the circumstances connected with the uufortunate loss of certain men belonging to H.M.S. Tamar on the 12th of December last justify the case of their widows being considered for the grant of Greenwich pensions. Arrangements had been made early in the year for a service of ships' boats, but were not carried out because the ship's company preferred to adhere to the system of making their own arrangements, independently of the ship. Even though the men might technically have been liable to punishment for not returning to their ship at the regulation hour, every consideration would have been shown them had it been proved that stress of weather prevented their leaving the shore.
  MR. KEARLEY: Will the pensions be paid from the date of the death of the men?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I should like to have notice of that question.

  THE ESSEX REGIMENT.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he would consider the case of the officers of the 3rd and 4th Essex Regiments, whose training has, through no fault of their own, been suspended; and whether, if attached to and doing duty with another battalion they might be allowed to draw their pay?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): The training of these battalions has been dispensed with in consequence of an outbreak of small-pox. The men will receive their bounty; and

  1209
  the subalterus who are candidates for commissions in the Army have been permitted to be attached, with pay, to other units for training, irrespective of vacancies in those units. As regards the other officers, a Militia battalion cannot claim to be trained; and they can only be attached, with pay, to other units, in cases where there are vacancies which they can temporarily fill.

  OFFICERS' RESERVE PAY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether persons belonging to the Reserve of Officers draw pay as such; whether they can be employed by any Department of the State without forfeiting their retired pay; whether private soldiers of the Reserve draw pay, and when employed in Government Departments forfeit Reserve pay; and whether he would consider the possibility of recommending some payment for the officers of the Reserve, or in lieu of pay a step of honorary rank?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Officers belonging to the Reserve of Officers do not draw pay as such, but many of them are members of the Reserve as a condition of drawing retired Army pay. All, if called out for duty, would receive the pay and allowances of their rank. An officer of the Reserve can be employed by any Department of the State without forfeiting retired pay; but in certain cases his salary from a Civil Department may be liable to reduction. Private soldiers of the Reserve receive 6d. a day, which is not forfeited on employment in a Government Department. There is no intention of paying officers of Reserve as such, unless called out for duty; nor of giving them honorary rank; but, if employed, they are eligible for promotion.

  THE SALE OF INTOXICANTS TO CHILDREN.
  SIR C. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the practice of publicans in Scotland supplying young children with spirituous liquors, on the ground that the words of their certificates prohibiting them from selling or supplying exciseable liquors to girls or boys apparently under 14 years of age do not apply if
  1210
  such girls or boys act as messengers for adult persons; and whether the case of "Graham v. Lang," in which it was held that the fact that a child had been supplied with some brandy ordered by a doctor for her sick mother did not constitute a breach of certificate, is held by the Scottish Police Authorities to legalise in all cases the disregard of the express prohibition of the certificate against supplying children with exciseable liquors, and to absolve publicans from responsibility as to ascertaining that the children supplied are really messengers sent by responsible persons?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J.B. BALFOUR,&c.): I do not read the decision in the case of Graham as absolving the publican from making inquiry in supplying a child with liquor, as to whether the child is a messenger for an adult, and I am informed that the practice of the police, in every case of such supply coming under their notice, is to make inquiry for themselves. The rule upon the subject is, I think, to be found in the case of "Donaldson v. Linton," decided on December 8, 1875, and referred to in the Judgment in the case of Graham.

  CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS IN THE NAVY.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that, while there are 15 Catholic chaplains in the Army, there is not one regular Catholic chaplain in the Royal Navy, and that, notwithstanding the proportion of Catholics in the Royal Navy is 18 per cent., Catholic service is never celebrated on board Her Majesty's ships at sea; and whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of appointing a Catholic chaplain to each fleet, and thus placing Catholic sailors and Catholic soldiers upon an equal footing in this regard?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON(who replied) said: Chaplains at fixed salaries are appointed at the principal naval centres at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Malta, to officiate for the Roman Catholic seamen and Marines; and capitation allowance is given to the local clergy at the less frequented ports for the same service. Facilities are given to men of the various denominations when in harbour to attend their respective Churches on shore. The difficulty of providing accommodation in Her Majesty's ships must always present

  1211
  a serious obstacle to carrying clergy of the I different denominations on board continuously. The percentage of Roman Catholics is rather over 8 per cent, instead of 18 as stated.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it a fact that the Catholic chaplains at the stations referred to merely hold the position of acting chaplains? Am I to understand from the reply of the hon. Gentleman that, in the event of sickness and death, Catholic sailors on board ships at sea are debarred from receiving the rites of their religion?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The three chaplains named are, I understand, in permanent employment at fixed salaries in the same way as Presbyterian chaplains. As to the second part of the question, I should like to have notice.
  MR. HANBURYasked as to the nationality of the chaplain at Malta?
  MR. E. ROBERTSONsaid that, speaking from recollection, he was a Maltese.

  THE MEELICK LOCK.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there were large floods above Meelick Lock on the 16th of May, caused by the Meelick sluices not being raised in time, that the water continued rising until the 19th of May, the floods having risen to within 18 inches of the greatest height in winter, when the sluices were raised; whether the sluices were up on the 4th of June, when the Shannon was very full; and whether he can take any steps to secure that these sluices shall be raised in future in time to prevent floods?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I am informed that there was a heavy and sudden flood for the time of year on the 16th of May. On that date all the sluices in the New Cut and at Meelick were fully open. They had been opened gradually for two days before. The water, however, only rose to four inches over summer level, and fell on the 17th to two inches over summer level. On the 19th the water rose to six inches over summer level for one day, all the sluices being open during all this time. On the 22nd the water was again at summer level, and it was at this level or below it until 3rd June, when it rose two inches
  1212
  and fell again on the 4th. The sluices were not all open on the 4th, but sufficiently to pass the flood. Every care will be taken with the object of preventing floods.

  THE SUCK DRAINAGE.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Board of Works have lately issued Orders to ensure that the floods do not rise above the Parliamentary levels; and if they have reconsidered their instructions so as to combat the sudden increase of water caused by the drainage of the Suck and by the general drainage?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed that there are no Parliamentary levels regulating the height of floods on the Shannon. The Shannon sluices require to be and are worked with the greatest judgment, with strict reference to the interests of owners and occupiers whose lands are situated both above and below the sluices.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Is that the opinion of the Board of Works and of the proprietors on the spot?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am informed by the Board of Works that the sluices are worked with the greatest judgment, and no complaint has been received respecting them; but if the hon. and gallant Member has any suggestion to make, I will see that it is duly considered.

  GALWAY AND CLIFDEN RAILROAD.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when will the Galway and Clifden Railroad be opened to Oughterard, when to Recess, and when to Clifden?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Board of Works are informed by the Chairman of the Midland Great Western Railway Company that it is hoped that the line will be opened to Oughterard by the 1st of September, and to Recess and Clifden by the 1st of January next.

  FOREIGN GOODS FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why, during the year ending the 31st of March, salt pork to the value of £13,353, lubricating oil to the value of £8,915, and boilers to the value of £13,840, as well

  1213
  as £1,000 worth of chairs, and nearly £1,000 worth of butter, were purchased for Her Majesty's Navy from foreigners instead of from our own countrymen?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,: In the annual healthy competition between Irish and Danish firms for orders for salt pork the Danes secured rather more than half last year. The lubricating oil used is only made in America and by one or two British firms, who import thence the material from which it is distilled. Competition, which has greatly reduced the price, resulted on the last occasion in the success of American contractors. At the time of the contract for French boilers for two of our gunboats no British firms had had any experience in manufacturing boilers of these two special types, and they were bought in order that experiments under our own officers' superintendence might be made. It was an experimental order. All further orders for tubulous boilers have been given to home firms. The supply of bentwood chairs was introduced three years ago. British firms have proved unable to make them at a reasonable price; but this pattern has now been abolished. I regret that hitherto butter made and tinned at home has failed to hold its own against the tinned Danish butter selected by a Committee for use in officers' messes. It may be hoped that the great attention now being paid to butter-making, especially at the instance of Agricultural Societies and County Councils, will soon result in our tinned butter being at least equal to that of any other country.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the Return, No. 128, he has just laid upon the Table of Government Contracts with Foreigners contains no particulars of the foreign paper purchased on Government account, of the Bavarian pencils used by Her Majesty's present Ministers in their several offices and now issued to the House of Commons, of the German boats ordered by the Admiralty, of the Swedish matches supplied to the Treasury, as of other articles; and if he will cause it to be duly corrected, so as to give to the House a full and accurate Return of the large sums of public money spent in the employment of foreign labour?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: With regard to Stationery Office stores, the answer is, as has been frequently explained, that they are not obtained by contract, but are purchased in the open market, and no orders are given to firms outside of the United Kingdom. Similarly "Lion" matches are bought from a firm in London. Accordingly, neither of the two cases comes within the scope of the Return. I am informed by the Admiralty that the contracts for the German boats referred to were not made by the Admiralty, but by the contractors for the vessels on which the boats will be carried. Hence this case is also outside the scope of the Return of Contracts with Foreigners made by Government Departments. The Return appears, therefore, to be correct in its present form.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me what steps are taken to ensure that Government contractors are not mere agents of foreign mills and labour, and that they supply articles made or produced at home under the Fair Contracts provision, and not in foreign countries, or in foreign prisons?
  *SIR J. T. HIBBERT: These things are bought in the open market. Paper was purchased by the Stationery Office last year from 98 different firms, in different parts of the United Kingdom, but it is quite impossible to ascertain where the different supplies were made.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a Memorial from the Central Association of Irish Schoolmistressess and from the Ulster Schoolmistresses' Association, protesting against any withdrawal of the funds in the hands of the Intermediate Education Board from the purpose for which they were granted; whether the Board has recently established a new grade, introduced a programme of commercial studies, and made several changes giving larger pecuniary help to schools; whether the Intermediate Board anticipate that all the funds they possess will be needed to maintain the improved education that has been established; and whether, in view of the enormous advan-

  1215
  tages conferred on schools of every kind, and of every religious denomination, he still designs to introduce a Bill to divert part of these funds to found a Veterinary College in Dublin?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,: My attention has been called to the Memorial referred to. I understand that the Intermediate Education Commissioners are extending their operations this year. On the general question, I fear that I can hardly add to my previous replies.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Is it not a fact that when these funds are invested in Government Stock there will be a loss of £5,000 a year? Has the right hon. Gentleman written to the Commissioners or made any inquiries at all on the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As to the first question, I cannot say. As to the last inquiry, the hon. Member is misinformed.
  MR. SEXTONinquired if the Intermediate Board did not anticipate that all their funds would be needed to maintain the improved education now established? Could they not usefully employ the whole of their income?
  MR. J.MORLEYreplied that he would inquire into all the points raised.

  ALIENS AND BRITISH CHARITIES.
  MAJOR DARWIN: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether it is a fact that in no scheme issued by the Charity Commissioners is any provision inserted whereby aliens are differentiated in any way from British subjects?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. F. S. STEVENSON,: It would be impossible to give a definite reply embracing every scheme which has been issued by the Charity Commissioners without considerable inquiry; but, speaking generally, the answer is in the affirmative.

  THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has favourably considered the Petition submitted to him from the staff of the Central Telegraph Office at the end of last year; and whether he has arrived at any decision in relation thereto?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,: I have, with the consent of the Treasury, recently made an important addition to the staff of the Central Telegraph Office, which has enabled me to make as many as 102 promotions, of which 94 were from the Second to the First Class. This increase to the staff will improve the position and prospects of the telegraphists employed, and will also enable the Controller to dispense with the greater part of the overtime hitherto performed. The circumstances do not appear to me to warrant any further changes.

  ATTACK ON IRISH GOOD TEMPLARS.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Friday, the 8th instant, the Dungannon Lodge of Good Templars were attacked near Edendork Chapel, on their way home from Coalisland, County Tyrone, and the occupants of a brake seriously injured from stones thrown; and whether any of the assailants have been made amenable to justice?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is a fact that an attack was made on a brake containing members of the Society referred to at Edendork on the night of the 8th instant. Stones were thrown at the occupants of the brake, and a girl was struck on the head, though the wound is not, I am glad to say, dangerous. No other person was injured. None of the persons on the brake can identify their assailants, but the police are pursuing inquiries in the matter, and will make every effort to trace the guilty parties.

  LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY WATERFORD.
  MR. POWER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Land Commission have received an application for an advance from a person named Thomas Whelan to enable him to purchase a holding at Ballinafina, in County Waterford (in the Carrick-on-Suir Poor Law Union); what is the amount of the advance applied for; is it the case that the applicant for the advance was not in occupation of the holding proposed to be purchased at the time he signed the agreement to purchase, and therefore is not one of those persons to whom the

  1217
  provisions of the Land Purchase Acts apply, and whether the Inspector of the Land Commission has yet visited the holding in question, and what Report has he made as to the solvency and bona fides of the applicant; and whether the Land Commission have up to the present either sanctioned or refused the application for an advance?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The amount of the advance applied for was £1,000. The Land Commissioners inform me that the applicant was in occupation of the holding under a contract of tenancy at the time he signed the agreement to purchase, and was a person to whom the provisions of the Laud Purchase Acts apply. The holding has been inspected by an Inspector of the Laud Commission, and the Inspector reported that the tenant was in occupation, and residing on the holding, and had adequate stock and means. The advance applied for was sanctioned upon the 29th of May.
  MR. KILBRIDE: What was the former rent of the holding? The farm has been derelict for 14 years.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say. There was an eviction on the farm 12 years ago, and it was taken again last February, but I do not know what the rent was.

  CROFTER RENTS.
  SIR L. LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been drawn to the cases "Burroughs v. Work, Lovat v. Fraser, and Bruce v. Smith," in which three Sheriffs have given three divergent decisions on the question whether it is the fixed rent or the old rent which is payable by a crofter at the first term of Martinmas, or Whit Sunday, after the date of the decision of the Crofters' Commissioners; and whether, in the event of the fixed rents being less in amount than the old rent, the crofter is entitled to be repaid what he has already paid in excess for the period between the date of the notice of his application to his landlord and the date of the decision of the Commissioners, and that whether he be in arrears or no; and whether, in view of the fact that the sums in dispute are too small to allow of an appeal being made to the Court of Session, and of the importance of having
  1218
  the matter authoritatively settled and much litigation avoided, he will take steps to have the meaning of Section 6, Sub-sections (2) and (3) of "The Crofters' Act, 1886," on this question made perfectly clear?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,&c.): If there be a divergence of opinion among the Sheriffs upon the points stated in the question, I can only suggest, with a view to an authoritative decision, that the opinion of the Court of Session should be obtained, cither in the form of a Special Case, or of an action of Declarator. The matter is one in which I have no power to interfere.

  LIMERICK FISHERY LAWS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Limerick Fishery Board complaining that the difficulties of preservation are greatly increased owing to the remission by the executive of fines inflicted for offences against the Fishery Laws, and intimating that the Board must decline to attempt to enforce the law if this policy by the executive is persisted in; and if he can state what the facts are, and if there are any grounds for the complaint?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The resolution referred to was received by me, and a letter has been communicated to the Board of Conservators in reply, stating that the Lord Lieutenant is always anxious to see that the law is adequately administered, but that he cannot divest himself of the responsibility of fully considering all cases in which appeals are made to him. No particular case was mentioned in the Resolution, and I may point out that, upon the receipt of a somewhat similar protest from the Board of Conservators in February, 1892, a letter in terms similar to that just quoted by me was communicated to the Conservators by direction of the then Lord Lieutenant acting on the advice of his Lord Chancellor. I may add that it appears from a Return which has been furnished to me, that in 43 cases memorials have been received by the present Government, praying for a mitigation of penalties imposed by Magistrates for offences against the Fishery Laws in the Limerick district, and that in some 17 of these cases, reductions of penalties were

  1219
  recommended by the Board of Conservators.

  PROPOSED PIER AT COOSCROOM.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will take advantage of the present stores of material, and the presence in the neighbourhood of a number of men skilled in the construction of piers, to immediately commence the building of a pier at Cooscroom, near Cahirciveen?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Congested Districts Board regret that they cannot, having regard to their existing financial resources, see their way to undertake at present the proposed works at Cooscroom.

  WALTHAM CORDITE FACTORY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the average wage of 106 workmen employed at the Cordite Powder Factory at Waltham is 24s. 5¼d. weekly, and the average wage of 50 boys is 10s. 4¼d.; whether the men engaged in the Nitro-Glycerine Department only receive 30s. 7½d. per week; and whether, having regard to the dangerous nature of this work, he can see his way to increase the wages of the men engaged in it?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,: The averages quoted by the hon. Member are substantially accurate, except that in the cordite factory he has omitted 29 chargemen who average 27s. 11½d. a week. The wages paid are considered sufficient for the work these persons are called upon to perform.

  HYDE PARK.
  MR.LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that many of the taxpayers of this country, who contribute to the maintenance of Hyde Park, are unable to enjoy the pleasure of driving in that park, owing to numbered cabs not being allowed to drive therein; and whether he can see his way to put an end to this exclusion?
  MR. DODD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the practice in this matter is at Berlin, Paris, and other places?
  *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,: My answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Without entering into the merits of the question, I may say that up to the present no representations on the subject have been made to me, nor (so far as the records of the Office show) to my predecessors, and I do not think it is possible that so considerable a change can be made without some expression of opinion by the House. In answer to the hon. Member for the Maldon Division, I will try to ascertain what the practice is in large parks in Continental cities.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 30 years ago I brought this matter before the House; that a discussion took place; and that there was at that time a very strong expression of opinion in favour of the change I have suggested being made?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I was not myself in the House at that time, but I shall be glad to refer to the Debate and see what my hon. Friend said on the subject.

  DOCKYARD EMPLOYÉS AND CIVIC OFFICERS.
  MR. E. J. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Parish and District Councils Act is about to come into operation, the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty will alter their existing Regulations so as to enable dockyard employés to hold municipal, district, and parochial offices, and to serve on Public Bodies?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The question of altering the Regulations is receiving the consideration of the Admiralty.
  MR. BAKERasked if the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was aware that the Regulation referred to had been relaxed for nearly 10 years, and that dockyard and naval men had been allowed to serve on Public Bodies?
  MR. E. ROBERTSONreplied that he could not say if that were so, but the question was now under consideration.

  THE SHETLAND FISHERIES.
  SIR L. LYELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Niger gunboat, lately appointed to protect the fisheries in Shetland, is about to be replaced by the Cockchafer, which

  1221
  has insufficient speed to prevent illegal trawling?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: While the Niger is in dock the Cockchafer takes her place. Though she can only steam at a moderate speed, she is considered efficient for the purpose of thus temporarily protecting the fisheries. Vessels of her class have long performed similar duties.
  MR. BUCHANAN: What is the average speed of the Cockchafer?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have said that it is only a moderate speed.
  MR. BUCHANAN: This is practically a matter of "sea police." When changes of this kind are made, is no communication held with the Scotch Office in regard to them?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: There is frequent communication, but this surely is a matter which had better be left to Naval Lords of the Admiralty?

  DOMINICA.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when Sir R. Hamilton's Report on the condition of Dominica, West Indies, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,: Sir R. Hamilton's Report will be laid on the Table, but I cannot name a date for laying.

  HABITUAL OFFENDERS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government have taken any steps towards the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the alleged increase in the number of habitual offenders in some parts of Scotland, and to the deficient means of coping with the evil?
  *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,: I have considered the subject of the treatment of habitual offenders, vagrants, beggars, and inebriates in Scotland and have resolved to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire and report upon it. Their instructions will be to inquire
  1222
  whether the number of such persons is increasing, and if so into the causes of such increase, and further to suggest such remedies as may, while deterrent, be likely to bring about their reformation, and to prevent further additions to their numbers, due regard being had to the cost of any remedies which may be suggested, and to the practicability of their being carried into effect. The hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow has consented to act as Chairman of this Committee. The members will be as follows:—Colonel McHardy, of the Scottish Prison Board; the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire; Sir Colin Scott Moncrieff, of the Scottish Office; Mr. John Dove Wilson, a Sheriff of long experience and now Professor of Law at Aberdeen, who has paid special attention to these questions; Miss Flora Stevenson, of the Edinburgh School Board; and Dr. Sutherland, medical officer of the Glasgow Prison, who will also act as Secretary.

  POST OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  MR. MUNTZ: I beg to ask the Postmaster General Question 32—whether the agents for foreign prison labour were allowed to compete for the contract for the supply of belts, pouches, leggings, &c., recently given to the Home Office to be supplied by prison labour; and, if so, what difference there was between the home and foreign tenders? Also Question 33—i.e., what was the saving effected by obtaining the belts, pouches, leggings, &c., from the Home Office instead of the firms which had usually been employed? And Question 34—namely, whether it is the intention of the Government to allow the great Public Departments to supply themselves as far as possible from prison labour, to the detriment of free labour and honest workmen?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The answer to Question No. 32 is in the negative. To Question No. 33 I can only repeat the answer I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham, that the saving is estimated at about £100 a year. The question of policy is rather one for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I understand it is one of the subjects which will be considered by the Committee which has

  1223
  been appointed to inquire into the management of prisons. So far as the Post Office is concerned, there is no intention to depart from the practice which was adopted by one of my predecessors, the late Mr. Raikes, in 1891, under which certain articles suitable for the purpose are obtained from the Prison Authorities, and by which the cost of the prisons to the taxpayers is reduced.

  COALING THE CHANNEL SQUADRON.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if a contract for supplying the Channel Squadron with coal at Stornoway has been given out; and, if so, to whom it has been given?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Channel Squadron will not have to coal at Stornoway during the present cruise.

  THE LADIES AND THE HOUSE.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether there is any Rule of the House, or any Rule whatever, which prevents women from using an order for admission to the Members' Gallery; and, if not, whether he will give instructions that Members' orders shall equally admit persons of either sex?
  *MR. H. GLADSTONE: Although this matter does not come within the province of my Department, it has been thought advisable that I should answer it, and I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for furnishing me with the necessary information. The exclusion of ladies from the Strangers' Galleries is based on a Rule enforced by successive Speakers that a woman cannot claim admission to the House as a stranger. [Cries of "Why"?] In former times, between the years 1675 and 1778, the occasional presence of women in the Gallery below the Bar was permitted. Notice having been taken during the Sitting of February 2, 1778, that strangers were present, the strangers who were men withdrew in obedience to the direction of the Serjeant-at-Arms. The ladies who filled the Gallery were, at first, permitted to remain; but an order that they also should withdraw having been obtained, their exclusion was effected, although not until they had exhibited such a persevering reluctance to
  1224
  obey the order that they interrupted the business of the House for nearly two hours. Since that day ladies have never been allowed to sit within the House. The authority for these statements will be found in the 2nd volume of Hatsell's Precedents, p. 181, and the 19th volume of the Parliamentary History, p. 672. My hon. Friend's suggestion that orders for the Members' Gallery should admit persons of either sex could not be adopted without the express sanction of the House.
  *MR. WEIR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the present day there are many ladies who are active supporters of the present Government who positively refuse to accept tickets of admission to the Ladies' Gallery, declining to submit to be shut up in a cage?
  MR. BYLES: Will this matter come under the consideration of the Committee that has been appointed to inquire into the subject of the accommodation of the House?
  MR. W. M'LAREN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an incident somewhat similar to that which he has related occurred in the House of Lords, and that, nothwith-standing that fact, the House of Lords decided to re-admit ladies? Cannot a similar relaxation of the Rule for exclusion be made in the case of the House of Commons?
  *MR. H. GLADSTONE: I have already said it is a question for the House, and if the House of Commons likes to follow the example of the House of Lords it can do so. The question does not fall within the Reference to the Committee. I have no knowledge of any ladies having refused to enter the Ladies' Gallery.
  *MR. WEIR: I will supply the right hon. Gentleman with the information.

  TORPEDO DESTROYERS.
  MR. DONKIN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the Russian Government have just contracted with Messrs. Yarrow to build a torpedo destroyer with a guaranteed speed of 29 knots, Her Majesty's Government have, in their contracts for such class of vessels, stipulated for an equal speed?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: We are not aware under what conditions the speed of 29 knots mentioned in the question is to be attained; but the Admiralty will always, as heretofore, stipulate for the maximum obtainable speed consistent with the other necessary qualifications of this type of vessel.

  THE WESTPORT DISASTER.
  MR. W. O'BEIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can communicate to the House any particulars as to the fearful drowning disaster at Westport; and what steps have been taken to provide for the widespread suffering and destitution that the calamity will entail upon the unfortunate people of Achill?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am afraid any information I have received adds nothing to the intelligence reported in the newspapers regarding this lamentable catastrophe. In reference to the last paragraph, I can only say that I at once directed one of the Commissioners of the Local Government Board to proceed to Westport and Achill, in order to ascertain by inspection on the spot whether any distress or other consequences have followed from this disaster which any means at the disposal of the Government will enable them to cope with. The Commissioner is already on his way. He will report at once, and whatever we can do will be done promptly.
  MR.H. PLUNKETT: May I ask whether the traffic between Achill and the mainland is under any Regulations of the Board of Trade; and, if not, whether steps cannot be taken to guard against such accidents by preventing overcrowding?
  MR. BRYCE: As far as my inquiries have proceeded at present, I do not think that any statutory provision exists enabling the Board of Trade to regulate the passenger traffic to which my hon. Friend refers in such manner as to provide precautions against such deplorable occurrences; but I am making further investigation, and will communicate with him on the subject.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the inquiry be extended to the west coast generally, as last year there was an accident causing
  1226
  the loss of many lives at the mouth of the Shannon?
  MR. BRYCE: I have reason to believe that these accidents do sometimes occur through overcrowding vessels of this kind. Opportunity will be taken to consider whether the scope of the inquiry shall be extended as suggested by my hon. Friend.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES (No. 2) BILL.
  MR. BILL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can now say when the Building Societies (No. 2) Bill will be brought forward for consideration?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: I am excessively anxious that the Bill should pass through this House as soon as possible, but I regret that I cannot yet say when it will be taken.

  ATTACK ON A CATHOLIC PRIEST AT LURGAN.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the attack made upon the Rev. William M'Cartan and others at Lurgan on Sunday evening last, when returning from a public meeting of farmers and labourers at Aughagallon; whether he will give the particulars; and will he state what steps have been taken to bring to justice the guilty parties?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It appears that the Rev. Mr. M'Cartan, with a number of persons in a brake, drove to the place of meeting from Lurgan on Sunday morning, and when returning in the evening drove through a portion of the town which is an exclusively Orange quarter. At this point a large number of Orangemen were returning from a funeral, and the occupants of the brake, in order to avoid a collision, turned off into Hill Street, which is also an Orange quarter. Word went round that the Nationalists were invading the Orange district, and the people flocked out in thousands. The brake was attacked, and the rev. gentleman, thinking that the animus was directed against him, jumped off to save the other occupants. The brake drove on and escaped, but the Rev. Mr. M'Cartan, who, as I have stated, had previously jumped off, re-

  1227
  ceived very rough treatment, and was only saved from worse treatment by the leaders of the Orange party. I am glad to see that the Orange Press in the district described the attack on this rev. gentleman as "inexcusable and indefensible." The police arrived on the spot immediately afterwards, and the rev. gentleman was then conveyed to the workhouse, where his injuries were attended to. He received a wound over the left eye, but was not, I am happy to learn, seriously injured. Inquiries are being made with a view to the identification of the persons engaged in this disgraceful and cowardly attack, and the police hope to be able to prosecute a number, if not for the actual assault, at all events for the riotous behaviour. I wish to add that I am making further inquiries, not being satisfied with the fulness of the report as to the disposition of the police on this occasion, with the view of ascertaining how it was that the rev. gentleman was allowed to go into this quarter of the town without being either protected or warned.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that such ruffianly conduct is entirely opposed to the principles of Orangeism?
  MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the brake in which Mr. M'Cartan sought to leave Lurgan was drawn up before the hotel in the square for more than half an hour before he started down Hill Street, and that 50 police were standing within ten yards of the place when he did start? I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will inquire whether the police gave any warning, or if any precautions were taken to protect the occupants of the trap? Is it not a fact also that there were 200 police in Lurgan last Sunday, but that most of them were stationed in the Catholic quarters of the town, and that when Mr. M'Cartan was attacked in his attempt to leave there were only three police in the street in which the attack was made, and, if so, why the police were all in the Catholic quarter? I would ask whether the attention of a large body of police was directed to the fact that a large crowd was pursuing this priest—that, in fact, he was pursued through several houses and backyards?
  MR. BARTLEY: I rise to Order. Is it in Order to ask this long question without putting it on the Paper?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The questions are certainly rather numerous, but, provided that the hon. Gentleman does not say anything by way of assumption that the facts are so, he is entitled to ask for au inquiry into the points he mentions.
  MR. DILLON: The Chief Secretary says he will make further inquiries, and my only wish is to indicate the direction which I think it desirable some of those inquiries should take. Will he inquire why, when the attention of the police was directed to the fact that this defenceless man was being pursued by a crowd, they did not at once go to his rescue? Finally, I should like to know whether any baton was drawn?
  COLONEL WARING: Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain whether the course that the brake took was a direct one to its destination?
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is it a fact that the party were obliged to go that way home because, on taking the other route in the morning, they were set upon, and threatened with death if they returned the same way?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am told that is the reason given by Mr. M'Cartan for going back through this street instead of by the other route. In answer to my hon. Friend, it is a fact that there were 200 police in Lurgan that day. As to the other questions, I propose to inquire into the military disposition of the police on that day with respect to the points my hon. Friend has raised.
  COLONEL WARING: Will he ascertain whether the direct route for Lurgan to Laurencetown leads this way?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will make inquiries, but I do not see how it can affect the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman been informed that since Sunday the small minority of Catholic girls employed in the factories in this town have been subjected to insult and assault on going to and coming from work?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not received specific information of that kind, but I regret that a great deal of regretable ill-feeling exists in Lurgan on both sides.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY STAFF.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that it is the custom for employés of the Ordnance Survey Department, whose pay amounts to £2 per week, to be stopped 1d. per week for a stamp when signing the weekly pay sheet, and a further 1d. per week when signing the monthly pay sheets; and whether this system is in force in other Government Departments; and, if not, why it is enforced in the Ordnance Survey Department?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,: Receipts given by the employés of the Ordnance Survey Department for pay amounting to £2 or upwards are, of course, chargeable with the usual Stamp Duty of 1d., and I have no power to exempt such receipts from the charge. I understand, however, that for purposes of accounts, the men are sometimes required not only to give a stamped receipt for each week's pay, but also for the aggregate amount paid to them during the mouth, the duty payable in the latter case being a single duty of 1d., and not a duty of 1d. per week as stated in the question. The double payment could, therefore, only be a matter of 1d. per annum, but I think that even this ought to be avoided if possible, and I will ascertain what is the course adopted in other Departments, where weekly payments are made and monthly accounts sent in, so as to avoid the requirement of a second receipt for the same payment.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN KENT.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether there is any truth in the report that another outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia has occurred at Sandwich, in the County of Kent?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I have no information on the subject, but I am tolerably certain that the report is not correct.

  EVICTIONS IN SOUTH WEXFORD.
  MR. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware
  1230
  that several evictions have been recently carried out on the estate of the Marquess of Ely, in the barony of Shelbourne, South Wexford, five of which occurred the week before last; that the agent of the property is reported in the local papers to have admitted the tenants were utterly penniless; and that the past, year was the most disastrous to the tenant farmers of South Wexford within the memory of the present generation; and whether, in view of further threatened evictions on the estate and probable disturbances, he will inquire into the ability of the tenants to pay the rents charged on this estate, and consider the propriety of advising Lord Ely, as was done by the right hon. Baronet the Member for West Bristol, when Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in a similar case, to stay evictions during the present agricultural depression?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Nine tenants were recently evicted on the estate referred to, and of these two were readmitted as caretakers on the date of eviction. It does not appear, so I am told, that the agent is reported in the local Press to have used the language imputed in the question. With regard to the conclusion of the question, I can only say that the. Government has no means of exerting any influence for the purpose suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

  MOROCCO.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I desire to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have (given him private notice, as to Morocco—namely, whether, considering the possibilities of disturbances arising in Morocco, any arrangements have been entered into with the French or other Governments with a view to watching our special interests in that country; also what-policy it is intended to pursue?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,: Communications have passed between the various European Powers interested in Morocco, with the result that a general desire has been expressed to act in concert to maintain the status quo as far as European interests are concerned. It has not yet been decided to formally recognise a new Sultan. Mean-

  1231
  while various Powers have made known their intention of keeping ships of war within reach of Morocco for the protection of the life and property of their respective subjects, if disturbances should occur.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.—(No. 190.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 14th June.]
  [THIRTEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 6.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Before going into the discussion of the Amendments, it may be convenient that I should state that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment which stands on page 16 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition with reference to the definition of the principal value in the case of agricultural land. I mention this now not for the purpose of discussion, but because I think it will be found to dispose of many previous Amendments which stand on the Paper.
  *MR. GRANTLAWSONsaid, that in the absence of the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Butcher) he desired to propose an Amendment the object of which was to secure that the Estate Duty allowances, whatever might be their amount, should be made from the property primarily chargeable with the duty. For instance, he would take an estate of £10,000, half of which was represented by personalty and the other made up of realty. There might be a mortgage on the realty of £2,000, and his desire was to secure that the personalty was not reduced by £1,000 as representing a half of the debt, and that the allowance should be apportioned in accordance with the net amount passing. He did not know whether such a state of affairs was provided for in a subsequent part of the Bill; if not, possibly the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 4, after the word "made," to insert the words "as against each portion of the estate primarily liable for the same."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. REID,&c.)said, the point was provided for in lines 17 and 18, page 4, which ran—
  "Any debt or incumbrance for which an allowance is made shall be deducted from the value of the property liable thereto."
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had to move an Amendment to insert in line 4, after "funeral," the words "and administration." He pointed out that in the case of real property the cost of administration—by reason of the aggregation provided for in Clause 3—would be rather heavy, and he would suggest that this was a matter for which Estate Duty allowance might be made.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 4, after the word "funeral," to insert the words "and administration."—(Mr. Heneage.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he did not think administration expenses could be brought within the same category as funeral expenses, and he could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, it was proposed that the expense of administration should be met by an allowance from the principal value of the estate, but he would like to point out that the cost of administering a property situated abroad might be very heavy indeed. In the case of an estate of £10,000 the expense of administration, including the Death Duties payable abroad, might amount to 15 or 20 per cent., and surely the right hon. Gentleman did not intend that in such a case the gross sum of £10,000 should be liable to the Estate Duty here. This was a point which might be raised in connection with Colonial and foreign property; it was one of very great importance in calculating the principal value of the whole estate, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear it in mind.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government will consider that. I can quite see

  1233
  it is a matter to which attention must be given.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, it was admitted that funeral expenses ought to be deducted, and everybody knew what they included and what they did not. For instance, tombstones were not included, although he knew not why. Administration expenses also were fairly well defined both in law and in practice. He wished, however, to draw especial attention to the question of testamentary expenses. At present testamentary expenses were allowed to be deducted in the case of legacies, as, for instance, where there was a residue. That being the state of the case under the existing law, and it being a fact that this Bill merged the Legacy Duty in the Estate Duty, should the liabilities not also be merged and a pro tanto reduction made, as in the case at present of the Legacy Duty? He had an Amendment on the Paper to provide for that. Further than that, inasmuch as the Estate Duty increased the existing duty, was there not a fair case for extending to the new duty existing allowances? He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give that matter consideration.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the allowances would include all expenses connected with the winding up of the estate. But the expenses indicated by the hon. Member could not be taken as coming under the same head as funeral expenses.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out in some eases an administration suit might become necessary and the testamentary expenses would include the cost of such a suit. At present such costs were deducted before Legacy Duty was charged. After all, it not unfrequently happened that as the result of such a suit the lawyers took the oysters and the shells were left to the litigants, and he submitted that in such a case the duty should be paid on the shells only.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was satisfied with the promise made by the Solicitor General that no estate which had been provided beforehand by a policy of assurance should be included in the aggregation, and he would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham) moved to insert in
  1234
  page 4, line 5, after "incumbrances," the words
  "and for the reasonable expenses of any valuation required for the purposes of this Act."
  He contended that, as valuation was necessary, and might be expensive, the cost ought to be deducted from the total on which duty had to be paid. If the property consisted of land with timber upon it, it might be put to very considerable expense indeed to ascertain the value in the ordinary way. According to Whitaker's Almanac the charge made by surveyors for a timber valuation was 5 per cent, on the first £100; and 2½ per cent, on the remainder, in addition to out-of-pocket expenses. The usual charge for valuation for Probate Duty was 2 per cent, on the first £500, and 1¼ per cent, on the rest, besides out-of-pocket expenses. In the case of an estate worth £100,000, of which £20,000 was for timber, he calculated that according to that scale of charges the cost of valuation would be £1,517 10s.; and he thought it would be a very hard thing if the executor were not allowed to make a deduction from the estate on which he had to pay duty in respect to necessary expenses of that kind.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 5, after the word "incumbrances," to insert the words
  "and for the reasonable expenses of any valuation required for the purposes of this Act."—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the Committee would see that one of the main objects of the Government in accepting the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition was that all questions of valuation might be eliminated, because the value in respect of agricultural property was to be based on the annual income. Those who had experience would know that nothing like the rates cited from Whitaker's Almanack were paid in valuations for Probate and Succession Duty. In most cases the Inland Revenue were able to accept the valuation that was sent in, and they had never had to go into Court on a question of valuation. It was undesirable to promote elaborate valuations by professional gentlemen, who would say they must be paid upon

  1235
  the liberal scale of the Almanack, particularly as the money could be deducted from what was to be received by the Government.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the Inland Revenue, before they accepted a valuation, required evidence that proper steps had been taken to provide a proper valuation. He really thought that in cases where an expensive valuation was required the cost should be deducted from the taxable amount of the estate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that while recognising the conciliatory disposition shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he rather demurred to the version given of his Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman. If valuation were to be based upon
  "what property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased,"
  that would involve some kind of valuation, some process of arriving at the capital value, and surely the cost of the valuation should be deducted from the estate. In this valuation an expense might be involved on the owner of realty which was not thrown upon the owner of personalty. It was sufficient to equalise the burdens upon realty and personalty, without going a step further and subjecting realty to the costs of valuation.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that an Amendment at a later stage in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which the Government would accept, proposed that the principal value of any property should be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased, provided that in the case of agricultural property the principal value should not exceed 25 times the annual value as assessed under the Income Tax Acts. They had, therefore, got the Income Tax valuation, and if that were so no valuation was requisite in the case of agricultural property. With regard to property of other descriptions, the valuation could easily be obtained at a small cost, and there would be no such inconvenience as would require them to adopt the Amendment.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that in order to prevent any misunderstanding he wished
  1236
  to demur to the interpretation put upon the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that it implied it would not be necessary in the ease of agricultural land to value it. The figure named in that Amendment was to be the maximum, and the fact that there was a maximum showed that there was to be a valuation, the maximum being put in to safeguard certain interests and to provide that the valuation should not go beyond that limit.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that according to his knowledge and information, these expensive valuations did not occur, but he would consider the desirability of making some provision that when the Commissioners of Income Tax thought fit to require an expensive valuation in such a case allowance should be made in respect of it.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid, there could be no doubt that if property on which there was a large amount of timber had to be valued on the death of the owner, a very considerable and heavy expenditure would be placed on the executor. The expenses in such a case would not be met by the Amendment of the Leader of the Opposition; and he should be compelled to press his Amendment unless he clearly understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the matter further consideration on a further stage.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have said that I will consider that in cases of expensive valuation required at the instance of the Inland Revenue the expenses should be allowed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BYRNE MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow) moved to omit Sub-section (a). As a matter of fact he said he did not wish to have the sub-section struck out, but as it was worded he was afraid it expressed more than was intended. For instance, if a man had settled £10,000 on his marriage, he did not think it could be intended that in reckoning the value of his real estate he should not be entitled to deduct the property he had mortgaged for the purpose of the settlement.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 7, to leave out Sub-section (a).—(Mr. Byrne.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (a) stand part of the Clause."
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the Government could not omit Sub-section (a), because if that sub-section was not in the Bill nothing could be easier for a person who wished to evade the duty than for him to execute a number of bonds to persons whom he desired should get the money, and upon his death the bonds would be debts to the persons whom he wished to benefit. That would defeat the duty altogether.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he desired to know whether a wife, which was "a valuable consideration," was also in the meaning of "money's worth" in the language of the clause, and thereby liable to be valued and included in the aggregate of the estate?
  MR. GOSCHENasked, what was the genesis of this particular sub-section? He was not opposed to it so far as he understood it, but he should like to know whether it had been found necessary in consequence of certain particular frauds, or was it deemed necessary that new precautions should be taken in view of possible evasion?
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that no doubt a wife was a valuable consideration, but she was not a consideration that was "money's worth," at least not in all cases. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's Division, he was not aware that any particular cases had originated the idea of this sub-section, which, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had indicated, was to prevent the evasion of duty which might take place in certain cases by the means which he had suggested, and by the adoption of similar methods. For instance, a farmer who desired to provide for his son, and evade the duty, might say to a third person, "If you give £1,000 to my son I will give you a bond for £1,000 payable at my death." He was not aware that there were any pitfalls in this clause, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman would point such things out to him he would carefully consider them.
  MR. BYRNE: I will communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman on one or two points.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, it seemed to him that there should be some limit to the
  1238
  clause. A person might endow a bonâ fide institution and die before the endowment operated, and yet under the clause the gift would not be deducted from the estate of the deceased because it had not been given for money or money's worth. As the clause stood, every sort of incumbrance might be brought within its operation, therefore some such Amendment as he now proposed should be adopted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 8, after the word "deceased," to insert the words "within twelve months of his death."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that the Amendment appeared to be founded on the analogy of voluntary gifts under the Account Duty. In order to prevent evasion under the Account Duty, which was made to protect Probate Duty, voluntary gifts made within 12 months of death paid the tax. There was great difference between a limit of 12 months and a shorter period. It had been proved by experience that the largest amount of evasion had taken place within a shorter period. The limit originally adopted was three months, but it had been found necessary to extend that period to 12 mouths. The case of an incumbrance was very different to that of a voluntary gift. If a man gave his property away he parted with the control of it. There was no room for suspicion of evasion there at all. But, as the Solicitor General had pointed out, if he created an incumbrance he might escape the duty and keep the control of the property. Therefore, it would be impossible to apply the limit the hon. Member desired to effect.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the period of limitation was three months under the Act of 1881, and in 1888 it was made 12 months, so that the three months' period only existed for seven years. He confessed he thought it reasonable that this Sub-section (a) should be adopted. He considered that it was reasonable that when a man created a bogus gift or a so-called debt and had received nothing for it, it should not be deducted from his estate. Still, he thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of the 12 months' limit.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that of course all bogus cases should be excluded, but

  1239
  he had had in his mind cases where charges were made on the estate for charitable purposes—for public institutions, and things of that kind. Cases of this kind would come under the clause as at present drawn, for the deceased would have had "no consideration in money or money's worth." The clause would tend to discourage what he might call municipal gifts unless the cash was directly paid down by the individuals making such gifts, which was not the ordinary practice. It was usual to make the gift a charge on the estate.
  MR. GOSCHENwas not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General would not, on consideration, be able to find words which would cover the case raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Bartley) before the Report stage was reached. He thought the Committee would wish to cover bonâ fide cases which might be excluded by the words of the clause. The words "bonâ fide for full consideration in money" would only refer to gifts of money, and there might be other cases—cases where a person voluntarily encumbered the estate, say for a charity, intending that that charity should escape Death Duty and the incumbrance should remain till he died. Would that be an evasion of the law? On the other hand, there might be an arrangement made under which an instalment of the gift should be paid over every year without having death in contemplation. In that case it would be right for the debt to be treated as any other debt. No money or money's worth would pass, but at the same time it would be an incumbrance that would remove the property from a man's control, and should not be left undeducted from his general estate. It would be a pity if anything were done to put a stop to arrangements of the kind he described.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he would put the case of the late Sir J. Whitworth, who left £500,000, afterwards increased to £1,000,000, for Science Scholarships, which were given by the Science and Art Department. The money was not handed over, but the estate was charged until Sir J. Whitworth's death. The gift was made by deed, but it was thought advisable that the original £500,000 should remain invested in Sir Joseph's business.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, that if a man in his lifetime parted out-and-out with his property it ought not to be brought within the scope of the clause. If, on the other hand, he made a gift in such a manner as to reserve as far as possible to himself the control of the property during his life it ought not to be excluded from the estate. Where there were doubtful cases it was well, probably, that there should be a line drawn, as was done in this clause, and say, "If you want to escape the Death Duty you must keep on that side of the line." They were all agreed as to the cases where there was an out-and out transaction by which a man parted with his property for good. Deduction ought to be allowed in such cases; but by a clause like this they would give notice to the world that if people desired to dispose of their property so as to evade the Death Duties, they ought to do so in such a manner as would leave no room for doubt.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether any further words are necessary?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must not be taken as giving a pledge, but I will consider the matter.
  MR. J. LOWTHERexpressed a hope that nothing would be done to put a premium upon the granting of benefactions to take effect at some remote period. He hardly thought that the case of the deceased Baronet referred to was one that they should put a premium upon.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the benefaction to which he had referred began at once, and not at the time of the Baronet's death. It began 20 years before the death of deceased.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he begged to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out from "fide" to end of line 12, and insert "and for valuable consideration." He was advised by a solicitor in large practice that Sub-section (a), standing as now drawn, would in a case where a man had covenanted with trustees at the marriage of his son or daughter to pay a certain sum of money on his death or within a certain period of his death prevent that sum from being allowed off the value of the estate, the

  1241
  words of the clause being for "full consideration in money or money's worth." If he were assured that this money would be deducted, or that some words would be inserted to carry out his object, he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 10, to leave out from the word "fide" to end of line 12, and insert the words "and for valuable consideration."—(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, the same point had been brought under his notice, and it had been strongly pressed on him by persons entitled to speak on the subject that the effect the hon. and learned Member feared would be produced by the clause. In the case referred to, not only would the sum in question be included in the settled estate and be liable to the payment of the Death Duties as part of that estate, but the trustees of the son or daughter would have to pay duty upon it also, so that duty would be paid twice over.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that in the case mentioned, the sum in question would certainly be considered as being at the death of the father a part of his estate. He would have enjoyed it during his own life, and it only passed on his death. Under the clause the sum would not be deducted. It would be a debt by deed, but not a deed coming within the definition of Sub-section (a), for he had explained that it was not intended to deduct debts except those given "for full consideration in money or money's worth." They had discussed the words "for valuable consideration," and he had thought the Committee had come to a decision upon them. If a man kept his property until his death, and then left it by will, the duty would have to be paid, and if instead of doing that he made a deed retaining his property all his life and leaving the charge to operate against his estate at his death, it was in substance the same as leaving the money by will. He did not agree with what the last hon. Member had said—that the sum of money would be charged with a double tax. It certainly was not intended that there should be a double duty payable. The
  1242
  principle of the Bill was "one death, one duty."
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, the executor or the person accountable for the estate would have to pay, and the trustee or the beneficiary would also have to pay.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that was not the case. The whole estate of a deceased would pay, and the amounts would be properly distributed.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he should like to pin the Solicitor General to his statement as to "one death, one duty." As the Bill now stood it appeared that there might be four or five duties on one death.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was in sympathy with the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General, but was in a difficulty as to whether the words he proposed would not carry him farther than he wished to go. In the case of a man who covenanted to pay a sum of money to his son or daughter on marriage, and who for some reason or other did not do so, but paid interest regularly up to the time of his death, that sum should not be considered as forming part of his estate at his death. It would be unjust if such a case as that did not fall within the definition of a bonâ fide debt due from the estate. The words of the clause allowed those debts to be deducted only from the estate possessed by the deceased at the time of his death that had been incurred by him for "money or money's worth." He hoped that the terms of the sub-section would be enlarged.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the primary question would be whether or not the property passed on death. If it had not been paid over, but was retained by the person making the covenant, it would not have been alienated.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it would be a debt.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, that under Subsection (a) such property as was here in question would not be deducted. If the right hon. Gentleman would allow him, however, he would look carefully into the matter and see how it stood.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he put it as a case which had puzzled him, and which he failed to see the clause would meet.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he certainly hoped the Government would con-

  1243
  sider the point. If, instead of paying the interest on a sum of £5,000 during his life, and giving a bond to be paid off on his death, the person to whom he had referred in his preceding speech borrowed £5,000 on his estate and paid that sum over, the amount would be deducted under the statute as a debt on the estate. He thought, therefore, the Solicitor General would see that practically the money would be a debt in whichever way it was dealt with.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, this was a question which arose continually. A father frequently made a settlement for his son, but instead of parting with his capital paid his son the interest mentioned in the settlement. If the son died before the capital had been handed over, the amount would not be deducted from the estate, inasmuch as no valuable consideration would have passed. He thought the Solicitor General agreed that this was a case which must be dealt with, and he (Mr. Goschen) thought it was an example of the necessity for examining most carefully every word of the Bill, and of bringing home to gentlemen opposite the fact that the Opposition were not spinning out the proceedings unnecessarily.
  MR. HALDANEsaid, that if the Committee laid down that "valuable consideration" was sufficient in itself all sorts of difficulties would arise. As the Judges had laid down the law they would not, when once they had found a valuable consideration, proceed to estimate it, and therefore a perfectly binding covenant might be allowed to pass under the proposed words for a consideration which was enormously less than its value. He took it that the draftsman of this clause purposely inserted the words "full consideration in money or money's worth," and he thought those words should be adhered to. The public ought to be told that if they were to escape the duty they must put forward their transaction in a form which was unimpeachable. He was afraid that if the Committee adopted the words proposed in the Amendment it would encourage evasions of the duty.
  MR. GOSCHENremarked that in many cases the object would be not to evade the Death Duty, but to secure a higher rate of interest than it would be possible to secure under trustee clauses.
  1244
  For purely business reasons a man might desire to make a settlement upon his son and to pay him the interest on the amount of the settlement instead of handing over the capital. He (Mr. Goschen) attached very great importance indeed to the matter.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the Government were of course bound to protect themselves against invalid transactions. A valuable consideration might, as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Haldane) pointed out, be an inadequate consideration. He quite saw the point that had been taken, and would carefully consider it.
  MR. J. LOWTHERhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in considering the question, bear in mind the distinction that there was between past transactions and future transactions, or, in other words, between settlements made before the Bill was passed or even thought of, and settlements made after its passage. There could, of course, be no question of any trick or fraud in the case of a settlement already made, and he thought that words could be framed which would prevent any abuse in the future.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that after the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane), he felt bound to press the point he had already raised. Legislation was surely to be condemned which gave a different consequence to the same fact, because that fact happened to be expressed in a different way. Supposing a man's daughter were about to be married, and the father proposed to give her £5,000 as a dowry, there were several ways in which he could do so. He might hand over the £5,000 at once, or he might enter into a covenant with the trustees to pay the £5,000, and in the meantime to pay interest. As years went on he might find it more convenient to pay over the money than to pay the interest. Again, he might borrow the money and hand it over to his daughter. The money would be as much given away in one of these cases as in the other, and, therefore, the fiscal effect ought to be the same.
  MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that if he had a distinct understanding that the Government intended to meet the point he had raised he would not press his Amendment. He would suggest, how-

  1245
  ever, that the proposal of the Government should be placed upon the Paper as soon as possible, because the world was not standing still; people were marrying and being given in marriage, and he knew that there was a difficulty as to the form in which marriage settlements were now to be drawn.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he had not given any pledge to do more than look into the matter.
  *MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman would not give a definite pledge the Committee ought still farther to thresh the matter out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin had given one illustration, and he (Mr. Lees Knowles) would give another. Take the case of three men, A, B, and C, each with a fortune of £30,000, and each wishing to settle £5,000 on the occasion of the marriage of a child. Suppose A raised the £5,000 by the sale of Consols and paid it over to trustees for his child; when A died the Estate Duty would be paid on only £25,000. In the case of B, suppose him to be engaged in business, and suppose B did not take the money out of his business, but covenanted with trustees to provide the £5,000 as soon as convenient, and to pay interest on it in the meantime. Suppose he eventually drew £3,000 out of his business, leaving at his death £2,000 still due under the covenant, duty would have to be paid not on £25,000, as in A's case, but upon £27,000. Then, take the case of C. Suppose C happened to be a landowner—and landowners were not as a rule blessed with much ready money. In order to raise the £5,000, he mortgaged his property and then died. Duty in his case would have to be paid on the whole £30,000. Here they had each of the three individuals settling the same amount, though in different ways, for the same object, and the successors of each paying a different amount of Estate Duty. This would be the effect of the clause if passed in its present form. Surely it required amending in some way, and he had hoped to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a pledge to propose an Amendment at some future stage of the Bill.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone farther than he seemed disposed to go to
  1246
  meet cases in which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Haddington had admitted, there could be no question of fraud or evasion. Would it not be possible to insert, after "money or money's worth," the words "or upon the consideration of marriage"?
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he did not know whether there was any valuable consideration except marriage. He would carefully consider whether the able and plausible arguments that had been used necessitated any alteration in the clause.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that a distinction should be drawn between a covenant to take effect at any time and one which was not to take effect until I death.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could understand the right hon. Gentleman I being cautious as to considerations of natural love and affection, but he thought unnecessary alarm existed in the right hon. Gentleman's mind in regard to the words "and for valuable consideration." The right hon. Gentleman had promised to consider the matter, but had; held out little hope that the result of his consideration would accord with the suggestions of the Opposition. For his own part, he (Mr. Lowther) was at a loss to see what distinction there was between the case of a covenant to take effect at any time, and one not to take effect until death, provided that the covenant was made for a consideration such as marriage. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would approach the consideration of the matter with the conviction that an anomaly and injustice had to be avoided, even if it necessitated some alteration in the framing of the Bill.
  MR. BUTCHERsaid, that in a case where a man raised £10,000 on laud valued at £30,000 for a marriage settlement, not only would there be no deduction made in respect of the £10,000, but duty would have to be paid on it as well as the original £30,000.
  *MR. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he hoped that when the Government had given further consideration to the matter it would prove to be another species of valuable consideration than those the right how. Gentleman had referred to. He would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he desired to move an Amendment in place of one on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Thirst (Mr. J. G. Lawson), the object of which was to meet a case in which a reimbursement might be due and yet not obtainable. He moved to insert the words "unless such reimbursement cannot be obtained."
  Amendment proposed, to insert the words "unless such reimbursement cannot be obtained."—(Sir W. Harcourt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."
  MR, GOSCHENsaid, it might be many years and after a number of difficulties before it could be proved to the Inland Revenue. Let him put this case; Supposing there were a debt; that someone else was responsible for that debt, but was insolvent or compounded with his creditors, and there was no chance of recovering that debt except in the course of 20 years, the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not go far enough. The reimbursement would be so distant that it would be extremely hard unless such a debt were allowed. These cases occurred every day, and he thought that the most distinct words should be introduced to secure justice.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the point was this; if the man could not get the return he made what was called an affidavit. The fact the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to, that these things happen every day, showed conclusively that the words proposed were superfluous, and that no difficulty arose with the Department. So far as it had been worked by the Department, no difficulty had been found in these matters; but if the right hon. Gentleman could suggest other words that more perfectly explained what was meant, he was not particular about these words of his own. He had put it in a common phrase way that he thought expressed the idea. If the Department were vexatious in the matter, what would happen would be that there would be lawsuits, but he did not think these were circumstances that were likely to arise.
  MR. JACKSONthought the case was a little more difficult than the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think, and it was more difficult by reason
  1248
  of the fact that it was now proposed to alter the law by graduation and by aggregation. Let them take this case. The power to claim reimbursements under the existing law was no doubt a pretty good protection to the individual who overpaid, or who found subsequently that he had been unable to recover from some person responsible to him, because he would claim and get back the money, which could be easily calculated. But put this case: Suppose the debt were a debt of £20,000, there was a right to recover under the words of the Bill generally; he would not be allowed to deduct that debt, and he (Mr. Jackson) doubted whether the words proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the case, because the scale of duty payable upon the estate by reason of that £20,000 being aggregated was higher; and, therefore, supposing that years hence it was found that that amount could not be recovered from the persons against whom there was a right to be reimbursed, what had been the effect? It was not enough that they should claim back from the Inland Revenue the amount of duty on this particular debt, but they were entitled to get back from the Inland Revenue a rectification of the duty paid upon the whole estate, and that appeared to him to be a real difficulty.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman would find that particular point was met in Clause 7, Sub-section 8—
  "Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that too much Estate but) has been paid, the excess shall be repaid by them."
  That sub-section was intended to cover such a case as that alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, it was true there was a power
  "where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that too much Estate Duty has been paid."
  He accepted it from the right hon. Gentleman, because the right hon. Gentleman said it was intended to cover the case he referred to; but reading it as a layman, and without any knowledge of the law, he thought it might be construed to be simply the amount paid and not necessarily a rectification of the scale. If the hon. and learned Gentleman was quite satisfied that it did cover such a case he would not say more on that.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that perhaps the best solution would be to accept the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the present, and if on examination they did not go far enough they could raise the question again on Report, or endeavour to come to an understanding with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was not only a point as to the exclusions, but what was to be done in the affidavit that was to be prepared. He was afraid it might be held that in drawing up the statement of accounts no debts ought to be put in on which there was a prospect of reimbursement; it seemed a direction to the executors to exclude debts in that position. It appeared to him that the words, therefore, ought to be fair and clear, quite irrespective whether the Inland Revenue would put too harsh an interpretation on them. He thought they should accept the words, subject to further consideration.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, that after what had fallen from the Solicitor General he supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman would have no objection to the Amendment which he now moved.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 16, at end, insert—
  "Provided that no property passing on the death of the deceased shall, on such death, be aggregated more than once, nor be chargeable more than once, with Estate Duty."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the introduction of these words at the present time would be absolutely unnecessary, and if inserted might only tend to perplex matters.
  *SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he would cite a case that had been put to him. Supposing the owner for life of settled property had power to charge upon it a jointure for his wife, and exercised that power; on his death the property passed to a nephew charged with jointure, and without some words of this kind the nephew, having no power to deduct the jointure from the estate, would have to pay duty upon it, and the widow would also have to pay duty upon it.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, he did not think the words were necessary; but if they were necessary they ought to have been put in on Clause 3, as they would not come properly in this clause.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he did not wish to press the matter, and, therefore, would withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, he could quite understand that at first sight it might be thought the Amendment in his name was not quite reasonable and was going too far, but he thought he should be able to prove it was not, and that it raised a point worthy of consideration. It was a matter of common notoriety that upon all lauded estates a large expenditure went on which practically brought in no return at all. They were consequently taunted with the charge that their business was not conducted on proper principles; but certainly on almost every estate with which he was acquainted, practically, a large expenditure was going on which brought in no return at all. It was upon this practically inoperative expenditure that a large number of the agricultural population lived, and if that was not indulged in or pursued a large number of those now employed in agricultural districts would lose their employment; therefore, he urged it was a matter of some national importance and some general interest to the community that an expenditure such as this should be maintained and encouraged. Naturally, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say he did not want vague generalities and would ask for a case to be given, showing what was meant. He must confess the point he had uppermost in his mind in moving this Amendment was a case in which he took a great interest—namely, the supply of a better class of cottages throughout the agricultural and rural districts. He had had what experience could be gained by the administration of a small squire's property for a few years, and during that time he had done something to improve the class of cottages, and he thought it was only fair to state that upon the property for which he was responsible the average occupation of the tenants was from 13 to 14 years. He

  1251
  merely mentioned that to show that upon this question he had some right to speak, and in all the various efforts made in this direction the money spent had been a direct pecuniary loss; there was no such thing as a remunerative return for this class of cottages. Of course, he did not refer to the erection of great rows of cottages or workmen's dwellings near to large factories, but merely to suitable cottages for the benefit of agricultural labourers. And when he spoke of these cottages he meant decent cottages, sufficiently large to meet the proper requirements of the population, cottages with at least three good bedrooms, with proper ground-floor accommodation, and proper sanitary arrangements, which could not be purchased under £350 or £400 a pair. Those cottages would not be let, at the outside, for more than perhaps £5 a year rental; therefore it was manifest that money spent upon cottages such as he had described was money producing no direct return at all, but was unremunerative expenditure. Yet, at the same time, this very expenditure employed an enormous number of people who, if it did not go on, would have to go elsewhere to find their living. Having built these cottages and let them at as small a rent as they could take, they had to maintain them, and everyone knew the maintenance of cottages absolutely ate up the small rental they obtained from them. He was not arguing it was not right and proper that landlords should try and do their best to meet the requirements, and he asserted that most loyally and unselfishly they did so; but if this new system was to come into operation and land was to be continued on very strict economic principles as the result of such legislation as this, it stood to reason that the unremunerative expenditure must be kept down to the smallest limit. He therefore trusted that expenditure under this system might be met by the adoption of some such system as was shown in his Amendment. Since he had had the honour of a seat in this House he did not know that there was any subject he had heard alluded to with greater unction than the duty of trying to make village life better, more rational for self-advancement, and more in keeping with the lives of the urban population. What did that mean? Practically it meant that
  1252
  the owner in such cases was naturally the only source from which this supply could be obtained. When an owner appreciated rightly the duties attaching to his position, and created such things as reading rooms, cottage hospitals, and institutes, he was spending money in the way in which agricultural and village life could be best improved, and the villagers induced to remain in the country rather than flock to the towns, but whilst spending money in these directions it must be manifest it was money which was absolutely unremunerative. Under this Bill all this was a source of expenditure that would have to be reduced in order to meet the extra burdens that would fall upon land. But there was more than that, and again he claimed to speak with some experience in the matter. There was the question of the supply of good water to cottages for the use of the agricultural population. It was perfectly impossible to go on with the sort of indifferent supply which existed in many places, and yet to supply a better and more plentiful supply of water was a great expense to the landlord, and for that he could not charge any extra rent or impose upon the cottagers any additional impost. He did not want to multiply instances or he might quote such things as sanitary drainage to be undertaken upon the theory which was now adopted in towns, and which was beginning to be considered requisite in the villages. This was another instance of agricultural improvement for which the landlord received no return, but which it was to the interest of the community to encourage and maintain. He might fairly be told that many of these improvements, though they did not get a direct return for them, still they got it indirectly, because otherwise their larger tenants would not be willing to pay so much rent as they paid; better cottages was a convenience to them, and therefore was an inducement to them the more willingly to take the farms. But here he wished to guard himself on that point, as he wished to keep out of view any improvement that in any way could be said to add to a larger rental; and therefore he wished to confine his Amendment to that sort of expenditure which was bonâ fide, honestly and really unremunerative to the landlord, but which for the benefit of the commonweal he should be encouraged to undertake.

  1253
  There were other sources of expenditure which did not emphasise his case so strongly, such as the making of roads, the substitution of decent bridges for awkward and impracticable forms, and engineering works of that sort, for which the landlord received no pecuniary return, which did not affect the letting value of his estate, but which at the same time did conduce to the advantage of the neighbourhood generally and caused the employment of a large number of labourers and other workmen. Of course, such expenditure as that had been frankly and loyally undertaken under the old state of things. And why? Because there had been no principle more heartily acknowledged by the landlords of the country, nothing in which they had shown more heartily their approval and concurrence than the idea running through the whole system of our social rural life, that these estates are not for the benefit and amusement of the individuals who happen to hold them, but were hereditary possessions carrying a responsibility both to those living in the place at the time and those who were to come after. It was in fulfilment of that sort of conception and position that landlords had dealt with those around them, but he was afraid—and he did not think he was pointing out a shadowy or bogus dauger—that one of the chief results of this legislation would be, perforce, to drive men to substitute for that idea the poorer feeling of only being life tenants and having very little interest in the property that surrounded them. It was worthy the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether by encouraging the continuance of the present good system he would not really benefit the country without in any way injuring his measure. He did not ask that anything should be deducted out of that from which the landlord got any direct interest, not that he should be allowed to deduct anything from an expenditure he charged to his tenants or received any benefit from, but that out of unremunerative expenditure, which was to be subject to investigation, half should be deducted, and so in that way mitigate the burden that would rest upon the land. He foresaw a danger of the diminution of the very sort of expenditure which he wished to see extended, and it was in order that they might not run into that
  1254
  danger, at all events without warning from one who had practical acquaintance with the subject, that he had ventured to press on the right how. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Amendment which stood in his name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 18, at end, to insert—
  "And, in the case of agricultural land, an allowance shall be made for one-half of the money expended by the deceased in the promotion of agriculture on the said land for which no direct return is being, or has been, received."—(Colonel Kenyon-Slaney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR W. HARCOUKTsaid, he sympathised very heartily with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman had said, and he hoped he would be allowed to point out he sympathised with it twice as much as the hon. and gallant Member. He would explain that in a sentence. What the Government was going to charge duty upon was upon the value of the land of the estate. If money was laid out which did not add to the value of the estate no duty would be charged upon it. He hoped that was a specific answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the Amendment proposed that duty should be charged upon half the expenditure, while the Government did not propose to charge anything at all upon the money which had not added to the value of the estate. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred to the subject of cottages. But the provision of cottages which were necessary for the labourers on the estate was part of the general improvement of the estate, and part of the general plan which was necessary for carrying on the business of agriculture, and to regard that as if it were an expenditure which should boar a separate interest from the other necessary expenditure was a wrong view of the matter. The provision which was made for the shelter of cattle or horses on a farm was not a thing for which separate treatment was claimed. How much higher, then, was the case of the provision of cottages for the men who were necessary for the carrying on the business. It was absolutely part of the business and part of the improvement of the estate, even if not a penny of return was received in respect of these cottages.

  1255
  He only mentioned this incidentally be cause of the unfortunate view which had been taken of this question. He knew many great firms who made improvements of different kinds for their workmen in the recreation and reading rooms, and so on; and that they regarded as part of their business, and they received, though not in cash, but in truth and in deed, adequate remuneration in the better and more contented condition of the men whom they employed. That was the point of view in which this question ought to be dealt with, and there was no greater improvement to an estate than that which contributes to the physical and moral well-being of the people necessary for the cultivation of that estate. From that point of view he thought the provision of cottages for labourers on an estate was an improvement even if there was no direct monetary remuneration received from it. But on the general point of the Amendment if money was laid out at a loss it would not be subject to duty. He was afraid most people who dabbled in agriculture had diminished the sums upon which duty would be paid. That, he thought, was everybody's experience, and he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would see that the object which he had at heart was accomplished by the clause as it stood.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, if he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer's explanation aright, it meant that cottages on an estate would be valued for duty.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I say if they have not added to the value of the estate they will not be charged. If they have they will.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Yes, but at the same time they may be unremunerative to the man who made the outlay on them. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards the close of his observations had taken a different line, and said there was no greater improvement that could be made on an estate than improvements which added to the more condition of the people and to their material interests. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman there, and that was what his hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment was desirous should go on in the future. But if this Bill passed into law that expendi-
  1256
  ture must be curtailed, because the taxes which in some cases it would add to estates when they were passing at the death of the owner; that the interest on the money which it would be necessary to raise or procure by some means to meet these Death Duties, would swallow up so large a part of the income that remained that there would be no money at the disposal of the landlord to spend in the erection of cottages. He could not help pointing out to his right hon. Friend that this particular part of what he considered the inherent mischief of the Bill would greatly curtail that expenditure which he thought so desirable in the interest of the people.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen into a slight error. He spoke of the tendency amongst owners of land to regard money expended upon cottages as if it ought to bear a return, although no return according to the right hon. Gentleman was looked for in respect of outlay incurred for the housing of cattle. If the right hon. Gentleman had ever had the misfortune—which he was happy to know he had not—of making an application under the Land Improvement Act for an advance for the purpose of estate improvement he would have found the expenditure for the housing of cattle, and so forth, equally with the erection of cottages, was charged as expenditure which ought to be allocated for a specific purpose, and had to bear a return and be a distinct improvement to the estate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURwas in complete sympathy with his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) in thinking this Bill would have the effect described, especially with regard to improvements of the kind which were more to the benefit of the people on the land than of the individual who owned it. He had pointed out on a previous occasion that, if they were to be taxed on the principal value of property, the person who had neglected his property so that it had no market value would benefit by the neglect, and would be excused from paying any Death Duty at all. That would be the result of the system proposed by the Government. At the same time he thought the wording of his hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment hardly carried out the object he

  1257
  had in view. Neither did he think that the present would be a convenient time to draft words to modify the Bill. He hoped, therefore, his hon. and gallant Friend would be content with the discussion which had taken place without pressing the Amendment to a Division.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYcould not deny the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and he would be most unwilling not to accept the advice tendered. He was prepared to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the sympathy he had shown and the kindly tone in which he had replied to the Amendment. He thought, however, that the right hon. Gentleman rather misunderstood him. He would acknowledge that it was a fundamental necessity that cottages should be maintained up to a sufficient level, but he would like to see them even better maintained. The right hon. Gentleman made a comparison between great firms and their employés and the agricultural landlords and their cottage tenants. No one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that there were so many points of difference in these two cases that it was hardly possible to argue from one to the other. The convenience and facility with which improvements could be effected in towns placed them on an entirely different footing from improvements effected in small and scattered villages in distant parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman stated that nothing could be a greater improvement to an estate than the erection of good cottages. But what happened? A man spent a certain amount of money in effecting this improvement, and, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing, the value of the property was enhanced by this unremunerative expenditure, and, as a result, the man's successor was charged with a higher duty in consequence of it. That would be the precise effect of the present legislation. He would, however, withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COUETNEY MR. COUETNEY moved, in page 4, line 18, after the word "thereto," to insert the words—
  "(2)An allowance shall also be made in respect of any sum payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the deceased and form-
  1258
  ing part of his estate to an extent not exceeding the Estate Duty payable on his estate."
  He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not going to withdraw the proposal he had made to the Committee. He could assure him it had excited a great deal of interest in many parts of the country, and many landlords would like to see the Amendment which he had just proposed adopted, as it would afford a means of escape from these Death Duties. He would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it was only reasonable that the proposition contained in the Amendment should be allowed, because it would encourage a person to provide the means, by a policy of insurance, for the payment of the Death Duties when they became payable. It used to be argued by economists that the consequence of a Death Duty would be to diminish capital. If a certain amount was to be taken away from a man's capital in Death Duties, the capital of the country would suffer a continual diminution unless there was a corresponding action on the part of other persons to counteract the effect of these Death Duties. But if an allowance were made in respect of the amounts necessary to provide by insurance for the payment of these duties it would be an encouragement to tenants for life to provide during their lives the means of paying the duty payable at their deaths, and it would also be a means of counteracting the fundamental argument against such duties. Perhaps a more powerful argument with the right hon. Gentleman would be that it would remove many of the objections which have been raised against the operation of the duty, and would tend to smooth the working of the Act. Almost all the hard cases of which the Committee had heard would be met if tenants for life were encouraged to provide a separate fund for the payment of Estate Duty. It would prevent alike the infliction of hardship and the wasting of estates, and cruelty in any case would be avoided. It was most desirable, therefore, that every encouragement and assistance, consistent with the fiscal administration, should be given to persons during their lives to make provision for the payment of these duties. He might point out that this would be consistent, with the view which both the right hon.

  1259
  Gentleman and he entertained, that this was really a deferred Property Tax which ought to be paid by the persons while living if it could be conveniently done. But inasmuch as it could not be conveniently done while the person was living, it had to be collected after death. If persons during life, by effecting a policy of insurance on their lives, could provide for the payment of the duty after death it would be a great advantage. He did not know what objection the right hon. Gentleman had to this proposal; he might say it would make a serious inroad into the amount which he expected the tax to realise, but he (Mr. Courtney) would venture to say if that was the ease such a fear was illusory. It was estimated that the amount realisable from Estate Duty, if it were an annual collection, would be £10,000,000. If everybody concerned effected an insurance, the annual loss on this sum would not be more than £400,000; but as that would not be the case, and as there were some circumstances to be taken into account, he did not believe that in the end there would be more than £100,000 of a total loss. Against this loss could be put the great social and fiscal gain, and the smoothness with which the administration of this duty could be carried on. Something had been said privately of the possibility of evasion. He did not believe that evasion was possible; but if the right hon. Gentleman had any words to suggest to safeguard against anything in this respect, he would be glad to adopt them in the Amendment. The principle embodied was one that deserved not merely sympathy, but support. It would make the work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his successors easier, and it would not involve any loss, but would, in fact, effect a saving which would more than counteract any possible loss which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might sustain. It would avoid a difficulty which would undoubtedly result if persons did not during their lives provide the means of paying the Estate Duty. If it was not brought home in some forcible way to the possessors of great estates that there was this burden to be provided for when they died, by insuring their lives, the working of this fiscal arrangement would be found to produce great delay and friction, and would cause resentment and
  1260
  regret. The Amendment which he had proposed would benefit not only people professionally interested in the promotion of life insurance, whose interest was the last he would consider, but it would benefit a large number of persons throughout the country who were looking forward to the operation of the Finance Bill with some apprehension, and who saw in the adoption of the Amendment the only means of escape from what they apprehended would be the wasting operation of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 18, after the word "thereto," to insert the words—
  "(2) An allowance shall also be made in respect of any sum payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the deceased and forming part of his estate to an extent not exceeding the Estate Duty payable on his estate."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCORTRTsaid, the object of his right hon. Friend was to provide for the payment of Death Duties by insurance. It would be a very good way of meeting that end if it were largely adopted; but when they came to examine the matter, it was found to be wholly inadvisable, except from the point of view of the able advocate of the Insurance Companies. He did not think that would commend itself to his right hon. Friend. Again, a person might not have an insurable life, and would have to save in some other way to meet the Death Duties. I have no doubt that an exemption of this kind would induce some persons to save a certain amount of money each year which would go into that insurance fund. That would be a help to those persons, but the inequality arises again, because this Amendment would not help people in business at all. I am quite willing to say that insurance is an excellent mode of saving, and perhaps the best for this purpose. But I am afraid that in this case thrift, like virtue, must be its own reward. I say I think that insurance is a very good thing, and I am sure I hope it will be very largely adopted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin is good enough to say that if this Amendment is adopted the Exchequer will only lose something like £400,000 a year. The

  1261
  real fact is, according to the calculation of the Inland Revenue authorities, that the loss would be more like £500,000; but whether it be one or the other, I cannot afford to lose it, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
  *MR. COHENsaid, he thought the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would cause profound disappointment throughout the country, and he was afraid that disappointment would not be mitigated when they came to consider what were the arguments upon which the right hon. Gentleman based his refusal to accept the Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that he disapproved of insurance. On the contrary, he went out of his way to say he thought it was an excellent virtue, and that he would be glad to encourage and advise everybody to take that additional method of protection against the burden which he was going to cast upon society. He (Mr. Cohen) had no interest, direct or indirect, in any Life Assurance Company, but lie ventured to say that it was not enough for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet their proposals with the reply that if this Amendment were accepted it would incidentally benefit the Life Assurance Companies of the country. It would benefit other than the Life Assurances Societies—chiefly the owners of small estates, who could not afford to see the diminution of properties which had been bequeathed to them by the bread-winner of the family. He must say that he had not seen in the Budgets of the last 20 years any proposals so likely to injure small property owners as those which the right hon. Gentleman was now putting forward. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman met his statement with a laugh, which he not infrequently did; but that did not convey any argument. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see that a policy of this kind attacked all the capital of the country, and would inflict the gravest injury upon small estates while tending to maintain intact the large estates which the right hon. Gentleman supposed he was invading, much to the delight of his supporters behind him. It was quite clear that the owners of small properties
  1262
  could not pay out of income these enormous and increased duties, and surely it was a wise thing that they should be induced to insure, so that if death took place three or four years afterwards their assets should remain intact notwithstanding the burden of the tax levied upon them by the right hon. Gentleman. He should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have seen that by accepting this Amendment he would have been doing something for those on whose behalf he had professed so much interest—namely, the small estate owners. It would turn out for his own interest also, for collection would be facilitated, and there would be an absence of any friction. It was true that the Bill proposed to allow eight years for the collection of the duty, and that would perhaps be some advantage, except that interest was charged on arrears. Considering what the right hon. Gentleman had so often said about the money-lenders, he could hardly suppose that he wanted to turn the State into a money-lender. Here was a plan which would offer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer very considerable facilities for the collection of that tax; but it was to be rejected, notwithstanding that the facts were admitted and even enlarged upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—rejected for the insufficient and almost ill-natured reason that it would incidentally benefit the Life Assurance Companies.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Before the discussion on this exceedingly important matter goes further, and while the Chancellor of the Exchequer's arguments are fresh in our minds, I should like to say a word upon the points which the right hon. Gentleman has taken. There are a great many arguments that might be used against this proposal. It is a very important proposal; and looking at the temptation that the Bill offers to disperse capital, I think there is a deal of force in the speeches made in favour of the Amendment. What are the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He says that other forms of saving would be prejudiced by the encouragement which would be given to property owners to insure. The right hon. Gentleman surely must have forgotten that provision has already been made in our legislation for the encourage-

  1263
  ment of insurance and other forms of thrift by the exemption of premiums from the Income Tax. It seemed good to the House of Commons, looking at the enormous mass of insurance, to treat it in a different way to other savings. The right hon. Gentleman may say that this is no argument; but I maintain that having once introduced this principle into our legislation, that from your income you may deduct your insurance premium, it is one that takes root in one's mind, and naturally leads up to the present proposal of my right hon. Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has acknowledged the principle, and I do not understand why he does not give further effect to it. If the right hon. Gentleman says the point is not arguable, I reply that unless our existing legislation is not arguable this is a proposal upon which many arguments can be based. Then the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the financial effects of the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin has assumed that the insurance which might take place would reduce the amount of duty available for the Exchequer by £400,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the Revenue Department places it at £500,000. They would not have put it so high unless they expected everybody to insure, and if everybody insured what becomes of the argument that preference is given to insurance over other forms of saving? Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought he could weaken the case of my right hon. Friend by hinting at a financial deficit; but his argument of financial loss is destructive of his other arguments. No one can seriously believe that everyone would insure to the full value of the Death Duties. I venture to think, notwithstanding the threat of the loss of revenue, that the calculation ought not to go beyond £200,000 instead of £500,000. The Inland Revenue authorities naturally take an outside view, but according to their calculation the worst that could happen would be that the Exchequer would lose £500,000. You may be sure that they have allowed a very sufficient margin, just the same as in their calculation of the Death Duties. I believe that the Death Duties will secure a larger financial result than is shown by the figures of the Inland Revenue. If
  1264
  that is so the right hon. Gentleman has a margin to spare in order to meet the proposal of my right hon. Friend, and I do not see any reason, therefore, why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not accept it.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has brought to the aid of this proposal an argument drawn from the allowance which is made out of the Income Tax with regard to insurance. If the right hon. Gentleman more carefully considers the matter he will see that the argument applies the other way. You allow for life insurance because the money spent in insurance is money that is saved, and you calculate that you will collect your Death Duty upon the insurance hereafter. Therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the deduction of the Income Tax is the strongest possible argument why more reduction should not be made in respect of Death Duty. You have relieved insurance premiums from payment of Income Tax, because it represents an ultimate saving upon which the Death Duty would be payable. Under the Account Duty, so far from granting any release, you have taken care that voluntary gifts, and so on, shall not escape you. We regard moneys produced under insurances as amongst the most valuable assets that can become the subject of Death Duties; the premiums have already been exempted from payment of Income Tax, and I do not see that we can afford to exempt them again from Death Duty.
  MR. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, that as he had not before spoken on this Bill, he might be allowed to raise one more argument in favour of the Amendment. By the principle of aggregation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had for the first time set up, he had afforded the very best argument that could be adduced for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that it was a desirable thing in itself that insurances should be made, especially in the case of large estates, for the purpose of paying the Death Duties; but the larger the insurance which a man set up and paid out of his income, the more he might penalise

  1265
  himself and his heirs by causing a larger aggregation to be made. That was a point to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give some attention. He believed that the financial effect of the proposal would be very much less than the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to think. If the right hon. Gentleman would give up the small amount involved, he would recoup himself over and over again by the facility with which he would recover the Duties. He had the honour of being a director of a large Insurance Company, but he was sure that the Committee would understand that he was speaking without any reference to that fact. He would like to point out that the Insurance Companies paid enormous incomes, and if it was true that they were going to increase the insurances to the extent suggested, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be recouped in Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman was unwise in summarily rejecting this Amendment, and he could not believe that he had given to it the consideration it deserved. He supported this Amendment in the interests of frugality and thrift, and in the interest of the Revenue also.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he was astounded at the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he raised this point the other night. He gave the case of a man whose estate would be brought into a fresh scale of aggregation because of the insurance, and he put it to the hon. and learned Solicitor General whether it was fair, and he replied in the negative.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he was asked to express an opinion, and he certainly gave an answer in the direction indicated by the hon. Gentleman, but he found that he was mistaken, and so informed the hon. Member in the Lobby afterwards.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he remembered that his hon. Friend told him he had made a mistake, but all the same, after what took place, he must express his surprise at the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would like to point out that these policies of insurance would only be entered into by those who wished to save the 3 per cent. interest on the instalments, and that it would be a great advantage to the Treasury to
  1266
  have the money paid in in one year instead of having it distributed over eight years. He was astonished that there should have been a change of line, and that they should now be told that this proposal could not be accepted because of some fanciful loss which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought would be incurred.
  *SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he had hoped that more favourable consideration would have been given to what was really a constructive Amendment to this Bill. Assuming that the Bill was right in every respect, it would yet carry with it grave social difficulties among large classes of persons in the country. He believed that in introducing a great reform they ought to contemplate the evils with which it would be accompanied, and endeavour to restrict them so far as they possibly could. The difficulty of raising this duty would in many cases be of a practical character, and the only real remedy that presented itself was the organised and familiar system of insurance. If advantage could not be taken of that plan the evils would be very much intensified. Anything that tended to encourage insurance ought, therefore, to be recognised in dealing with the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that people must save money in order to pay the duty, but that was exactly what the majority of men could not and would not do. The whole system of life insurance was devised to enable men of restricted means to provide for the future. The right hon. Gentleman said this proposal, if adopted, would mean a bonus to certain classes. Was not the system of bonuses already recognised by the State, and acted upon for a long period in connection with Friendly and Provident Societies and Savings Banks? That plan was adopted because it was thought that saving was advantageous to the State. He made a last appeal to the Solicitor General on grounds which he thought ought to commend themselves to him, that was that in some cases these insurances would be double insurances—an insurance for the owner and an insurance for the Government itself. Let them take the case of a derelict estate. The Government must either sell it or take it; but if by the encouragement of this system of

  1267
  insurance the owner of the estate had been stimulated to save the duty out of his income, the money would be available for payment of the duty, and could be obtained without delay or litigation. So far from believing that the system of insurance, if increased by bonuses, would be a disadvantage to the State, it was his conviction that it would on general grounds be a direct benefit, and that in the particular case he put of an estate becoming less and less valuable, and ultimately almost impossible to realise, it was very likely that the duties would be provided if the owner was able to make provision for the Death Duty by the system of insurance. In that case both the estate and the Government would be benefited. He thought the Amendment was worthy of support, and that in his own interest the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do wisely in accepting it.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,: I do not quite understand the arguments which have been brought forward in support of this Amendment. They appear to be based upon the assumption that if a new system of insurance should be inaugurated, the Government are in some way to have a control or a lien over these insurances, and that money so arising is to be paid over to them. That, however, is not germane to the Amendment we are now discussing, but I am prepared to answer it afterwards. The Amendment is that—
  "An allowance shall also be made in respect of any sum payable under a policy of insurance on the life of the deceased, and forming part of his estate to an extent not exceeding the Estate Duty payable on his estate."
  My right hon. Friend behind me knows that the amount now insured is some hundreds of millions. The first proposal is that upon these existing policies, to an extent not exceeding the Estate Duty payable upon the various estates, there is to be exemption from duty. This, of course, would mean an enormous loss to the Revenue. [A cry of "No!"] Let us take two or three concrete cases. First let us take the case of a man worth £100,000. He is a prudent man, and part of his property may consist of a policy of insurance on his own life, say for £5,000. When he dies the larger amount of property will consist of land and freehold
  1268
  estate. It is proposed that there should be a deduction of duty to the extent of £5,000, so that he could only be made to pay on £95,000. Why is this particular form of investment to be separated from other forms of investment and treated with special favour? Why is that man to be allowed to have this exemption? Or let us take the case of a man who knows that he must pay duty at death on £100,000, or rather that he will die worth only £95,000 after the duty is paid. He may say, "I wish to leave my estate entire; I wish my family to have the £100,000 as a whole. Although I should have to pay £4,000 under the existing law, under the new duties I must pay £5,500, and I wish to provide for that." There are two ways of doing that. He must either save so as to add to his capital a sufficient amount of money to pay this charge; he can invest in ordinary securities and accumulate the proceeds at compound interest, and he can tell pretty well what amount will be required to enable him to provide the necessary fund at his death to pay duty on the £100,000. Or he may say, "I prefer to pay to the Insurance Companies premiums which will bring in that amount." Insurance is simply saving, and nothing else. As a matter of fact, those who live pay for those who die, and the people who do live, and have the advantage of a longer life, pay very largely in excess of the amount that they receive in order to cover the cases of those who receive in excess of what they pay. Why is the Legislature to step in and say, "If you choose to pay this amount through an insurance company we will exempt your savings from duty"? Why is only that form of saving to be exempted? Why not exempt savings invested either in Consols or Railway Debentures? Another man may buy a certain property, the value of which he thinks is going to rise, calculating that in a certain number of years he will get a considerable profit. Why not exempt that investment? But no, this one specific mode of saving through the agency of an Insurance Company is to enjoy the advantage of paying no duty because assets so increased by means of savings of which insurance is the visible representation will

  1269
  enable the testator to band over to those interested in the settlements the complete amount originally settled without any reduction in respect of Estate Duty. I believe that everybody admits the desirability of insurance. We, however, do not propose to put a bonus on it. The advantage of insurance is self-evident. People insure because they see it is to their benefit to do so. Insurance statistics show that the amount insured is every year increasing in an enormous ratio. So far as the landed interest is concerned, I can quite understand that these duties will fall heavily upon freeholders or tenants for life of settled estates. But if you are going to enforce the principle of insurance you must enforce it to a wider extent than for the payment of Estate Duty. An able writer on political economy has pointed out that if the lauded estates of this country are to be kept together the owners must largely resort to insurance, and he points out also the injustice of calling upon the successor to provide for the children of the predecessor. Assuming that insurance, as I believe it would be, a great advantage, I cannot myself see why this particular mode of saving should be possessed of this advantage of exemption over other forms of thrift. You cannot confine the advantage to one system, but must make it universal.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that with regard to the terms of the Amendment he distinctly submitted them to the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and stated that he was ready to assent to any reasonable limitation, and that the rebate should only be made to the executor in cases where the insurance was effected for the purpose of meeting the Estate Duty. The question had been asked why exemption should be given to this form of saving. The matter arose out of the form in which the duty was proposed to be levied, and that was one of high policy. The Government were going to impose a duty which would affect the social life of the community. The question simply was, would they give such an encouragement to the practice of life insurance as would prevent the evils which the Government themselves confessed might be brought about, and which they desired to avoid? He admitted that
  1270
  the proposal was an encouragement to life insurance. He did not put it forward as one interested in Life Insurance Companies, but in the interest of the public at large, and it had been supported on general grounds right and left by those who had no connection with Life Insurance Companies. It would form a ready method of collection of the tax and make the task easy to all concerned. He was quite ready to have the proposal limited in the strictest way. The amount by which it would diminish the receipts was infinitesimal as compared with the tax itself. It was a proposal to stimulate saving, and create saving, and to bring into existence large reserves which would not otherwise come into existence—not from foreign but from home sources. The proposal ought to recommend itself to Finance Ministers present and future, and in view of the expressions of opinion which he had heard upon it he must ask the Committee to take a Division upon it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 113.—(Division List, No. 100.)
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the Amendment he had now to move he should divide into sections, and he proposed first to move the following:—
  "(2) In calculating the principal value of an estate, reversions shall not be taken into account, provided that—

  (a) on the sale of such reversion, or on the possessor raising money or any consideration for his interest in such reversion, Estate Duty shall be paid on the value of the reversion as estimated by this section of this Act on the scale given in Section 14 of this Act, according to the aggregated value of the last estate of which the reversion formed a part, and no person shall be able to give a good discharge or receipt for any sale or loan unless it is certified by the Commissioners that there is no claim for Estate Duty thereon, and the Commissioners shall, on application in the prescribed form, if satisfied that there is no claim, give such certificate;

  (b) on the maturing of such reversion, providing the Estate Duty has not been paid as required by Sub-section (a), Estate Duty shall be paid on the principal value of the reversion according to the aggregated value of the last estate of which the reversion formed a part, and no person shall be able to obtain a good discharge in handing over such reversion

  1271
  unless it is certified by the Commissioners that there is no claim for Estate Duty thereon, and the Commissioners shall, on application in the prescribed form, if satisfied that there is no claim, give such certificate."

  He was afraid it was somewhat technical, but nevertheless it was a very important branch of property, and he ventured to move it as carrying out the Amendment of his on the first clause, which the Government accepted. Though the Government might not have had the same view that he had in moving the former Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated the Bill would contain some words showing how the principal value would be arrived at. According to the way in which the value of property was arrived at, there might be considerable hardship inflicted or great alleviation produced in the payment of the Estate Duty. This clause was one of the most complicated and difficult clauses to understand by those who had not studied the whole question, but if the Bill should become law unamended, persons would get to know very severely what reversions meant by being touched up on paying them. He ventured to assert that a reversion was a very common form of property. There were reversions of many sorts and many descriptions, and they had this peculiarity: that they were not in any way confined to real property. A reversion was of value in three ways. It had a value, of course, when it fell in—that was the full value of the reversion when it matured; then it had a value when it was sold, and almost all reversions were saleable; and, thirdly, it had a value when money was raised upon it. In those three categories the value of a reversion consisted, and he saw no possible objection to Estate Duty being charged upon all those occasions with regard to reversions; he did not wish in any way to let reversions escape, and the Amendment he proposed distinctly stated that all these values should be taxed. But he said there was no value in the simple fact that at some distant time a man was to receive something; that time might be very remote, and even beyond the probability of his life or the possible span of his life, but unless he sold or raised money upon it the reversion was of no value to him. Let him take a simple ease. Supposing
  1272
  a man had a reversion for £50,000 which was due in 50 years on the 3 per cent. table, that reversion had a nominal value of £11,000; or, in other words, if a reversion of good property, it could be sold for £11,000. The Estate Duty upon that would vary from 4 to 8 per cent., according to the gross amount of value left by the deceased of which the reversion formed a part. In the case of 4 per cent. the duty would be £440, and in the case of the 8 per cent. it would be £880. Either of those sums was a large one to pay, though in the case of a rich man there might be no difficulty in his paying it; but still it must be remembered that the man who received the reversion did not receive anything by it, but under the Bill would have to pay either £440 or £880 for the simple gratification of being the channel through which some person in a distant age would receive a large sum of money. He knew a case of a reversion for £22,000 payable in 50 years, the selling value of which would be £5,000, and the Estate Duty would vary from £150 to £300, according to the value of the property of which it formed part. If a rich man received that it would be possible for him to pay it, but in the case of a poor man it would be absolutely impossible, unless he sold it. It seemed to him to be very unfair that a man who was left a reversion out of which he individually received no benefit should be called upon to pay a heavy sum for it. Then, again, a large number of these reversions were reversions on lives, and the same rule applied to these, but in these cases it might very often be very unpleasant to sell the reversion, as the person inheriting it might have relations who would resent the sale. The Bill would place poor persons in a very unpleasant position, whereas by his Amendment he relieved them from all difficulty, as a person would only pay when he received benefit from the reversion. When a man of small means succeeded to a reversion the law should not so arrange that he should be bound to sell it. Many of these reversions were ground rents, and therefore they need not consider the annual rent at all, because it must not be forgotten that his Amendment only related to the reversion. He would venture to point out to those who were not technically acquainted with these par-

  1273
  ticular details that a ground rent consisted of two things—it was an annuity and a reversion. His Amendment did not touch the annuity, but the reversion, and they must therefore separate those two, and by a subsequent Amendment he ventured to propose a certain regulation by which the annuity of ground rents should be fairly taxed. Closely allied to this was the reversion of a peppercorn. Most persons knew what a peppercorn rent was, but a poor man would not be able to hold some of these peppercorns. He had had some very startling instances brought before him, cases in which houses of considerable value were held on 1s. peppercorn rents. He had one before him in which a house was held on a shilling peppercorn rent. The reversion, which was £5,000 with 30 years to run, was valued at about £2,000, so that a man might be called upon to pay a heavy Estate Duty for the simple advantage of being the medium through which this peppercorn went, and all he would receive would be 1s. a year for 30 years. As he had said, a rich man would be able to pay the duty; but a poor man, however much he would like to retain the reversion for the benefit of his children or grand-children, would be compelled to sell owing to the enormous duty that was asked under this Bill. But further than that, a reversion of 40 or 50 years would very probably pay several times, and each time that it was paid the amount would be so much more, owing to to the increased value of the reversion as the date of failing drew nearer. Therefore they would have this result, that three, four, or five persons would have paid a large part of the gross value of the reversion in Estate Duties. Such a proposal as that was not right; it could not be right to make people who did not receive any benefit, but were merely the channel through whom it went for some one else many years hence to enjoy, to pay this duty. If they sold or in any way received any benefit under it, then, according to his Amendment, the State would swoop down upon them and make them pay Estate Duty. If it was insisted that these reversions should be charged on the estate, and were not only to be charged, but were to swell the aggregate of the estate, the consequence must be that all
  1274
  these reversions would be sold to Insurance Companies, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would gain nothing by it. His proposal, he thought, was extremely fair, as it was to tax these reversions the moment they became valuable. He believed that if the question regarding reversions was thoroughly understood by the Committee there would be a strong feeling about them, and for the reasons he had given he begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 18, to insert after the word "thereto," as a new sub-section, the words—
  "(2) In calculating the principal value of an estate, reversions shall not be taken into account, provided that—

  (a) on the sale of such reversion, or on the possessor raising money or any consideration for his interest in such reversion, Estate Duty shall be paid on the value of the reversion as estimated by this section of this Act on the scale given in Section 14 of this Act, according to the aggregated value of the last estate of which the reversion formed a part, and no person shall be able to give a good discharge or receipt for any sale or loan unless it is certified by the Commissioners that there is no claim for Estate Duty thereon, and the Commissioners shall, on application in the prescribed form, if satisfied that there is no claim, give such certificate;

  (b) on the maturing of such reversion, providing the Estate Duty has not been paid as required by Sub-section (a), Estate Duty shall be paid on the principal value of the reversion according to the aggregated value of the last estate of which the reversion formed a part, and no person shall be able to obtain a good discharge in handing over such reversion, unless it is certified by the Commissioners that there is no claim for Estate Duty thereon, and the Commissioners shall, on application in the prescribed form, if satisfied that there is no claim, give such certificate."—(Mr. Bartley.)

  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. BARTLEYasked, on a point of Order, if the effect of moving the Amendment in this form would be to cut out the subsequent part of it?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be left to these words, "an allowance shall not be made," in the sub-section.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Would we have no opportunity of raising the next part of the Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot say that.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he could not give any adherence to the Amendment of the hon. Member, because a reversion had a market value, and could at once be turned into money. If the person holding a reversion did not choose to use it, or convert it into money, that would not affect the argument. It was just the same as if a man left a number of bags of gold, or a sum of money lying accumulated in Consols for his children. He could not see that in substance there was any distinction between that and where the property was made use of and was converted into money during the lifetime of the deceased. When he made the illustration of Consols he was strictly accurate. Consols left to accumulate in a bank would amount larger and larger by the annual increment of interest just as a reversion became more and more valuable by the diminution of the period in which it comes into enjoyment. He could not, therefore, see any distinction between the two things. Reversions were available property, and could be converted into cash for the enjoyment of the reversionary and be utilised by him. He thought it would be unfair to other forms of property to exclude reversions from the operation of the Death Duties. According to the hon. Gentleman's argument, if a man left a reversion worth £10,000, there would be no tax; but if the same man left £10,000 in Consols, there would be the full tax imposed. He had dealt with the proposal of the hon. Gentleman from the point of view of principle, and he would say from that point of view it would not be equal in principle to treat this form of property in an exceptional manner. He had not dealt with the matter in detail, and he hoped the hon. Member would excuse him for not doing so.
  SIR R. WEBSTERwas sorry that the discussion had taken place before such a small audience, because the matter was of some importance. He would observe, parenthetically, that he was sorry his hon. Friend had moved his Amendment by way of substitution for Sub-section 2, with which it did not seem to have any connection. The result would be that it would have to be
  1276
  brought forward as additional sub-sections to some other part of the clause. He desired to have it placed on record why it was that he could not agree with the arguments of his hon. Friend the Solicitor General. It appeared to him that the Solicitor General had entirely confused the distinction between actual value and prospective value. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to Consols being allowed to accumulate, but there was no analogy between that and reversions. That form of accumulation was not one of the incidents of reversions. His hon. Friend had not grappled with this difficulty, because he had not brought his mind to bear on what the incidents of reversion were. Why was it unfair to treat reversions as property for the purposes of the Death Duties in the same way as other property? Because reversions had not got anything more than an artificial value for the time being. He would give an illustration. Suppose a man had bought a reversion contingent on two lives, a common market transaction at the present time. The man with the title to the reversion dies and on his death the reversion is to be valued at the market price, assuming say 20 years to be the proper term. Suppose during the 20 years there were three successions by death to this same reversion, what possible ground would there be for claiming three times over the same amount of Death Duty in respect of the same reversion? Yet this was a case which, to his knowledge, had occurred more than once. But in each case the amount to be paid on a reversion would be larger because the term would be shorter each time, while the fact still remained that the estate or reversion had not benefited Id. by its transmission. He thought the principle of the Amendment was one that might fairly be recognised by the Government—namely, that reversions should be treated as property and dealt with as property when the person entitled turned them into money or when the person came actually into possession. For example, take the case of a man who had vested his money in ground rents; say a £10 ground rent with the reversion to a £50 rackrent at the end of 40 years. That man made the investment for his children. No one would want to escape

  1277
  the Death Duty in a case like that, but what he would like to protest against was treating that property as property convertible into money and charging duty on its prospective value. No one could grasp even the rudimentary features of that kind of commercial transaction without seeing that to treat that property or succession during the currency of the term at its increased market value would be to bring into the category of marketable property reversions which were not available in the same way as were the Consols or bags of gold to which the Solicitor General had referred. The point sought to be raised in the Amendment was that the reversion should be taken at its real Value and not at an assumed value, which could not be realised for a long period; in other words, that it should not be treated as property immediately available. If the Government persisted in what was apparently their present intention the Death Duty might be paid over and over again several times in respect of the same property, because the reversion would be treated as available property every time a death took place during the currency of the term before the reversion came into possession. He regretted Her Majesty's Government did not see their way to make some amendment in the clause, and remove what was undoubtedly a grievance, which, in the circumstances, would call for some remission of taxation.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, if he had a sovereign in his pocket that was a form of property easily exchanged; but suppose he had also an I O U for its complement from an hon. Member opposite payable a year hence, that would be a very different thing. But this was just what happened in the case of reversions, because a reversion was payable on a contingency. What was the value of that reversion in view of the contingency? Once that question was raised they entered at once on the sea of actuarial valuations, with questions as to the probability of life, the amount of premium one would have to pay for insurance, and so on; yet the Government, as he understood the matter, proposed that every one of these things should be valued on a man's death just as if they were an available market commodity at the moment, like the sovereign to which he had re-
  1278
  ferred. This was what lay behind the Amendment, just as everybody saw, and as the Government, to a certain extent, were compelled to see, that if equal taxation was to be imposed it could only be done by having regard to the nature of the subject-matter which was to be taxed. Theoretically, one might sit in a garret and work at Arabic figures as much as he liked, and say that property was property whatever its form; but, as a matter of practice, while one item of property was valuable and available from day to day, another item depended on contingencies and future events, and might not be worth a farthing at the time it fell into possession. What resulted from that? First, it would be recognised that with regard to such properties as were absolutely saleable at any time in the market no difficulty arose. But immediately that this class of property was disposed of and another class, say land, was reached, then immediately came in the question, was there a market for it? Well, sometimes there was, and sometimes there was not. The difficulties in regard to reversions vested in personalty could be calculated, but it was a different matter when real estate came to be dealt with. The first contingency to be dealt with as to a personalty reversion was the question, who was going to buy it? Only the man who was prepared to insure that the event would happen, or the man who bought so many reversions that he became himself an insurer. With regard to real estate, the difficulty of dealing with it was increased immensely. All through the Bill, in his opinion, sufficient regard had not been paid to the subject-matter in calculating how the Death Duties were to be paid. It might be answered that when a man died possessed of a reversion, whether vested or contingent, personalty or realty, it was property, and worth something. Quite true, but just as many men were content to enjoy a particular kind of property, such as pictures or jewellery or furniture, which produced no income whatever. In case of reversion, if this class of property was not realised the value increased, and when it fell in the duty payable was much in proportion to the time in which the person was in the actual enjoyment of them, so that it would be a fair and reasonable

  1279
  thing to say by all means let the reversion be paid for, but do not let it be paid for at a time when they still remain reversionary and contingent. The Government would lose nothing if they waited until the reversion fell in, because the item of property on which the duty was charged had increased in value precisely in proportion to the lapse of time that had intervened. He thought the result of the clause as it stood would be to prevent in a large number of cases that which had been a marketable reversion from being so any longer, and such restrictions would be placed on dealing that the Government would be just as well off if they took the duty at the end of the time when the reversion fell in as they would be if they took it by degrees on each succession, unless they meant to charge once, twice, three times the full duty in respect of the reversion each time a death occurred during its currency.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he had ventured more than once to say that the true principle with regard to taxation was to go where the money was. If you wanted apples you must go to the orchard. But what did the Government do? If a man put an apple pip into the ground the Government would say, "We will begin to tax you, because one day or other that pip will grow into an apple tree and may bear apples, and that is property." But if the Government were prepared to place a tax upon potential value would they be prepared to tax a picture by a rising young artist or a great work of state by a rising politician, say the Solicitor General, at its possible potential value! Herein lay the difficulty. If it was assumed that property had a potential value that value might never be realised. But, on the other hand, if they were prepared to stand by the determination to tax reversions before they fell in they ought to be prepared to accept payment of the duty as a reversion. Let them take a case which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was always fond of referring to, ground values in London. These would be worth something enormous in future days, but should these values be taxed in the present at their potential worth? No; the true principle on which to go was to wait until their value rose, until a money payment was made, and then let the share that belonged
  1280
  to the State be taken in the way of taxation. If the potential value was taxed many things might happen which might prevent any of the potentialities being realised. When the reversion fell in let it be taxed, but while it was still contingent leave it alone. He would say this not merely in the interest of the taxpayer but also in the interest of the tax collector. If it was desired that the collector should do his work properly, easily, and with comfort to himself, and some degree of toleration to the people whom he was deputed to flay alive, then the tax should only be placed on property which was already realised. Where reversions and potential values were taxed the Government went entirely outside the proper sphere of the taxpayer. With regard to the present Amendment, he was constrained to admit that it might, perhaps, be necessary to put it in a somewhat different form if it came to be read into the Bill. But, as regarded the principle, he had no doubt whatever but that principle was that the tax should be levied only on property which was realised, and not on property which was, as it were, in the air.
  *MR. BARTLEYwas sorry that the Government had not accepted the principle of the Amendment. The matter was a difficult and technical one, and as he was not a lawyer he had only framed his Amendment in a way which seemed reasonably to embody the principle he wished to see adopted in the Bill. The possible value of reversions was really an unknown quantity. Take grounds-rents. If Belgrave Square, for instance, remained a fashionable part of London its ground values would be maintained, but if it became a trading district like Golden Square and other districts of London which were once fashionable, the value of the reversion of the ground-rents when it matured would be smaller than it was now supposed to be. It would be quite possible, therefore, that a man might be called on to pay duty on a valuation of the reversion which would be far higher than the actual value of the property when it came to be realised. He supposed, however, that it was impossible to get the Government to take a reasonable view of this matter. Their desire seemed to be to spread the net wide

  1281
  enough to catch everything in it. But he would tell them there would be a revulsion of feeling against this tax, and against those who had caused it to be imposed.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, it seemed as if the Government were only desirous of criticising the Amendment, and left the principle embodied in it to take care of itself. How would this tax work out in case of an estate which consisted wholly of reversions? These were cases that frequently happened, and where was the money to come from in such cases to pay the tax? The people entitled to the reversions must realise, which in many cases would mean selling and ending their whole prospects. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that they must manage in some way to borrow money on the reversion, but that could only be done in many cases at a very considerable rate of interest. Why should the Government not practically lend money themselves upon reversions to pay the Duty? He thought such a proceeding would be absolutely safe for the Government. If it would not be safe for the Government to lend money on these reversions at a low rate of interest, then they had no right to tax them. If the reversions were safe, the Government could easily lend money on them at 3 per cent., and a separate Department could be created to attend to this sort of business. Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was advancing the money with the one hand, he would be receiving it with the other, and his money would be available for the year. The right hon. Gentleman was taxing these reversions on the footing that they were absolutely realisable property, and safe to borrow upon, and therefore he did not see why the Government should not advance the money themselves. He did not see what practical objection could be raised to this proposal, because if the reversion were not considered to be of sufficient value to offer a fair security for the loan, then the Government could not insist that they had a just right to impose any duty in respect of it at all.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he hoped Parliament would pause before they accepted the proposal to tax reversions. It had been pointed out before in the course of these Debates that the
  1282
  effect of the proposals of the Government was to tax the corpus of the property of the country—that meant the capital available to maintain the property of the country, of which these reversions were a part. In the case of reversions it was proposed to levy the tax, not upon their present value only, but upon a value which could only come into enjoyment at a future date. Such a course, he submitted, could not be defended upon any general rules of taxation. No doubt something might be said against the exact form in which the Amendment had been moved, but, in his opinion, it was right in principle, and he trusted therefore that the Committee would agree to accept it.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that hitherto the charge upon reversions had been deferred until the reversions fell in. He knew that in some eases arrangements had been made by which the whole duty had been assessed upon any present interest with the addition of the reversion, but in the main the duty had been charged on the present interest, and the tax on the value of the reversion had been postponed until the reversion had fallen in. That was the principle which had prevailed, and it had been considered to be a very fair one. A man had paid upon his present benefit, and if that benefit had been increased he had paid upon that increased benefit. Now the Government proposed, as he understood, not only to take the capital value of the present income, but also to add to that the present saleable value of the reversionary interest, and put the two together and charge upon the capital value of both. The result would be that a very considerably increased tax would be charged, while frequently the income from the property or the present benefit would be utterly inadequate to enable a man with anything like convenience or fairness to himself to pay the duty. Where the present income was very small, or where there was no income at all, he would be placed in the position that he must either pay out other money of his own to meet the duty or borrow money or sell his reversion. If the object of the Government was to force these reversionary interests into the market to be sold at a disadvantage—because all reversions were sold at a dis-

  1283
  advantage—he could understand their action in placing this proposal in the Bill. But he could hardly suppose that a Bill which was intended to raise money for the Public Service was to be made use of in order to force property into the market and to inflict a loss upon its owners. Surely some means might be found by which, where the present income was very small, or nominal, as in the case of a peppercorn rent, to postpone the payment of the duty to the Government on fair terms. That would be only right, but if reversions were taxed in this way the result would be that during the continuance of the present small interest the Government would be receiving very large sums in respect of the capital value of the reversion, and then, when the reversion accrued, they would receive again the full benefit of the taxation of the capital value. That was neither fair nor considerate. The object of taxation was to place the burden on the shoulders of the people who were able to bear it, and to adjust the burden so that there was an equality of sacrifice. As it appeared that in dealing with reversions the taxation proposed by the Government would be unfair in its incidence, some means ought to be devised by which it could be dealt with with less inconvenience and without unfairness. Of course, he knew that the object of the Government was to hit the owners of ground-rents. It was said that if a man had ground-rents and if they were small ground-rents there might be a valuable reversion. It was said that next to nothing was paid upon ground-rents, that the owners saved up money by the accretion of the value in the reversion, and that a man who early in life bought ground-rents with a reversion somewhat distant saved up the increasing value without paying any taxation upon it. That was a very plausible argument, and he admitted that there was a good deal in it, and that in some form or another such increasing value should be taxed, but he could not help thinking that the Government proposal of taxation was too drastic. He knew there were cases of considerable estates in the North of London two-thirds of which he supposed were held by the lessees on peppercorn ground-rents, and where the rack-rental
  1284
  would fall in in 30 or 40 years. Upon such estates as those he admitted that a charge of next to nothing in respect of the peppercorn rental was unfair, but to charge upon them the capital value in prospect of the reversions falling in in 30 or 40 years hence was equally unfair. Therefore, he thought some practical course should be adopted by which under a particular scale, or some different postponement of payment to that suggested by the Government, the duty on the capital value should be spread over a period of time, and gradually and proportionately obtained. He was not prepared to suggest at the present moment an exact practical mode of dealing with the matter. It was a very difficult and intricate question. While, on the one hand, he thought the present system worked to a certain extent unfairly and perhaps too advantageously to the owners of reversions, on the other hand he believed the proposals of the Government would place upon them far more taxation than they ought to bear. He was not raising this difficulty as an insuperable objection to the principle of taxing reversions, but he did think that the proposals of the Government erred very much on the side of injustice. The Government had at their back an hon. and learned Gentleman of great distinction who had made some novel proposals with reference to the taxation of ground values in London. Surely the ingenuity of that hon. and learned Gentleman was equal to suggesting to the Government an application of some of the principles which he enumerated in respect to County Council taxation in London, in order to enable them to bring forward some proposal which, while it would give to the country a fair and reasonable taxation upon reversions upon present, as well as future interest should not have the confiscatory effect which the present proposals of the Government had. To tax this interest from the point at which it began up to the time that it fell into possession; to tax it from time to time upon what was estimated to be the capital value, when perhaps there was no income or scarcely any income to provide for the tax, and then perhaps to tax it again when it fell into possession on its then full value, seemed to him to be a

  1285
  confiscatory system of taxation which he did not think that the sense of fair dealing, which the House of Commons entertained, would permit. He was quite ready to admit that it was a difficult question, a large and complicated question, because of the extraordinary complexity connected with the system of ground rents and reversions, especially in London, and that it could not be dealt with off-hand by an Amendment such as they were now discussing. But as the Mover of the Amendment had said, they could take a Division upon the principle underlying his proposal. It was to emphasise their objections to the particular proposals of the Government rather than to commit themselves to the Amendment before them that, if there was a Division, they would divide against the Government. The subject was one worthy of the most serious consideration of the Government, and he believed that unless they made some concession with regard to reversions, they would incur the disapprobation of all just and reasonable and right thinking men, who, while they believed that reversion-holders ought to pay what was fair and reasonable, objected to crushing them under the drastic impositions which were proposed in the Bill.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking the Solicitor General a question. In regard to these reversions, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he could tell them whether reversions would come within the category under which the Estate Duty might be paid by eight yearly instalments? He could imagine, with regard to reversions to real property, that possibly they might come under the provision for payment by the eight yearly instalments; but this was something in the nature of reversion to personal property—something in the nature of Consols or Railway Stock. It might be that a person who had invested his money in the reversion of this personal property might practically have invested all his money, or nearly all, and it might be extremely difficult if his executors were called upon to pay the Estate Duty upon reversions which had not fallen in. How was he to raise the money? He must either sell the reversion or realise it—and surely that was not the object of
  1286
  the Government—or he must mortgage it. It seemed to him there would be some relief if it was clear that in this case also the duty must be paid by instalments.
  MR. R. T. REIDmade a reply which was inaudible in the Gallery.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, the mode of dealing with the matter proposed by the Government was unsatisfactory. He understood that, taking the case of a present ground rent of £5 a year with the reversion to a rack-rental of £50 a year, 50 years hence there would have to be paid on the death of the owner next year the capital saleable value of the £5 a year, and also the present value of the reversion to the additional £45 a year 49 years hence, and there would be the option of postponing the payment of the duty on the reversion until the end of the 49 years. But supposing that the successor to this property died a few years afterwards, and another owner came into possession, was he to have similar taxation imposed upon him, and were five or six other people who might come into possession before the reversion fell in to have like taxation to bear? In that case what would be the procedure as the various taxations accrued if successive owners postponed payment of duty on the reversions? Would each of the taxations carry interest, and was all this postponed duty and interest to be reckoned up and charged on the estate at the end of 50 years when the reversion fell in? And when that event happened, and the full duty on the capital value had to be paid by the person in possession of the full rack rental, how was he to recover their proportions from the estates of former owners? Was this to be a continual encumbrance in favour of the Government? And, if so, what machinery had they to enable them to carry the process through? How was the property to be dealt with, and how were the holders to know what the charges would be?
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the hon. Member made a speech in the course of which he said it was essential that all the duty on reversion should be paid at once. He did not interrupt him, because he thought he was familiar with the nature of the subject which they were discussing.

  1287
  Afterwards a suggestion was made that the tax was an unjust one, and then the hon. Gentleman said what a monstrous thing it was not to defer the collection. [A cry of "No!"] Well, he would say no more about it, but leave it to the Committee. The hon. Gentleman would find the information he wanted in Subsection 4 of the clause; and with regard to the question asked as to what was meant by the term "interest" in expectancy, if the hon. Gentleman would turn to Clause 18, page 12, line 18, he would find the words—
  "The expression 'interest in expectancy' includes an estate in remainder or reversion, and every other future interest, whether vested or contingent."
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the Solicitor General, in order to meet certain arguments used by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, said they were to look at Sub-section 4 of the clause. They found by that clause that the duty was to be paid as and when the reversions came in. That brought out in strong relief the objections they had been urging. Where there were three or four successions in a short time, the reversion becoming nearer, the capital value would be larger, and the difficulties which would arise out of these successions had not been provided for. It was said that all the charges were to be piled up until the reversion came in. If that was the only answer that could be given, he should very much hope that the Government would reconsider the matter.
  MR. W. AMBROSEsaid, the definition referred to by the Solicitor General created a difficulty in this case, because the expression "interest in expectancy" included an interest in the remainder of a reversion. The hon. Member for St. Pancras had given the case of a ground-rent of £5 a year with reversion to the property in a short period. In every case where there was a lease the interest of the landlord was a reversion. Instead of being £5 a year it might be £1,000 a year rack rent, and on the termination of the lease the landlord might be able to get £2,000 a year or more. The interest would include the interest in possession, which would not be included in the term "interest in expectation," as usually understood.
  1288
  Interest in expectation applied where upon the death of somebody a property was to be sold and the proceeds divided among certain individuals. He was not prepared to say that this Amendment met the difficulty, but it was one that needed the further attention of the Government.
  MR. CARSONsaid, he had an Amendment further down on the Paper which by reason of the Forms of the House he would not be able to move, and so he wished to mention it now. The Motion before the House at present was, as he understood it, that the words "Allowance shall not be made" shall stand part of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: No, to leave out Sub-section 2.
  MR. CARSONsaid, his Amendment was to the same effect. Therefore, if the Committee now decided that the sub section was to stand part of the Bill he would be practically shut out from moving the Amendment which stood in his name. He was not going to enter at all into the questions raised and so fully discussed upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington; but he wished to direct the attention of the Government to the very serious proposal that was made in the second sub-section of Section 6. What was the proposal? It was that an executor, in the event of a testator leaving any foreign estate, was not to be allowed, in the first instance at all events, to deduct the amount of any debts due by the testator abroad save to the extent of this foreign estate, and out of this estate alone. The result of that would be that no matter how small might be the amount of property left by a testator abroad, and no matter how large might be his debts, the duty must, in the first instance, be paid, without de ducting these debts, by the executor in this country. The debts of the testator and the property abroad had no relation at all under the Bill; and while the executor must pay the duty in respect of assets in this country, he must pay the debts—
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was very unwilling to do so, but he must rise to Order. He understood they had got an Amendment before them moved by the hon. and learned Member which related to Sub section 4, and had nothing in the world to do with Sub-section 2.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the Question has been put as it stands on the Paper. You, Mr. Chairman, have put the Question that the words "An allowance shall not be made" stand part of the sub-section.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he understood that the discussion was in Order.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: May I not urge that if the Amendment is withdrawn it can then be put as an addition to the first sub-section, and then you, Sir, need not put the Question which involves the first four words of Sub-section 2. A very serious question arises on Sub-section 2, and we do not want to be shut out from debate upon it.
  MR. R. T. REIDwas understood to say that this matter had been under discussion for an hour and a-half. He hoped that it was not proposed to re-discuss it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand there is an Amendment before the Committee that has been fully debated. If that Amendment, be not withdrawn it will be impossible for another perfectly legitimate Amendment to be discussed. No one desires to unduly prolong debate on the Amendment before the Committee; but the real question we have to decide is not whether this matter shall come up for discussion again, but what plan can be devised by which a perfectly legitimate Amendment can be dealt with without an undue prolongation of debate. What we desire is that nothing that is really legitimate shall be kept out of the purview of our discussion.
  MR. COURTNEY: If the hon. Gentleman agrees to withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that the discussion is not to be renewed, that would simplify the whole business.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If my attention had been called to this originally, I should have suggested that the hon. Gentleman should have moved the Amendment lower down on the Paper. I have pointed out that in my opinion the Amendment ought to come in after Section 4. Perhaps the Committee will be willing that for the convenience of the House the Amendment should be withdrawn. [A cry of "No!"]
  *MR. BARTLEY: I must suggest that this Amendment be withdrawn and that
  1290
  we take a Division upon it as a new subsection. It is a little awkward to divide to-morrow upon an Amendment which has been discussed to-day.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: We only object to this protracted discussion being repeated.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the best course would be that this Amendment be withdrawn, and that then the Amendment should be moved as a separate subsection.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BARTLEY MR. BARTLEY moved the following as a new sub-section:—
  "In calculating the principal value of an estate reversions shall not be taken into account, provided that on the sale of such reversion, or on the possessor raising money or any consideration for his interest in such reversion, Estate Duty shall be paid on the value of the reversion as estimated by this section of this Act on the scale given in Section 14 of this Act, according to the aggregated value of the last estate of which the reversion formed a part, and no person shall be able to give a good discharge or receipt for any sale or loan unless it is certified by the Commissioners that there is no claim for Estate Duty thereon, and the Commissioners shall, on application in the prescribed form, if satisfied that there is no claim, give such certificate."
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 108.—(Division List, No. 101.)
  MR. CARSON MR. CARSON (Dublin University) moved to leave out Sub-section 2. He said the effect of the sub-section was that an executor could not take out of the general assets of the deceased any debts due by the testator abroad. If the subsection was carried, not only would great hardship be inflicted upon the beneficiaries who were entitled to the assets of the deceased, but upon the executor, in consequence of the great length of time that must ensue before the estate could be wound up. He could see no reason in the world why the debts abroad should not be deducted like any other debts of the deceased. Many persons who would have to pay duty, or whose executors would have to pay duty, under this Bill would be merchants and owners in this country carrying on a considerable trade abroad, and consequently a large proportion of their debts might be debts

  1291
  payable abroad. He could understand the sub-section if it said that the creditors of deceased abroad could only resort to the foreign property of the testator, because in that case they would protect the executor from being sued in this country. He would point out that, while the executor would have to go abroad to realise foreign property, the creditors abroad could insist upon payment of their debts, not out of the foreign assets, but out of assets in this country. So far as foreign creditors were concerned, every creditor had a right to be paid by the executor in England out of any assets in his hands. That would dislocate the whole method of computing the duty that had to be paid. If the debts were deducted—the debts which would have to be paid by the executor as others must be paid—the effect would be to reduce the value of the estate, so that upon a given property there might be paid only 4 instead of 5 per cent. The result of that would be that the beneficiaries at home—the parties who were entitled to this money—would be delayed in receipt of the property until the foreign assets had been realised by the executor; and when they had been realised he must frame an entirely different account, not concerning the foreign debts only, but concerning the whole estate, and bringing in and reducing the duty originally paid, say, at 5 per cent. to 4 per cent. The Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if the debts contracted were paid in England the duty might be reduced, and therefore he ought to allow it to be deducted from the total aggregate sum, and if the executor was liable for debts in England he did not think the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in putting the Amendment on the Paper was an original one. If debt was payable out of the English assets it was to all intents and purposes English debt so far as the assets were concerned. As regarded the second portion of the sub-section, it seemed to him that a most complicated duty was put upon the executor, and he must say that when people came to realise what were the duties and the complications which were being thrown on the unfortunate executor under this Bill, he did not believe they would meet with a sane man in the United Kingdom who would under-
  1292
  take the duties of an executor. He would have to prepare a new account; he would have to be prepared, if he wanted to get back this money, to satisfy the Commissioners that the personal property of the deceased situated out of the United Kingdom was insufficient to pay the debts. That meant before he got back a shilling of this money he would have to take out an administration or probate, or whatever corresponded to it in the foreign country, and he would then have to proceed as best he could to realise the different classes of property that the deceased might leave there. If he succeeded, well and good. But supposing he found he could not realise them, he must pay expenses out of his own pocket and bring over evidence from these foreign countries that would satisfy the Commissioners. If they threw that duty upon executors then they threw upon them duties which would cause trouble to them, and involve a vast amount of expense in the administration of the estate of the deceased. If they were going to aggregate and consider foreign property in every respect, so far as duty was concerned, as English property, why should they distinguish between the foreign and English debts? He thought if this sub-section were left out it would not take a shilling away from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was a matter of administration, and of carrying out the intention of the Act, and, above all, of justice to those who had a right to be enabled to effect the speedy winding up of the estates with which they were concerned. He submitted that the hon. and learned Solicitor General might favourably consider this Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Carson.)
  Question proposed, "That 'Subsection 2' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the hon. and learned Member could not have fully considered what would be the effect of the excision of the second sub-section. They were all agreed, he presumed, in regard to the question of foreign assets, that if the duty was to be charged on those assets that duty should be obtained.

  1293
  But, if the Amendment was adopted, the position would be that foreign creditors might come and obtain payment of their debts from the English assets, and thereby reduce the amount of property in this country liable to the Estate Duty, and there would be no means afterwards of obtaining payment of the Estate Duty out of the foreign assets of the property.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that with every desire to appreciate the arguments of the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he failed to understand the justice of this sub-section. A foreign asset might be in India, but the debt might be owed in France; and there was not a word in the sub-section as it stood which would have the effect of forcing a foreign creditor with claims against English assets to go against the foreign assets. The Solicitor General seemed to imagine that the sub-section would force the foreign creditor to spare the English assets, and to go against the foreign assets. He (Sir R. Webster) believed there was not one single word in the sub-section which would have that effect. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman deny that foreign assets were to be brought in for the purpose of aggregation or graduation, or that there would be an increased percentage payable in consequence, although the greater part of the foreign assets might be eaten up by foreign debts? Let the Government aggregate if they liked, but, in the name of common honesty, let them not treat a man's estate as being worth £30,000 when, as a matter of fact, it was only worth £15,000. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to have the calculation as to the amount of duty chargeable set right, if it proved to have been erroneous through neglect to include in it the foreign debts? Supposing an estate which was supposed to be worth £50,000 proved to be burdened with £15,000 worth of debt, was the original calculation to be allowed to stand? There was nothing to prevent the foreign creditor coming to England and getting a judgment against the English assets. The clause was wholly inapplicable to such a scheme of taxation as the Government had devised, and he asked the Committee seriously to consider what they were doing before they consented to pass it.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he could not understand what the Solicitor General meant by saying that this was the law now.
  MR. R. T. REID: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to Section 28 of the Act of 1881.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that was exactly where he joined issue with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He held the Act in his hand, and that section referred exclusively to the property in the affidavit of inventory, which meant the property in this country.
  MR. R. T. REID: It deals with debts due from the deceased to persons resident in the United Kingdom. In that case, as in this, debts are to be deducted.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Might I be allowed to point out that, under the Act of 1881, foreign property was not taxed at all, and therefore the analogy would not apply?
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that was just what he was about to say. Section 28 of the Act of 1881, no doubt, provided that the debts to be deducted were only debts due to persons resident in the United Kingdom. But from what were those debts to be deducted? They were to be deducted from the property comprised in the affidavit of inventory, and that included only property in the United Kingdom. Under the present Bill, however, property, wherever situate, was to be aggregated, and yet the debts of foreigners were not to be deducted, although they diminished the property itself. Inasmuch as the Bill proposed to deal with foreign property, foreign debts ought to be deducted, just as English debts were deducted from English property under the Act of 1881. If the Government were prepared to give up the foreign property, as they would have to give it up, he would raise no objection at all to the application of Section 28 of the Act of 1881 to the condition of things to which that section was intended to apply.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The trading classes of this country are very much interested in this particular clause, as it will deeply affect our foreign trade. The Solicitor

  1295
  General has assumed that there is a kind of foreign property which might in all cases be set off against debts due to foreigners, but evidently it would be absurd to say that if there was property in France it could be set off against a debt due in India.
  MR. R. T. REID: I never used the term "set off." I referred to a case in which the English Courts had declined to allow English assets to be divided amongst foreign creditors unless they were satisfied that there were not foreign assets for foreign creditors to deal with.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The argument on which this clause is based is that there is a certain amount of foreign property to be set off against the debts due to foreigners. We say that the assets in one foreign country cannot be brought into account in any degree whatever with regard to debts due in another country. The case has been put of an Englishman who owes money in India but has certain assets in France. As the Bill is drawn the assets in France might be set against the debt due in India, and that debt would have to be deducted. It will be most unjust if there are debts due to foreigners in various parts of the world and those debts are not deducted, just as an English debt would be, from the estate of the deceased. I appreciate the efforts of the Inland Revenue Department to secure a distinct recognition of all the assets, and I understand the meaning of this sub-section to be that the executors must give a proper account of all the foreign assets, and that no debts due to foreigners are to be recognised until all those assets have been brought into the account. I do not think, however, that you can fairly lump everything together in this way. This matter must affect an enormous number of people trading in foreign countries. There may be a manufacturer here who owes money for jute in India and for hides in Buenos Ayres. Those debts represent a diminution in the value of his estate. Is it fair that they should not be taken into consideration? It appears to me that no effort that is made to get hold of property in foreign countries should be allowed to interfere with the deduction of those debts. I feel confident that it cannot be the object or the wish of the Government to inflict any injustice on English-
  1296
  men trading with foreign countries and to exclude from the deductions which will probably be made from the estates of such men debts which are due in those countries. I do trust that the Government will see the necessity of dealing fairly and equitably with the case, and that they will not pursue a course which must hamper the transactions of English traders with foreign countries.
  MR. BOUSFIELDthought that the Government might meet the Opposition half way in this matter. He quite followed the argument of the Solicitor General (Mr. R. T. Reid) in reference to having Estate Duty paid on property abroad. That argument, however, only affected the desirability of having the payment made in the first instance on a sort of gross value. It was wholly unnecessary, in fixing the rate of graduation, to take these debts into account. In fixing that rate the actual value of a man's estate must be taken into account. Supposing a man had £20,000 in Belgium and owed £20,000 in France, the two amounts ought to balance one another in fixing the rate of graduation. If the debt of £20,000 were not deducted a fictitious value would be given to the estate, and this would introduce immense complications when the estate afterwards was wound up.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I hope that we may bring this discussion to a rapid conclusion, so that we may proceed with the other business that is before the Committee; but I do think that before doing so we must have some reply to the arguments that have been used. I think it will be admitted by the Secretary of State for India (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who has been present during the Debate, that there is a point to be met. The difficulty is this: that while you propose to reckon among the assets of an Englishman, for the purpose of taxing the money he leaves, that which is owed to him by foreigners, you do not deduct what he owes to them. That is not fair. If the Government will admit that there is here some injustice to be remedied, and will do their best to find some method of meeting it before the Report stage, I hope we may proceed with other business. The question is one of great im-

  1297
  portance, not so much to those who you have said throughout these discussions are speaking in the interests of real property, but to the great trading classes of the country whose interests have been to a great extent ignored by those who have been considering this Bill.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not want to go through the points which have been so ably put by those who have preceded me in this Debate. The Government decline even to attempt to make an answer—
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We were just about to make an answer when you got up.
  MR. JACKSON: I was not aware of that, and I will gladly sit down again.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,: I was going to respond to the appeal that had been made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when the right hon. Gentleman rose. I am quite willing to admit that there will be considerable administrative difficulty in carrying this clause out. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue are quite aware of the effect of the clause, and their intention is not to commit an act of unfairness, but to secure in the first instance the payment of the Estate Duty. If there are foreign assets available against foreign debts, the one will under the clause be set against the other, whilst if the foreign assets are inferior to the foreign liabilities the latter will then be reckoned against the English assets. The question is full of difficulties. This is an administrative question, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will recognise that it is one on which the Government must be guided by the officers of the Inland Revenue Department. The Government have no desire to do any injustice in the matter, but they wish to prevent what they believe to be a possible danger—namely, the setting off of foreign debts against English assets, so as to interfere with the payment of the Estate Duty. We will consider the question with the officers of Inland Revenue, and before the Report we hope we shall be able to get over the difficulty.
  MR. JACKSON: I am very glad to learn that the Government are prepared to re-consider this matter. I can assure the Government and the Committee that, from my point of view, this is not simply a question of administrative difficulty. I represent a constituency which may be called a commercial constituency, and there are a great many gentlemen sitting opposite who are in a similar position. I will first put a simple case which, I am sure, the Government will admit must be met. I will take a manufacturer in Bradford, who buys his wool in Australia. Suppose he has bought £50,000 worth of wool in Australia, and owes the money for it, are you going to count the £50,000 worth of wool as part of his assets, and to exclude the debt? That certainly is the proposal of the Bill. You have no business to count the wool as part of the man's assets unless you allow the debt to be deducted. I know the right hon. Gentleman will say that you are going to deduct it afterwards. Then, of course, your administrative difficulty comes in, because by including the £50,000 worth of wool amongst the assets you have put the man into a different category as far as the percentage he has to pay is concerned.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: In a case of that kind the debt would be allowed in the first instance.
  MR. JACKSON: Well, let me take another case—an everyday case. I happen to be in business, and most of my purchases are made in India, so that my debts are contracted in India. Suppose I am owing £50,000, if you like, for hides bought in India. I happen to have some property in Australia. In the first instance you are going to take as part of my assets the goods bought in India and you are not going to deduct the amount I owe to my Indian creditors until somebody has realised my Australian property and has satisfied the Inland Revenue Commissioners that the amount so realised is not sufficient to pay my Indian debts. How is the executor to satisfy the Inland Revenue Commissioners? Must he satisfy them not only that he has realised the Australian property, but that he has realised its full value? Well, the Government have promised to consider the questions. I have endeavoured to

  1299
  put before them practical cases, and I am sure that those gentlemen connected with commerce who sit behind the Government will admit from their own personal experience and observation that those cases are not merely cases brought forward for the purpose of argument, but are cases of almost daily occurrence in the commercial community.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the clause be open to the objections which have been stated it shall certainly be amended.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought the Committee might take it that the Government admitted that at all events the property and the debts dealt with should be in the same country. That would be scarcely sufficient. If a man had debts in India and a coffee plantation in Ceylon would it be fair because he had that coffee plantation to refuse him the power of deducting the debts in India?
  MR. CARSON: After the statement made on behalf of the Government, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Motion of Sir W. HARCOURT, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 4, line 20, after "Kingdom," insert "unless contracted to be paid in the United Kingdom."
  On Motion of Mr. BUTCHER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—To add, after the words last inserted "or are charged on property situate within the United Kingdom."
  MR. R. T. REID: I propose to ask to withdraw Sub-section 3 of the clause. It relates to dealings by the deceased with property for money or money's worth. This matter has been discussed several times, and the Government are under a pledge to bring in a clause dealing with the whole question. I hope to put that clause down on Monday, and it will cover the entire ground of this sub-section.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section 3.—(Mr. R. T. Reid.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section 3 stand part of the Clause."
  SIR R. WEBSTERpointed out that the sub-section was limited to transactions
  1300
  by the deceased, and said that consideration ought also to be given to dealings by other persons who were legally entitled to deal with the property.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Amendment which I now have to move is the one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to tell the Committee earlier in the evening he was prepared on behalf of the Government to accept. I am glad he is going to accept it, for, though I do not think that in any important sense it modifies the provisions of the Bill or alters the principles he announced in his Second Reading speech as governing his policy upon this matter, it will, I think, allay some fears with regard to the method in which the valuation of the principal value of an estate is to be taken. The Amendment itself applies only to agricultural land. I do not pretend that it meets the difficulties or the grievances which I recognise as attaching to the Government plan of dealing with urban land, with works of art, and with other forms of property which bring no income in to their possessor—
  SIR W. HARCOURThere made a remark which did not reach the Reporters' Gallery.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will take advantage of the right hon. Gentleman's interruption to deal with the Amendment, first, as regards the Preamble, and then as regards the proviso. The general principle laid down in the first paragraph of my Amendment applies to all property. I think that if the Government are going to proceed at all by way of levying a large part of their revenue upon property left by a deceased person it is only fair that the actual value of that property should be estimated in all cases, not according to the income which it brings in, but according to the value it would fetch at a forced sale. By a forced sale I mean a sale which has to take place at a particular time, irrespective of whether that time is favourable for a sale of that particular kind of property or not. If you are going to deal with the actual value the only conceivable way of dealing with it is by taking the property at the time

  1301
  of the death and estimating what it would fetch if sold in the open market. The Government have laid down this principle largely with the view of throwing additional taxation on urban and other property whose income does not correspond with its value. I go so far with the Government as to admit that that kind of property should bear its fail-share of taxation; where I differ from them is in thinking that they should not exact the full value or the capital value when it depends upon some future increment until that future increment has been reached. It may be, and I think is, rather hard, and in some respects rather absurd, to tax the speculative value of property which does not bring in a present income. You may say that property is worth so much because at some future time it will bring in so much; but that is a matter of speculation, and, speaking for myself, I do not think it desirable or even fair that you should exact from the owners of this kind of property the amount of the Death Duty until the speculative prospective value has been realised. When it has been realised, exact to the uttermost farthing what that property owes to the public; but I do not myself think it fair that you should exact from it a Death Duty which the owner cannot possibly pay if he depends merely upon the income of the property. I am sorry, therefore, that the Government have adopted a plan which may make it necessary for the owner to borrow in order to pay the Death Duty. My Amendment in the main does not include the urban property or property which has a speculative value, but deals chiefly with agricultural property. It is to the effect of the second paragraph that I desire to call the attention of Members. The Government, by their plan of taxing the capital or principal value, hope, as I said before, that they will bring into their net at once not only the urban property in so far as it produces a present income, but that property in so far as it has a present value based upon the expectation of the future. If they take that view and claim that advantage, they must take the corresponding disadvantage of estimating agricultural land purely upon its actual value; it must not be estimated simply upon the amount of income it may bring
  1302
  in, but upon its future value, as shown by the prices which can be obtained in the open market for laud in the same neighbourhood. The main object of my Amendment is to secure that the owners of agricultural land, which is practically or very nearly unsaleable, shall pay upon the value which such land will fetch in the open market. At present the Inland Revenue Authorities are in the habit of estimating the value of such property not according to what it will fetch in the open market, but according to some value which they gather it will fetch because it has a certain income. It ought to be estimated on the principle the Government have laid down, simply according to the money it would fetch if put under the hammer at the time its owner dies. I certainly am of opinion that if this principle, which is obviously equitable if the views of the Government be accurate, be adopted it will really diminish greatly the burden which certain owners of agricultural land feel will be thrown upon their successors if the present proposals of the Government are carried into law. So far I have dealt simply with the mode of estimating the gross value—namely, by requiring the Inland Revenue to make some estimate of what property would fetch in the open market, subject, of course, to an appeal to the High Court. I feel, however, that we ought not to leave it to the Department absolutely to settle questions of this great importance, and that, in the interest both of the Department itself and of the owners of property, they ought to know what is the superior limit beyond which the value of property of this character will never be estimated for the purposes of the Death Duty. It is in order to carry out that object that I have framed the last few lines of the second paragraph of my Amendment. I there lay it down that there shall in no case be more than 25 years' purchase. Of course, I admit that 25 years' purchase is probably far too much for a great deal of the agricultural land of this country. There is nothing in the Amendment, however, which in the slightest degree suggests that 25 years is a limit which ought to be approached, nor do I put it down as a guiding principle to direct the Department as to what value they should put upon land. It is merely, as I have

  1303
  said, "superior limit, and nothing but a superior limit. The Department are directed in the most explicit terms by the first part of the Amendment to consider not what the income of the possessor of the property may be nor what number of years' purchase they would like to assess his property at, but what the property would fetch in the open market at that particular moment. I have introduced a provision into the Amendment for determining what constitutes the net income, 25 years' purchase of which gives us the superior limit, beyond which the valuation of agricultural property is not to extend. I think we ought to acknowledge that the Government have endeavoured to meet us in a fair spirit with regard to the abatements from the gross income which they allow in making the estimate. It has always been an extremely difficult thing to determine what constitutes the net annual value of agricultural property, and probably every owner of property would be inclined to give you a different view of what he meant by net annual value. The abatements included in my Amendment are, broadly speaking and without going into details, insurance, repairs, public burdens and management. I think that these four heads do on the whole include all that we can ask the Government to allow us as the difference between the gross income and the net income of property. I do not say that the contention of the Government is without force, that outgoings other than repairs should be included. Anybody who has set to work to devise a clause which shall include not only repairs but great structural alterations, great schemes of drainage, cottage construction, and so on among the ordinary outgoings of property, must have felt he had engaged in a task which he could hardly bring to a successful issue. The four great heads of insurance, repairs, public burdens, and management do, I think, on the whole include all we can fairly ask the Government to concede as abatements upon the gross income, in order to arrive at the net income; and, for my own part, I beg to express my thanks to the Government for the course they have taken in this matter. I need not dwell longer upon an Amendment which has already been accepted, except to say that hon. Gentlemen who are interested in agricultural
  1304
  property must have seen what we gain by the adoption of this Amendment. In the first place, we secure that the property shall be estimated upon the market value at the time of the death of the deceased—to use the somewhat clumsy phrase that appears in each clause of this Bill; in the next place, we secure a superior limit of 25 years' purchase; and, in the third place, we make it plain that the net income is to be estimated after taking into account certain deductions, which up to the present date have not, I think, been recognised in any Act of Parliament. These are not inconsiderable objects to attain, and I desire to express my own thanks to the Government for the spirit in which they have met us, and which I desire in every way to reciprocate.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 34, at end, insert—
  "The principal value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such property would fetch if sold in the open market at the time of the death of the deceased.
  "Provided that, in the case of any agricultural property, where no part of the principal value is due to the expectation of an increased income from such property, the principal value shall not exceed twenty-five times the annual value as assessed under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts, after making such deductions as have not been allowed in that assessment and are allowed under 'The Succession Duty Act, 1853,' and making a deduction for expenses of management not exceeding 5 per cent. of the annual value so assessed."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: It is not necessary for me to add many words to what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has said. It is a great satisfaction to the Government to know that as far as it goes this Amendment will be satisfactory to the great interests on behalf of whom in this respect he speaks. The first part of the Amendment expresses what really has always been the intention of the Government. We always meant that the principal value should be the market value. I stated when this measure was introduced that it was to be what the property would sell for at the time. As regards agricultural land, I

  1305
  said at a very early part of the proceedings I was very desirous that the case of such land should be met in a fair and a favourable spirit. I also said in introducing this measure to the House that, though we desired that the principle of equality in charge should prevail, we wished that the method of levying the charge should be made as far as possible appropriate to the particular character of the property on which it was placed. I said we had a perfectly open mind as to the manner of levying the charge, and that we were very desirous of learning as far as we could in the discussion of the matter what was the best and fairest manner of adapting the method of levying the charge to the character of the property dealt with. That agricultural land has a character different from other classes of property no one will deny; it is let at what is often called a rack rent, and where that is the case the annual value is really the measure of its capital value. In this respect agricultural land differs from some other kinds of realty, and therefore it did seem to us that there was a fair ground for treating agricultural land in accordance with its natural characteristics. This Amendment seems fairly to deal with the matter, and there is a great advantage I think in its form, inasmuch as it provides for the adoption of the Income Tax value which is already ascertained and will render it unnecessary to obtain several valuations upon each class of property. By this means you escape many difficulties that might otherwise be raised with reference to timber, and so on. The Amendment, then, takes the allowances under the Succession Duty Act and adds a new allowance, which has never before been claimed, for expenses of management. These seem to be the elements of the case, and I am very glad to think that the Government are able to accept a proposal which seems to be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters.
  *MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is one thing I wish to make clear. In agricultural property I include practically all kinds of real property other than land used for the purpose of building, or with a prospective building value. I include parks, mansions, houses, pasture and tillage farms.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: As well as agricultural farms.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand, according to the view of the Government, that these things are all included in the words "agricultural property," and I desire it to be on record that the meaning of the Government in accepting the Amendment is that the words "agricultural property" include all these various kinds of property which I have endeavoured to enumerate, and not merely farms and land which are used for purposes of tillage or pasture.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, a fair and reasonable compromise had been arrived at, and there was now a fair basis on which agricultural land could be fairly assessed. He understood from what the Leader of the Opposition had just stated that agricultural land included every sort and description of land, whether small allotments or large farms. He did not wish to raise the question of urban property when they were discussing agricultural land, but there could be no doubt that what was required when there was an assimilation between real and personal property was that there should be some deduction in order to get a fair value to start with.
  MAJOR DARWINsaid, he was very glad that the Government had seen their way to accept this Amendment, but he would have also liked that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had been able to persuade the Government to accept his views with regard to urban land. He thought the Commission had looked at such lands too much from the point of view of the owner. There were several other points of view which ought not to be overlooked. There had been several allusions during the Debates to places like Holland House, where the prospective value was very great, but where the annual value was very small. He thought it was generally admitted that the result of the Bill would be to throw such estates as that into the market in the course of time, because it was practically certain that the duties in respect of successive deaths would be too much for anyone to stand the strain. This would be generally agreed, but he did not think the

  1307
  Commission or the country realised now this same circumstance would apply to small estates equally with large. As an illustration of what he meant he would take the case of a row of cottages with gardens. It seemed to him practically certain that the system of estimating land according to its prospective value would in time have the result of taking away those gardens from the cottages where it would be possible to take them. Wherever it would be possible to build on a vacant space in towns he believed it would be built on. If they estimated duties on the prospective value of land, then the builders were perfectly certain to endeavour to realise this prospective value, and the result of this method of taxation would be to increase the overcrowding of the towns. Anyone who looked to the American system of taxing prospective values would see the disastrous results which it had on the town populations. For this reason it seemed to him that it would have been much better if the Government could have been induced to adopt some different view with regard to urban land. If the proposed system of taxation were put in force another result would be to overcrowd the towns and to increase the actual value of urban lands. From this point of view it appeared to him that the result would be simply disastrous to the towns.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going now considerably beyond the scope of the Amendment.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I hope the right hon. Gentlemen who are naturally anxious to make progress with this Bill will allow me to say one word on this Amendment. I understand it is the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that generally speaking agricultural land is let at a rack-rent. That is to say, that the annual value of the land should be taken as the measure of the actual value. I would like to say one word on this point so that it may be on record. I do not agree, in the first place, that agricultural land is usually let at a rack-rent, and that the annual value of land at present in many districts of the country can be safely taken as a measure of the actual value. And for this reason,
  1308
  that there are districts in which, although agricultural land may still let for a certain rent, it is almost impossible in those very districts to find a purchaser for it at any price whatever. I merely wish to state this in order that there may be no mistake of the view we take on this side of the House on this question, although I am quite willing to recognise the conciliatory spirit which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has manifested.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to say a few practical words on two practical points. One was that the value of land was to be deduced from the assessment under Schedule (A). He did not quite know how the Government were going to ascertain the valuation under Schedule (A), for the Inland Revenue Commissioners were without any right of access to the records of the Income Tax Commissioners. It would be found necessary, he thought, that some further clause should be added to the Bill, because the Income Tax Commissioners were at present precluded from disclosing any information in their possession. Another point was that the provision to which he was referring was represented as a concession on the part of the Government—and he would admit it was to some extent a concession—but he would point out that the Government had driven a rather hard bargain as to the number of years purchase. They had taken 25 years' purchase as the maximum, but so high a maximum had never yet been fixed up to the present with regard to land. The principal value at which land was at present taken for the purposes of the Succession Duty was 24 2–5th years' purchase, and the practical point he desired to make was that inasmuch as the Succession Duty was maintained in its present condition in the Bill, the awkward result would follow that the Succession Duty would be levied on 24 2–5th years' purchase, while the Estate Duty under the same Bill would be levied on 25 years' purchase. He thought this rather an awkward contradiction in the assessment of the value of property, and that it would be necessary to amend it in some way.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEdesired to know

  1309
  whether timber and woods which were not let at a rack-rent, but which at the same time were valued under Schedule (A) for Income Tax, would be within the scope of the Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand that taking the Income Tax valuation the Amendment would appear to coves the question of timber.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTON*MR. T. H. BOLTON moved, in page 4, line 35, after the word "expectancy," to insert the words "only one." He did not propose to repeat the arguments that were used in the earlier discussions during the evening, and which bore on Sub-section 4. He would just ask the Government to consider how far this sub-section carried out what it professed to carry out. It professed to provide that the duty on the value of reversions should be paid with the rest of the Estate Duty, or postponed until the reversions fell in. As he had pointed out, there might be several successions before a reversion actually came into possession, and in order that there might be no misunderstanding as to the duty to be paid—that there should be one payment of duty in respect of reversion—he proposed to insert the words "only one" after "expectancy" in line 35. This Amendment was suggested, after very careful consideration, by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society as necessary to give effect to what was supposed to be the intentions of the Government. He did not wish to elaborate the point, but merely desired to make the matter clear.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 35, after the word "expectancy," to insert the words "only one."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: We do not consider that these words are necessary to give effect to the intentions of the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved, in page 4, line 36, after "paid," insert "at the option of the beneficiary." He presumed that this Amendment expressed
  1310
  the intention of the Government, although he would confess that he was not quite sure that he understood what the clause meant, because it seemed to him to be almost identical with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, which had been negatived previously by the supporters of Her Majesty's Government. He hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, after the word "paid," to insert the words "at the option of the beneficiary."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The word "beneficiary" would hardly meet the requirements of the case. But if the hon. Member will put instead the words "at the option of the person accountable for the duties," we will accept his Amendment.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I move it in that form.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 36, after the word "paid," to insert the words "at the option of the person accountable for the duties."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR W. HARCOURT(for the SOLICITOR GENERAL) proposed, in page 5, line 6, after the word "ascertained," to insert, as a new Sub-section, the words—
  "The value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cessor of the interest of a deceased person in any property shall—

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

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

  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought the Committee should have some little explanation of the intention of the Government in moving this Amendment. He himself might have moved an Amendment to line 5 previous to the Amendment of the Solicitor General, so as to raise the question of how the value of the estate was to be ascertained. Per-

  1311
  haps this Amendment of the Solicitor General would cover his objection, and he hoped there would be some explanation of the Amendment given.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, there might be two different cases requiring to be dealt with: one case where the whole property was affected, and the other where it was intended to affect less than the whole income of the property.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, the Amendment was a supplementary Amendment to the Amendment which he had moved, and which was carried, upon Clause 2, Subsection (b). He then said he would bring in words to explain what was the meaning of the words "benefit accruing or arising by the cession of such interest." What was to be deemed "benefit accruing by the cession of such interest"? They were not here dealing with interest of a problematical character, such as annuities. An annuity for a fixed term of, say, 50 or 60 years continued irrespective of the death of anybody, and was dependent merely upon a particular date. Therefore, if a man died holding an annuity of that character its value depended merely on the term of years there was unexpired, and on the value of the annuity itself. Different considerations arose when dealing with what was in substance settled property. In the first place, there was a life interest in an estate, and in the end a form of settlement from A to B for life or remainder in fee; but of course there might be limitations. What, then, was to be deemed a benefit accruing or arising by the cession of such interest? The view was pretty obvious. It was this: they were not estimating the value of the property which the deceased person had. What they were valuing was the benefit that arose to the property of which he was charged by being released from further obligation. The first clause of the Amendment which he was moving ran as follows:—The value to beneficiary shall,
  "if the interest extended to the whole income of the property, be the principal value of that property."
  He would illustrate that again by referring to the case he had previously put of a life interest followed by an entail or estate in fee. When the person sold the life interest dropped and the full settlement duty was paid upon the benefit
  1312
  accruing or arising from cession of the interest of the deceased person. That was to say, it was paid upon the whole value of the property in settlement which by reason of the death had been released from the encumbrances which covered the entire property. The second subsection of the Amendment was as follows:—
  "(b) If the interest extended to less than, the whole income of the property, be the principal value of an addition to the property equal to the income to which the interest extended."
  That simply meant that if the life interest was in half the property then there would be only half the property realised by the cession of that interest. That was all he thought he need say on the subject, and he begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 6, after the word "ascertained," to insert as a new sub-section, the words—
  "The value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cessor of the interest of a deceased person in any property shall—

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

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

  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he was not quite sure that the Amendment carried out what was intended. Clause 2, Sub-section (b) applied to benefit arising by the cessor of any interest whether of the deceased or anybody else. The Amendment only applied to the cessor of the interest of the deceased, and was therefore much narrower than the subsection. If there was a cessor of the deceased's interest under the Amendment then the property became chargeable in the way set forth, but it did not refer to cessor upon his death of the interest of any other person. It seemed to him, therefore, that the Amendment did not carry out what the Solicitor General imagined it did—namely, the amplification of Clause 2, Sub-section (b.)
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he could not at all make out how this would read in with

  1313
  Sub-section (d) at the top of page 5. There seemed to be something wanting j in the language. The words read—
  "Together with the rest of the estate as originally ascertained."
  Then came in the proposed continuation—
  "The value of the benefit accruing or arising from the cessor of the interest of a deceased person in any property shall, if the interest extended to the whole income of the property, be the principal value of that property," &c.
  It was simply a clerical point, but there seemed to be something wanting.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, it was a new sub-section.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, if it was meant to be an entirely new sub-section that answered his question.
  MR. R. T. REIDthought the words, "benefit arising from the cessor of the interest," were quite clear even without the words "of a deceased person." With those words omitted, the purpose would be equally effected; but perhaps it would be better to retain the words, though it was scarcely worth arguing.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would like to ask a question going to the substance of the clause, and he took the simplest possible case by way of illustration. Suppose he settled £10,000 upon his son, who would enjoy the income for his life, and then upon his son's widow for her life, and after that the money to return to him. Was he really to understand that the Solicitor General was going to treat the whole of that £ 10,000 as part of the estate of his son's widow? It would go from her and her heirs; she could not dispose of it in any way; it would return to the settlor. To use the language of the clause, the cessor of the interest of a deceased person would extend to the whole income of the property, and would be regarded as part of the estate aggregated with other property, and pay duty.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, this had been repeatedly discussed and explained. It was perfectly true that wherever there was an effective settlement it would be so treated, as, for instance, on A for life, B for life, afterwards on a third life, with return to settlor. There being a settlement, it was intended there should
  1314
  be once for all a payment in respect to the whole subject of the property. Of course, it must be paid at once; but it was not intended that it should be paid more than once. The payment must either be made on the dropping of the first life, or the payment must wait until the end of the settlement; but that would mean, perhaps, postponement for a long period of 50, 60, or 70 years. On several previous occasions he had fully explained this. It was necessary that on the dropping of the first life all property should pay; but, of course, the various interests would contribute; it would not all fall upon the first life.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that hardly answered his question. The Solicitor General said in general terms that the Estate Duty would be paid once; but his point was, that the widow's estate would be made to bear the duty, though her estate got no benefit from the fund, the beneficial interest of which went to someone else.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, it was not a question of the widow's estate. The duty would be allocated to each interest under the settlement, and that answer he thought the right hon. Gentleman would accept.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, it should be noted that for the first time the interest of widows was to be treated in this exceptional manner.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SAVINGS BANKS (SOCIETIES) BILL. (No. 233.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 14th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 5.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "and applied solely."—(Mr. A. Morley.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'and applied solely' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. BARTLEY: I think we have some reason to complain

  1315
  that this Bill is completely changed since it was introduced and read a second time. When the Bill was read a second time it had a definite object and was limited to the provident funds of these Societies. On that ground, and the object being one with which I had a great deal of sympathy, I allowed the Second Reading to pass without discussion. But now the purpose is totally different, and the Bill will enable any amount to be paid in by these Trade Societies without limit. This raises a very important point—namely, whether these Societies should not rather buy Consols than accumulate large funds in the Savings Banks under the guarantee of the community. Upon that point I should like a discussion, but I have no wish to stop the progress of the Bill now if the Postmaster General will agree to set down the next stage for some ten days hence, so that we may have the Bill reprinted in its amended form, and that those who have given thought to the subject may suggest Amendments and raise a short discussion as to the propriety of inducing Societies to buy Consols rather than to resort to this method.
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,: I think the suggestion of the hon. Member is a very reasonable one, and I shall be happy to accede to it, taking the Report stage on Friday next.
  MR. W. BROMLEY-DAVENPORT: I have offered opposition to this Bill, and for this reason: The hon. Member (Mr. Bartley) can speak with great experience of Penny Banks, and the right hon. Gentleman, of course, has great interest in the Post Office Savings Banks, and I have a little experience—I do not say it is great—of Trustee Savings Banks, and feel very jealous indeed of an extension of the privileges extended to Trustee Savings Banks. It must be remembered that these Trustee Banks rely on the public spirit and generosity of people who lend their credit for the benefit of those who could not stand alone. But there can be no reason why they should lend their names for the benefit of those able to invest elsewhere, such as Trades
  1316
  Unions. Since the Bill was read a second time a provision has been introduced to enable Trades Unions to derive the benefit of Savings Bank legislation, and I do think it is a strange thing that hon. Members should seek to derive benefit from the credit of those they seem anxious in other ways to destroy. Certainly, for myself, I do not propose to oppose the Bill to-night. After the conversation I have had with the Postmaster General, and the assurance he has given, I do not wish to attempt to prevent the Bill passing, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman clearly understands that during the week which will elapse before the House is asked to take the next stage we shall consider carefully what the Bill will do, and it does not follow at all that because we allow it to pass through Committee tonight we shall allow it to pass its future stages after 12 o'clock without debate.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday next.

  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 214.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Objection being taken to Further Proceedings,
    MR. ANSTRUTHER (St. Andrews, &c.): May I appeal to hon. Members to allow the Bill a Second Reading. Its principle has been explained and assented to on previous occasions, and I am anxious to take this stage so that Amendments may be printed, and we may see what the opinion of the House is.
    Further objection being taken,
    MR. ANSTRUTHER MR. ANSTRUTHER moved that the Order be discharged.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) (BIRMINGHAM CANAL) BILL.—(No. 252.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) (REGENT'S CANAL) BILL.—(No. 253.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) (RIVER LEE, &c.) BILL.—(No. 254.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) (RIVER ANCHOLME, &c.) BILL.—(No. 263.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) (RIVER CAM, &c.) BILL.—(No. 264.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) (RIVER LARKE) BILL.—(No. 265.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) (CANALS OF THE CALEDONIAN AND NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANIES) BILL. —(No. 266.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) (LAGAN, &c., CANALS) BILL.—(No. 267.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) (GRAND, &c. CANALS) BILL.—(No. 268.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.—(No. 271.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.—(No. 195.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order relating to Bromsgrove Union (No. 1) not proceeded with; remaining Orders confirmed]; Title amended; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.—(No. 222.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order relating to Acton, Chiswick, and Hanwell not proceeded with; remaining Orders confirmed]; Title amended; as amended, to be considered I upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 228.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order relating to Stevenage not proceeded with; remaining Orders confirmed]; Title amended; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 229.)
  Reported with Amendments, [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.—(No. 230.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.—(No. 248.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 255.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.—(No. 256.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.—(No. 165.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,
  Public Works Loans Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under 'The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870,' relating to Bishop's Watham Water, Blandford Water, East Surrey Water, Tilehurst, Pangbourne, and District Water, and West Cheshire Water." [Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Crystal Palace District, Oswestry, Plymouth, Shropshire (Shrewsbury), Wakefield, and Yeadon." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Aberdare, Birmingham, Chelmsford, and Guildford." [Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under 'The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870,' relating to Newquay (Cornwall) Gas, North Bierley Gas, Uttoxeter Gas, and Worthing Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]

  MERCHANDISE MARKS (PROSECUTIONS) BILL.—(No. 259.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL.—(No. 260.)
  Read a second time.
  Message from the Lords [19th March] read,—"That it is desirable that all Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills of the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament;" and the Resolution of this House of the 2nd April, con-
  1320
  curring with the Lords in the said Resolution, read.
  Bill committed to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision, &c. Bills.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 197.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  And, Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

  WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL [Lords.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 284.]
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL [Lords.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 285.]
  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL [Lords.]
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 286.]

  PILOTAGE BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Albert Rollit, Bill to amend the Law relating to Pilotage, ordered to be brought in by Sir Albert Rollit, Mr. Charles Wilson, Sir Seymour King, Mr. Clarence Smith, Commander Bethell, and Mr. Wilson Todd.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 287.]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 90.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 4.
  *THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, in reference to his proposed Amendment on this clause, he had considered the otter made by the First Lord of the Treasury yesterday and had to-day been in communication with the Treasury on the matter. He understood they were willing to pass a Treasury Minute in point of fact conceding the principle for which he contended, and undertaking that as regarded all loans in surety cases this clause would be held to be inoperative. That covered the point he had raised, but no doubt if any collateral point should arise it would, upon his drawing the noble Earl's attention to it, be considered in framing the Minute. He would therefore withdraw the Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Earl of ROSEBERY)signified his assent.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to Order), and dispensed with; Bill read 3a and passed.

MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.—(No. 79.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, in asking their Lordships to sanction the principle of the Bill by giving it a
  1166
  Second Reading, it would not be necessary to occupy the time of the House at any such length as the importance of the subject might demand or justify; and if he passed over some of the aspects of the case with brevity it would be understood that he did so being well aware that to most of the Members of the House the subject was familiar, and also relying upon the effect which, during the last few years, arguments adduced in the past had probably had—more, no doubt, than any which might be brought forward by himself. The principal point in which this Bill differed from other measures of a similar eharacter which had come before the House was the attitude adopted towards the Church. It left the Church absolute liberty of thought, opinion, and action. Some doubt had been cast upon that in the public journals, and in a letter from Mr. Murray, in The Times of that morning, it was stated that—
  "It would be instructive to know why Lord Dunraven had omitted certain provisions which were in the Bill before the other House of Parliament."
  He doubted whether his reasons would be instructive to their Lordships as intelligent men, but he would say at once that the paragraphs referred to were omitted as superfluous—mere redundancy of unnecessary language—and brevity was of the essence of good drafting. If their omission in the least was thought to counteract the intention of the Bill, to leave the Church absolutely at liberty in the matter, he would accept them or any similar words which might be inserted in Committee. Among the clergy nothing like an unanimous opinion upon this question prevailed, that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was contrary to either the laws of God or the laws of marl. However, with very notable exceptions, he would accept at once that the opinion of the large majority of the clergy was represented by those which had been expressed from the right rev. Bench. That being the case, he thought it advisable to be content with a comparatively small measure of reform. The Bill did not provide that ministers of the Established Church or of any kind should be compelled to celebrate these marriages, or that our National Churches should be open for their celebration. Further than that, it would not curtail in the slightest the use of any means which the Church

  1167
  might now possess, whether punitive or otherwise; the Church would, after this Bill was passed, retain the same power as before to persuade, to exhort, to punish, and to make use of any ecclesiastical pains and penalties in her power. That was a considerable concession. Of course, it might be said that the Bill was in that respect illogical. It might be argued that if it was right the State should sanction such marriages before a Registrar—purely civil marriages—it must be equally right that the State Church should be compelled to allow such marriages to be celebrated in the parishes churches. In that respect the Bill was not absolutely logical or consistent; but could absolute logic be found in any Act of Parliament? Were not all legislative measures, all our Acts, all the rules and regulations of organised society touched with inconsistency—more or less tinged with the necessity for compromise? Personally, he would much prefer a larger measure of reform. He had gone as far as, conscientiously, he could in endeavouring to meet the objections of those who were opposed to it in the hope that they in their turn would go as far as they conscientiously could in arriving at a settlement of this great and vexed question. Their Lordships certainly, and probably most upon the right rev. Benches, would agree that he had gone a considerable way towards suggesting a compromise in the matter. It was not necessary to use casuistry to show that an enormous difference, at any rate in degree, existed between securing liberty of judgment and liberty of action to others in a matter of this kind, whilst retaining one's own liberty of action and opinion. There was a great difference between asking the House to agree to this Bill and to consent to a measure which would have the effect of compelling men to a course of action—to do something which might be contrary to their consciences. It might, of course, be said that if such of their Lordships as objected to these marriages on religious and theological grounds assented to this Bill they would be conniving at an act they deemed wrong; but the Bill provided that, though the State should allow civil marriages of this kind, the position of the clergy should he absolutely safeguarded, and their power left uncurtailed to do all they could to prevent these marriages taking place.
  1168
  Noble Lords who felt convinced that marriage with a deceased wife's sister was utterly abominable in the sight of God and man and subversive of society—those who thought that was proved must, of course, resist the Bill like any other men in the country. Not a single words would he say against their doings. But those who, while objecting to this measure of relief, thought it possible that its supporters, in differing from them, had some justification for what they equally conscientiously believed, if they were not absolutely convinced of their own infallibility in the matter, though animated by those feelings could, he submitted, perfectly well agree to the Second Reading of this Bill It was absolutely permissive, though not impartially so, because undoubtedly by the attitude adopted towards the Church the Bill would tend to discourage these marriages. All it asked was that the State should say that the case against them, from a theological or social point of view, was not sufficiently clear to justify the State in taking the very strong step of interfering with liberty of thought and action in so important a matter—that the State in its large impartiality, while not curtailing in the least the liberty of action of the clergy, should cease to set the stamp of infamy across the signatures of the parties to these marriages which were not contrary to the consciences of those who made them, and which to them and to their friends and neighbours carried no sense of moral guilt—an opinion shared, he was convinced, by the great majority of the nation. He had hopes that the compromise embodied in the Bill and the arguments he had briefly put forward might meet with some consideration from their Lordships. He hoped so on behalf of the people for whom he was pleading; he hoped so on account of the Church herself. He was not an advocate of mere expediency, and if it were against the conscience of the right rev. Prelates to accept such a measure he would he the last in the world to suggest their doing so. But entertaining, as he did, so high an opinion of the great work which the Church was doing, and feeling that more strongly perhaps than some of their Lordships because he saw it daily in one of the Church's most fruitful fields—that part of Britain with which he was most inti-

  1169
  mately acquainted, the Principality of Wales—than to see right rev. Prelates, if it were within their consciences to do it, strengthening the foundations on which the Church stands and securing the affections of the people by showing sympathy with them in this matter, and ceasing to uphold a law which touches to the quick thousands among the poorest and humblest of the people and interferes most disastrously with their happiness and welfare in life. That was all he would say on the religions or theological aspect of the question, guarding himself however by saying that, in his opinion, the theological objections could be effectively combatted and disproved, though this was not a place or an occasion suitable for raising such discussions. And, moreover, the religious argument had been practically abandoned as affording ground solid enough for moving the rejection of a Bill of this kind, and was not likely to be revived again that night. Whatever might be the opinions of their Lordships individually as to the meaning of particular texts or passages of Holy Scripture upon these subjects, as to how far they should be read in connection with the social conditions of the people to whom they were immediately addressed, whether polygamy was or was not permitted, it was generally conceded that the most critical and best opinions differed so much on those points that the purely theological argument no longer afforded a ground for objecting to this reform. And so he would leave that part of the subject, merely saying that, as far as he was personally concerned, it appeared when a human law claimed to be founded on a Divine precept, and at the same time failed to carry authority to the consciences, the perceptions, and the intellects of men and women—God-fearing, law-abiding people, fully alive in all respects to moral obligations—that in such a case it was more probable that the inspired utterance had been misapplied or misinterpreted rather than that a Divine ordinance should fail to carry weight to the instincts and consciences of the people. The Bill followed the usual line. Like all measures dealing with such a subject, it was retrospective, though not in the sense of affecting any inheritance or the rights of the State. It was unnecessary to argue before their
  1170
  Lordships that in this country it was essential such a measure should be retrospective. In this country it was impossible to legitimatise children by marriage subsequent to their birth, and unless a Bill of this kind was made to operate retrospectively, an act of absolutely cruel and vindictive spite against children would be committed. That was a matter he need not argue, and leaving it he would consider the subject from the purely practical point of view of the effect it was likely to have upon society. The principal objection urged was that a measure of this kind would have a most pernicious effect upon family and home life, and would completely change the position and status of a sister-in-law in families. Such a theory was founded not on facts, but on pure imagination—an ignorance of human nature and the springs that moved it. It was assumed that because the law made legal marriage in this country impossible between a man and woman under these circumstances, whereas it was possible in every other civilised country, and in our colonies, people who desired such a marriage here would not enter into any other relations. That might show a very touching belief in the efficacy of the law, but was not borne out by knowledge and experience of human nature. The state of the sister-in-law could not really be changed by that House, unless indeed it was improved. Their Lordships must look at the matter from a common-sense point of view, and as it affected the community roughly divided into two classes, rich and poor. Practically, of course, it was a poor man's question. It did not really affect the rich. A man of means could contract a legal marriage with his deceased wife's sister, at some sacrifice, of course, of money and convenience. By domiciling himself in any of our colonies or in any other civilised country he could contract such a legal marriage; but a poor man had neither the time or money. The Marriage Law of this country was one of the glaring instances of the practical inequality of the law in favour of riches and against poverty—a country which prided itself upon the fact that before the law all men are equal, whatever may be their position in life. He invited their Lordships to look at this matter a little from the poor man's point of view. Could their Lordships

  1171
  seriously believe that the position of the sister-in-law now occupied in the poor man's family would be altered in any degree by sanctioning a marriage between her and the husband of her deceased sister? In what way could it possibly be so? If they thought that those relationships would be looked upon in any different light by the great bulk of the people of this country, he maintained that they must be totally ignorant of the instincts and opinions of the people. In the case of the poor man the presence in the home of the sister-in-law was practically a necessity, because there was no other person, after the death of the wife, to take care of the children. The man would not have the means to obtain for them otherwise the care that would be required. If that was the case, was it not certain that a Bill of this kind making marriage possible, if it had any effect on the status of the sister-in-law, would diminish the possibility of scandal? Take the case of the rich, and see whether this argument would stand a personal test. Would any of their Lordships, looking at the matter as common-sense men of the world, say that—in the case of a young widower, rich, capable of giving to his children all the care and attention that money could possibly obtain for them—it was not probable that the tongue of scandal would wag one little bit if a young and attractive sister-in-law went to live with him in his house? He knew what their Lordships' answer to that would be, as men of the world. The fact was, that where the presence of the sister-in-law was not a necessity scandal might arise now, and no more scandal could arise if this Bill were passed. Where the presence of the sister-in-law was a necessity no scandal should arise now, and no more scandal could possibly arise merely owing to the fact that a marriage could be contracted between her and the widower. He would not for the world advocate anything that would tamper in the slightest degree with the home life of the people. He would not interfere with the sanctity of the home or with the purity and happiness of the family, or do anything to interfere with those domestic instincts which, after all, were the strength and backbone of the whole social fabric of the country; but he maintained that the fears of those among
  1172
  their Lordships who dreaded the consequences of this Bill were entirely the product of their own imaginations. They were not founded on facts, nor on the experience already gained from the existence of those marriages in any portion of the world. His contention was that these marriages were not only innocuous, but productive of an immense deal of good, and in support of it evidence could be adduced from, he believed, every civilised country in the world. Take the case of our nearest neighbour, France. These marriages were very common among the French peasantry, by dispensation, no doubt; and he had never seen any recorded opinion of anyone capable of judging that they had done any harm whatever. On the contrary, plenty of opinions could be adduced that marriage with a deceased wife's sister answered exceedingly well in France, and anyone acquainted with the social life of the French as a nation would agree that the domestic instincts and virtues were at least as fully developed in that country as here. If that were doubted, turning to peoples more nearly akin to us in blood, the Teutonic nations, these marriages had long been legalised in Prussia, and that legalisation had been followed in Saxony, Bavaria, and finally over the whole German Empire. Evidence could again be adduced to show that these marriages were productive of much good in Germany. Passing to the Scandinavian nations, these marriages had been legalised in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and also in Russia. Their legalisation in one Swiss Canton, 40 or 50 years ago, had been followed in every Canton in Switzerland. In another country, still nearer to us in blood, the United States, legalisation of these marriages in the original 13 States of the Union had been followed throughout the rest of the States. Taking our own kith and kin in the colonies, men of our own modes of thought and religion—ourselves beyond the sea—this legalisation in South Australia had followed in every one of them, in New Zealand, in Canada, and in the Cape. He would not trouble the House by reading lengthy opinions as to the effect of such marriages in those countries and colonies. He had received a quantity of letters on the subject from

  1173
  men of authority capable of judging the effect of this legalisation, and their opinion was that the legalisation of those marriages had produced no harm whatever, and in many cases opinion was stronger—that these marriages had succeeded far better than the generality. Marriages of this kind were no doubt frequently contracted by dispensation before the Reformation. After the Reformation, until the Act of 1835, he believed he was correct in stating that those marriages could be voided only by action in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and, as far as he could ascertain, it was impossible, during that great length of time, to discover more than half-a-dozen instances where marriages of this kind were voided in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and in 999 out of 1,000 cases, before Lord Lyndhurst's Act, they were acknowledged to be valid and legal, to every extent, and the children inherited upon the death of their parents. Would any of their Lordships venture to say that these marriages, and they had been very numerous, had been productive of harm? He could quote many strong authorities in proof of the very opposite, but would not occupy the time of the House in doing so. The fact was, that the fears of those who anticipated that allowing marriage with a deceased wife's sister would have a dangerous effect upon the family and the State were founded only upon suspicion, whereas the belief of those who advocated these marriages that they would not have those direful consequences was founded upon facts, upon experience of human nature, and upon universal testimony from all the countries and colonies he had mentioned. Their Lordships would consider the vast difference between arguments founded upon fact and those founded merely on suspicion. He might be told that this Bill was illogical; that either it went too far, or did not go far enough, and that it would be impossible to stop where it did; and that other marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity would have to be legalised. He admitted that the Bill was not logical, but, at least, it was more logical than the law as it at present existed. It was generally claimed that affinity followed consanguinity, and was subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations. But the table of prohibited degrees was not founded upon that, but
  1174
  appeared to be arbitrarily selected. That argument, of course, he reduced to an absurdity, because if affinity was to be regarded as the same as consanguinity, it would be impossible for two brothers to marry two sisters; and even if the marriages were performed at the same moment, it would be difficult to discover which of them was valid. This Bill would, at any rate, simplify our Marriage Laws in that respect. An Australian marriage of the kind would be perfectly good here, but would it be valid as regarded inheritance? Even in the case of a British subject domiciled in the colonies, the extremely difficult question of domicile might be raised, and was it right that the honour of the woman and I the legitimacy of the children should depend upon the decision of that question? Of course, the Bill was illogical, but was any Act of Parliament perfectly logical? If we were to wait for legislation until it was proved that no principle contained in a Bill could, if pursued to its logical conclusions, produce any undesirable effect, then the Statute Book would be an absolute blank. He trusted that their Lordships would not allow themselves to be influenced by any argument to the effect that, if marriage with a deceased wife's sister was allowed, they would be asked to allow other forbidden marriages to be made legal. He asked their Lordships to judge this case on its merits and to decide whether, as regarded marriage with a deceased wife's sister, it was not expedient, right, and just that the law should be amended. He asked their Lordships to make the law respected among the people, to free many thousands of men and women from the stamp of obloquy which the State and not the consciences of the people had cast upon them, and to free innocent children from the taint which now in the eye of the law rested upon them. Was it wise and prudent to keep on the Statute Book a law which did not carry weight to the consciences, instincts, and perceptions of the people? Why was the law ineffective? What, in the first place, had been the expression of public opinion concerning it? It would be acknowledged that the Trade Unions must possess some considerable knowledge of the feelings of the working classes of the country. Trade Union Congresses had petitioned seven times in favour of this Bill, and at

  1175
  the Congress of 1883 172 delegates out of 175 signed in favour of its passing. The House of Commons had passed, or given a Second Reading to, similar Bills to this 11 times (once unopposed) by majorities varying between 10 and 70 and averaging 40; and the House of Lords had rejected the Bill 13 times. But in 1883 the Second Reading was carried by seven votes, although on the Third Reading the Bill was thrown out by five votes. The highest majority against the Bill had been 34, the lowest four (twice), and the average 18. With such expressions of opinion from the public and in both Houses of Parliament against this law was it likely that it would be effective? But it was ineffective for far deeper reasons: it did not appeal to the common sense or the conscience of the people. The law forbade a union from which the spirit did not shrink or the flesh naturally revolt. It was not founded upon any intuitive or acquired instinct, perception, or moral sense of the people, and consequently a breach of the law conveyed no moral turpitude to their minds. He reminded their Lordships of what was said in the Report of the Royal Commission which sat in 1847. The Report stated that—
  "Nine-tenths of 1,364 marriages within prohibited degrees since the passing of the Act of 1835 have been contracted with the deceased wife's sister. Eighty-eight cases only were discovered in which Lord Lyndhurst's Act had prevented an intended marriage, and of these 88 cases 32 were stated to have resulted in open cohabitation without the sanction of any form or ceremony."
  Again, the Commissioners in their Report stated—
  "We are constrained not only to express our belief that the Statute of 5 & 6 Will. IV. has failed to attain its object, but also to express our doubt whether any measure of a prohibitory character would be effectual. These marriages will take place when a concurrence of circumstances gives rise to mutual attachment. They are not dependent on legislation."
  He should like also to quote from the evidence of Cardinal Wiseman before the same Royal Commission of 1847–48 as to dispensations—
  "I have had a great many cases of this sort, and I have never been refused a dispensation."
  It was rather curious to reflect that in looking to liberty in this matter they had to turn from the British Parliament to the Romish Church. The Cardinal continued—
  1176
  "It has generally been in the middle classes and among the poor. In the middle classes it generally results from the sister having lived, perhaps for some years, in the family with the wife, the health of the wife perhaps being delicate. The wife dies and leaves a young family; the husband has his business to attend to; and has no one to take care of his children, and the sister-in-law has no other shelter—probably has lost her parents, or has been living many years in her sister's house. …. There is an attachment naturally between them from having lived so long together. To bring a stranger into the house would probably be disturbing the peace and happiness of the little society. The children are attached to their aunt; and it appears altogether the most natural arrangement for their happiness, as well as to prevent the sin probably of cohabitation without marriage, that a dispensation should be granted. That, I should say, is the history of nine out of ten of the cases which T have had to deal with. In the lower ranks it is generally a case of absolute poverty. The sister, if sent away, is turned into the streets; the man himself could not pay for a servant; he perhaps is too poor to expect anyone else to marry him; he is getting old; and the parties are thrown together in such a way that it is advisable that they should be married, otherwise it might end in cohabitation without marriage. Those are the ordinary cases."
  He had made these quotations because they appeared to him to embrace the whole matter. They showed what the law did, and failed to do. The Report of the Commission proved what the case was then. The law never had prevented, and never would prevent, these marriages. It only drove people into deceit and purjury, or into living in open cohabitation without any form of marriage. That was the value and effectiveness of the law as it stood. By amending the law as the Bill proposed their Lordships would be making the law respected by the people, and would be bringing the law into conformity with the consciences and moral perceptions of the people. Was it a fortunate thing, to say the least of it, that in such an important matter as the Marriage Laws the Mother Country should essentially differ from every one of her self-governing colonies? On that account also he would ask the House to amend the law, but he appealed to their Lordships principally on account of the men and women and children who were suffering from the injustice of the law as it now existed. It would be easy enough to advance instance after instance in proof of the great sacrifices—amounting often to the whole savings of a lifetime—made by poor people in order to go through the form of marriage in some

  1177
  country more civilised in this respect than Great Britain. He did not wish to appeal to the sympathies of their Lordships, but rather to their justice and common-sense. He asked them to amend the law for the sake of these men and women, and for the sake of the innocent children who were the victims of the law. With great hope and confidence he would leave to their Lordships this opportunity of righting a great wrong and doing a great act of justice and mercy. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEpresented a Petition from the clergy of the City of London and the suburban clergy incorporated as Sion College praying the House to reject the Bill, and said: My Lords, on one point the House will, I am sure, be agreed, that the noble Earl has discharged the task imposed on him with the ability which might have been expected from him, and with temperance and moderation. I regret that I cannot agree with the noble Earl's conclusions. Forty-five years have passed since I first addressed Parliament on this subject, and nothing that I have heard since has caused me to alter the views which I then held. I was surprised to hear the noble Earl describe the Bill as one of compromise, and as respecting as far as possible the views on the subject entertained by the majority of the clergy. I myself see no element of compromise in the Bill, but very much the reverse. Of all the Bills which have been presented of late years to Parliament on this subject it seems to me that the present Bill has the least claim to that character. But on that point I shall have more to say before I conclude:—I will address myself first to the substance of the case, for and against the Bill. Stripped of all ornament and disguise the case for the Bill is that an indefinite number of persons—not so many as the noble Earl supposes—have thought it right, generally with their eyes open, to set aside the law of the country on this matter of marriage. Whatever may be the number of these persons, it is certainly
  1178
  very small in comparison with the number of persons who entertain and act upon a different feeling. Your Lordships would be greatly mistaken if you thought that this question only affected those members of the community who have set aside or who may desire to set aside this particular restraint upon lawful marriage. It is a question which affects the happiness of every home in the country, and all those who do not desire to do this thing, and who think it wrong, are as much concerned as those who have done it. What are the proportions of those classes to each other? I do not know what is computed to be the number at the present time of the persons directly affected by the Bill; but I do know that the number of those who would be affected by the change which it would make in the present constitution of the family, and by the loss of the comfort and benefit which they receive from it, is enormously greater. The last Census showed that there were more than 5,000,000 unmarried women in the United Kingdom over the age of 15. Every one of those women, except the very youngest and the oldest, are potentially concerned in this measure. As an example of the feeling with which women regard such a measure, your Lordships may permit me to refer to a letter which I have recently received from a lady in Belfast, very well known, and of great ability. She writes—
  "Please allow me to say that I know this measure is viewed with the utmost horror by a very large number of those women who are commonly known as the advocates of women's rights."
  She goes on to say that she is one of those who look at this question from a religious point of view, and she suggests that sufficient notice has not been taken of the profound injury which the passing of such a Bill would inflict on the sister who, though no one seems to recognise it, has rights, and especially the right of freedom.
  "There are many women," she continues, "to whom this form of marriage is loathsome; and, though they would be willing to give much attention to their sister's children if the brother-in-law were out of the question, yet if this Bill passes would not risk their character by going near his house, nor incur the risk of being urged to do what they think wrong."
  I am sure that the number of women who would suffer if this Bill were passed is prodigiously great. It is

  1179
  no figure of speech or exaggeration to say that the Bill would destroy the relation of sister-in-law altogether. The law regarding the woman as a sister, she takes a sister's place in the family. It is most essential to the happiness of married life, and to the happiness of the wife, that her sister should continue to be as a sister in the husband's house. The familiarity which is protected by this prohibition and which cannot exist in the same manner without that protection, enables the sister, both during the wife's life and afterwards also, to perform the duties of a sister and to enjoy the privileges and affections of a sister in the house of her sister's husband. All that state of things the Bill would practically sweep away. What is the use of these prohibitions of marriage in any case? It is to fence round the family and the domestic relations, by making that impossible in law, the possibility of which would alter, or at least might in the greater number of cases alter, the character of those relations. That is the reason for having any prohibitions at all. No one proposes to sweep them away as to con sanguinity, and no one now proposes to sweep them all away with respect to affinity. The use of them is to permit relations within the family circle on both sides, where, in the language of the Divine law, husband and wife have been made one, to be governed by that principle of unity; that they may enjoy the same rights of affectionate intercourse which belong to the natural relations. If the noble Earl thinks that is not a practical view of the matter among all classes of the people, I can only say I am quite sure it is so, in proportion as refinement, intelligence, civilisation, and a high moral sense prevails among them. The noble Earl says that this is a poor man's question. I have often heard that said before, but I do not believe it to be in the least degree true. In fact, I am convinced from some personal knowledge of the matter that the proportion of these marriages among the poor is very much less than the proportion of such marriages in the classes above them. It is not true that poor men's wives' sisters are often, or even ordinarily, in a position to take care of their sisters' children; for they go out to service or to business. When a poor man's wife dies it is generally a neighbour and not the wife's sister who assists him in the management
  1180
  of his family. My own means of knowledge in this matter are fortified by the inquiries which others have made. The Commission of 1847, to which reference has been made, was manifestly not set on foot by the poor or for the sake of the poor, but by persons in a very different condition of life. Of the connections of this kind which were brought to the knowledge of the Commission mentioned by the noble Earl, more than 1,300 were drawn from the richer and middle class, and among the poor the number of cases which they discovered was less than 50. The late Lord Hatherley, who lived in Westminster, caused inquiries to be made there in two parishes, and only found one case of marriage with a deceased wife's sister among 60,000 people. When this became the subject of remark in the newspapers, one other case, and one only, was brought forward by a City Missionary. That result, I think, does not tend to support the notion that this is a poor man's question. When this question was before the House on a former occasion I received letters from clergymen in London, and from Mr. McNeill, of Liverpool, and Mr. Hugh Stowell, of Manchester, in which they testified that, according to their experience, this sort of so-called marriage was not more common than those within other prohibited degrees. The notion, therefore, that this is a poor man's question cannot be substantiated. The noble Earl speaks of the law prohibiting these marriages as being ineffective, and thinks it ought to be repealed in consequence. As well might the noble Earl argue that, because people often commit bigamy, the law for the prohibition and punishment of that offence ought to be repealed. Some people say that, unless one can find in Scripture some text unequivocally and beyond controversy prohibiting marriage with a deceased wife's sister, such unions ought no longer to be forbidden. The very same position might be taken up, much more reasonably, with regard to polygamy, for I should like to know in what part of Scripture cam a text be found unequivocally and beyond controversy prohibiting polygamy? What laws are there, which many persons do not disobey? If that line of argument were accepted

  1181
  it would go a long way. The people who have contracted these unions have persuaded themselves, I will assume, that their action is not wrong; we are assured that they have no conscientious scruples and pass a comfortable existence, their neighbours treating them as they would treat anybody else. If it be so, these people do not, after all, suffer any great hardship. What they did was done with their eyes open, and the law inflicts no punishment upon them except by refusing to recognise their relationship as having the same effects as ordinary marriage. And they are able to settle any property which they may have, as they please, upon their children. The hardship argument, therefore, does not appear to me to have much force. But the change which the noble Earl advocates would cause much more extensive and much loss merited hardship by depriving deceased wives' sisters of their present status in widowers' homes throughout the country, where their brothers-in-law do not want to marry them, or they to marry their brothers-in-law. This proposal, if agreed to, would sadly interfere with the comfort of many families, and children of deceased wives would be deprived of the care which aunts now give them without reproach in many homes among all classes in the country. Many of us have known it. Then, I say, if you look to the interest of the children in the large view, you are going directly against their interests. I do not believe that children would be better off if the aunt became a stepmother, when a second family was the result; for in many cases the aunt would, not unnaturally, prefer her own children to her dead sister's, and the home might not for those children be a very happy one. If, therefore, we look to the question of loss and gain, the classes of persons concerned, and the circumstances under which that loss or gain occurs, I say, the immense preponderance is with the vast majority of the law-abiding community against such an invasion of family life; and those who conscientiously believe it to be wrong are far more proper objects for the protection of the law than those who are favoured by the noble Earl. Well, my Lords, I think all your Lordships will be agreed in the principle, that nothing is more
  1182
  important for the State than to maintain the sanctity of marriage and the purity of the domestic relations. It is necessary that the prohibitions which go to maintain the purity of the domestic relations should go as far as they go now—that is, as far as the family goes—and should apply, besides cases of direct ascent and descent, to brothers and sisters, and the children of brothers and sisters, and to sisters-in-law as being themselves sisters by the relationship contracted through marriage. The noble Lord has wisely refrained from entering into the religious view of the question any further than by saying what his own private opinion is, and I shall imitate his reserve. But I will say, that this is a subject, on which it is not possible to separate religious and moral from social considerations; and that the principle upon which a sound marriage code ought to be constructed is one which will go as far as the most direct and intimate relationships in respect of consanguinity and affinity, and should be equal in its application to men and men. That is our present law, and that is the general law laid down in that part of the Old Testament from which undoubtedly the table of the prohibited degrees was adopted. With regard to that particular verse in the Scripture which has been supposed to introduce an exception in this particular case, all I will say is that Christendom down to a very recent period was agreed in thinking that Christians ought to go by that general law; and that it was a mistake to interpret that particular verse as in any sense justifying an exception to the code adopted by the Christian Churches. That belief—though no one would think of forcing it upon his neighbours—prevailed not only before the Reformation, but also universally at the time of the Reformation; and, but for the unfortunate adoption of the Roman Catholic system of dispensations as to certain degrees—which do not stop at affinity—there would never probably have been any question about the matter. Marriages of this kind, subject to the practice of dispensation in the Roman Catholic and some Protestant Churches, were from the time of Henry VIII. downwards distinctly affirmed to be within the prohibited degrees. I might well content myself with that which was the view of

  1183
  this country, and of Scotland, and Christendom generally, when Churches were not divided as they are now. But it does not stop with them. It is still entertained, at all events by the very great majority of the Church of England, and—I do not know whether by a great majority—but by a great number of the most capable judges in the Churches of Scotland. In 1873, the English Nonconformist ministers were addressed by 24 leading Scotch Presbyterian ministers, Free Church, United Presbyterian, and others, among whom were Dr. Candlish, Dr. Begg, and Dr. Guthrie, showing that they continued to adhere deliberately and with unshaken conviction to that view. But I will pass from that branch of the subject to another. My noble Friend dealt with the example of foreign countries and our colonies, and particularly of France, Germany, and the United States, to induce us to follow their example, because he thinks that evidence is to be derived from them that this relaxation of the Marriage Law is not attended with bad effects. I said "this relaxation of the Marriage Law," and I said it purposely, because I am convinced that if you relax the Marriage Law in the way proposed, and make it inconsistent with itself—leaving for the time the prohibition of marriage with a deceased brother's wife, the prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's niece, and all the other prohibitions of a similar nature—it is impossible that any single principle of this measure could be logically advocated, or practically satisfied, without sweeping away, one after another, all the other prohibitions in cases of affinity and some of consanguinity also. This has been done on the Continent of Europe. The movement has not stopped at the demand that marriage with a deceased wife's sister shall be allowed, because the marriage of the wife's relations within other degrees of affinity, and of uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, has been admitted on practically the same grounds—namely, that there were a number of persons who had contracted or wanted to contract such marriages and insisted upon their liberty so to do, and that the objections of others ought not to bind them. If, therefore, the supporters of the Bill refer to other countries, it is necessary to see what those other countries have done;
  1184
  and it is quite certain that here also, as the principle requires, so in the end it will be done. I would like upon that subject to quote words which struck me very much, when uttered in this House by the late lamented Bishop Magee of Peterborough:—
  "Principles embodied in our legislation are forces which are not under our control. It does not rest with us to say, when we introduce a principle into any measure, 'Thus far shall it go, and no further.' We can no more do that with the principles of law than we can with the forces of nature, and when we once set free a new and distinct principle in any Act of legislation, it is certain to work itself out to its necessary conclusion by the logic of events, or by the logic, still more powerful, of human passion and human feelings."
  And to this I will add the following words, spoken by President Woolsey in 1881:—
  "If there is any principle in our legislation"—
  meaning the legislation which had taken place in the United States with regard to marriage—
  "it is not a moral one of reverence for the most sacred institution of the family and of married life, but it is a desire to afford relief for cases that are nearly as pressing as those that have relief afforded already."
  It is clear, that every argument that can be advanced in favour of the removal of this prohibited degree is applicable to other prohibited degrees. In Prussia and Germany uncles and nieces, aunts and nephews, may marry; and in Prussia, and other parts of Germany, even a dispensation is no longer necessary. The noble Earl in many parts of his speech urged that facts were against the idea that, socially, this particular marriage could do any harm. I do not know whether my noble Friend has taken notice of the discussion which took place in the year 1803 in France at a meeting to consider the Code Civil, at which the Emperor Napoleon, then First Consul, presided. The Commission appointed to draw up the Code in the first instance presented their draft without a prohibition of marriage between brothers and sisters-in-law. A minority of the Commissioners was in favour of that prohibition; it was discussed at the meeting, and the result of the discussion was to introduce the prohibition without any power of dispensation, while, at the same time, the prohibition of marriage between uncle and niece and aunt and nephew was made subject to

  1185
  dispensation. The House will not forget that this discussion took place from a purely social point of view. Religious motives did not influence it at all. I refer to it not only for the result, but for the opinions which were expressed by some of the eminent jurists who formed the majority in favour of the prohibition. In 1792 the French Marriage Law had been relaxed upon the largest scale, and a flood of marriages which were not afterwards allowed took place. In the discussion of 1803 the Minister of Justice at that time, M. Regnier, expressed the opinion, as to the particular case of marriage between brothers and sisters-in-law, that the
  "permission given by the law of 1792, as its consequences, brought trouble into families, and was the chief reason of the demands for divorce then before the Courts."
  M. Cambacérès, alluding to what had been said on behalf of those children who might be supposed to find a second mother in their aunt, said this would result in extremely rare cases, such marriages being
  "usually determined by motives of a very much less respectable character;"
  while M. Maleville stated that all the Courts of Justice testified against these manages between brothers and sisters-in-law. The Code Civil was altered in 1832 in a remarkable way, by putting those marriages, and marriages between uncle and niece, nephew and aunt, upon exactly the same footing, of being subject to Royal dispensation for grave cause. The Marriage Law is a whole, and if we begin relaxing it in one direction we shall have to relax it in the direction of divorce as well as of marriage. The Duke of Marlborough stated in this House in 1873, that after the Marriage Law had been relaxed in Prussia there were 7,800 divorces in three years. In this country there were only 7,321 in 30 years, from 1857, when divorce was first introduced, to 1887; so that in three years in Prussia there were more divorces than in 30 years in this country. In the United States in 20 years, from 1867 to 1886, there were no fewer than 328,613 divorces, and that is the country upon whose example the advocates of the Bill rely; while at the same time many persons in the United States who are anxious for the family life are doing what they can to produce
  1186
  an improvement in the Marriage Laws of that country. I will not read the testimony which high authorities have borne of the sad effects which this state of things have had upon the social life generally of some of the United States. I will only urge the House to pause much and long before it passes such a measure as this; because if we once broke down the sanctity which surrounds the Marriage Law in one direction, we might find it exceedingly difficult to maintain it in other directions. I do not want to delay the House by dwelling long on the history of the question. But it is a remarkable history, because, in truth, the movement—though spontaneous with some people—has been an organised movement, set on foot by a very limited class of persons for personal reasons. The Commission of 1847 has been referred to; I can only say, with great respect for the eminent persons who constituted the Commission, that it appears to have laid itself open to the charge of merely registering the results which that organisation for altering the law had collected. Forty witnesses were examined, thirty-five of whom were witnesses on behalf of the organisation: and there were only five on the other side, clergy of the Church of England, who who were balanced by five clergy of the minority in the Church of England, who took a view in favour of relaxation. I must say, without casting any imputations on the members of the Commission, that the inquiry was conducted in a manner which deprives the result of all title to any considerable degree of respect. Then as to Parliament. There were seven Houses of Commons from 1847 to 1880; in three of them the Bill passed its Second Reading more than once; in one it was rejected once, and passed once; in two it was rejected once, and in one it was rejected twice. In this House, the Second Reading of the Bill was carried in 1883 by a majority of seven; but on the Third Reading it was rejected by a majority of five; and on all other occasions it was rejected on the Second Reading. I cannot help thinking that if this were a measure which really interested the general public it would not be this House which would now be asked to pass its Second Reading. I know there is a Bill before the other House, and that reminds me of the difference between the two Bills.

  1187
  Except in the single point that the future marriages are to be solemnised in a Registrar's office, or in a building where the presence of a Registrar is necessary, there is not in this Bill a single word which would operate directly or indirectly in favour of the Church. There is nothing to save a minister of the Church of England from being proceeded against at law if he should enforce the discipline of the Church in those cases. The noble Earl said it would be possible to introduce those things in Committee. But there are provisions for the protection of ministers of the Church of England in the Bill before the other House which must have been deliberately left out of this Bill, while the noble Earl's friends have been appealing outside for support of this Bill on the ground that those clauses which have been deliberately left out of the Bill are in it. That is very extraordinary; but it is not the only matter of importance in connection with those Bills. In the Bill of 1890 there was an exception made in the case of brothers and sisters-in-law who had gone through the form of marriage, if they had been separated by an agreement in writing. But even if there were an agreement in writing to separate, under this Bill they would be re-married by Act of Parliament, when they had not been married before. That is not all. The Divorce Act of 1857 gives the wife the right to obtain a divorce from her husband for incestuous adultery, and the definition of incestuous adultery for the purposes of that Act is adultery committed by the husband with a woman with whom if the wife were dead he could not lawfully contract marriage, by reason of her being within the prohibited degree of consanguinity and affinity. In the Bill which the Duke of Albans introduced into this House in 1889, and in the Bill introduced into the House of Commons in 1890, there was an express saving of the wife's right to sue for divorce against her husband in such cases; but it is omitted from this Bill as well as from the Bill now before the House of Commons; so that in the case of adultery between a husband and his sister-in-law the right of the wife to sue for divorce, granted by the Act of 1857, is to be taken away. I am also strongly opposed to the retrospective effect of the Bill, though I daresay the
  1188
  promoters of the Bill think it would not be valuable without it. It would enact, that marriages contracted during a period when the law prohibited them, when the law declared that they should be absolutely null and void, "shall not be deemed to have been void or voidable." The Legislature is, as it were, to put on a white sheet and do penance for its own acts, and for the state of the law down to the Reformation and after the Reformation, deliberately re-enacted and re-enforced in 1835; and to say that an arrangement which the law said was not a marriage shall be deemed to have been a marriage, notwithstanding any Statute to the contrary, with some exceptions as to pending suits and decrees actually made for separation—suits and decrees which everyone knows there would not be, because they were rendered unnecessary by the Act of 1835, which in these matters made the law self-executing. This law is to be made because a certain number of people have thought fit to break the law; I say that to make it so retrospective is a thing contrary to first principles, and there is not a subject on which the violation and disregard of the law would not be invited and encouraged if your Lordships were to agree to such a Bill. I move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months ").—(The Lord Selborne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My noble and learned Friend has directed his attack upon this Bill largely upon the ground that it is a Bill only for a certain number of people who have broken the law, and that it is merely in order to save them from the effects of their breach of the law that your Lordships are asked to pass this measure. It is because I differ so entirely from the view of the noble and learned Lord in that respect that I have felt compelled to take part in this Debate. This Bill is desired for those who, in the past, have contracted marriages contrary to the law, and which the Bill would validate. Surely, the fact that some have entered into such marriages, notwithstanding the existence of the present law, and the fact that these marriages have been declared in-

  1189
  valid, and that the children of such marriages are, in the eye of the law, illegitimate, is the strongest evidence you can have that there exists in this community many who desire to enter into such marriages, but are prevented by the state of the law from doing so. These are surely entitled to some consideration, if this law be one which cannot on every ground be justified. The whole argument of the noble Lord was directed, to a great extent, to showing what a very limited number of persons have contracted such marriages; and he therefore asked your Lordships to compare that limited class of persons with the number of those who, he said, would be injured if a change in the law were made. But the ground upon which many of us support the measure is this: that if it be a marriage not contrary to Divine law, and which, on the whole, is not likely to be mischievous in its consequences, the State ought not to prohibit the marriage, but ought to leave those who desire to contract it free to carry out their wishes. Such a law does much to endanger the protection and security of the sanctity of marriage and the purity of the domestic hearth, which, I believe, we all desire to promote. When the noble and learned Lord moves the rejection of this Bill as necessary for the purpose of securing the sanctity of marriage and the purity of the domestic hearth, he rather casts an aspersion, which is far from being deserved, upon vast masses of the community, and upon our fellow-subjects in other parts of the British Empire. On recent occasions a majority of noble Lords in this House—if you exclude the most rev. and right rev. Prelates—voted in favour of a measure such as this. Is it to be an imputation which can be maintained or justified that the majority of your Lordships are indifferent to the sanctity of marriage, and the purity of the domestic hearth? If it could be established that this was a proposal contrary to the Divine law, to which we are all bound to bow, there would be an end of the question; but that is a matter on which there have been differences of opinion among high ecclesiastical authorities. When you have such a difference of opinion amongst those competent to form a judgment upon a matter of this kind, we are entitled to exercise our judgment
  1190
  upon it. I believe there would be nothing worse for the Church, nothing likely to be more disastrous or to do more injustice, than if there should be an endeavour to compel the laity to act against their own judgment, and to condemn that which they cannot see their way to condemn when they search their own minds and consciences. I am not going to argue the theological question. All I say is, that we are not bound to bow to ecclesiastical opinion in this respect, especially as it has not been shared universally by theological writers. But it is said that the principle has been maintained in the Christian Church throughout all ages, and that such a marriage as this has always been regarded as contrary to Divine law. I have great difficulty in accepting that. I never knew that the Church of Rome granted dispensations to persons to break the Divine law. The late Cardinal Manning did not maintain that such a marriage was contrary to Divine law. On a former occasion I put a question to which I got no answer. I now repeat it. Can you show me any time in the Early Church when this marriage was forbidden when other marriages were not forbidden in precisely the same way and on precisely the same footing which are solemnised in the Church to-day? With regard to the social effect of a change in the law, my noble Friend dwelt principally upon the effect that such a change would bring about in the family relationship of sisters-in-law. Indeed, as I understood him, if this Bill were passed into law, sisters-in-law, as we now understand the term, would cease to exist in this country. The result is apparently this: that sisters-in-law at present only exist in England, because the change in the law now proposed has taken place elsewhere, and, as far as I know, the prohibition of this marriage only exists here. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that only here is such a thing as a sister-in-law to be found. But my noble and learned Friend really rested that argument upon absolutely nothing but his own statement. Is it not the fact that in our colonies and in many of the United States of America, as well as in other countries where these marriages are allowed, the family relationship is precisely what it is here? If the purity of the home has been diminished, if the

  1191
  domestic life is not there what it is here, there are clergy enough to collect evidence, and the Episcopal Bench would be furnished with the results. In a matter where one side assert that the desired change would be injurious to the domestic life, and where the other side assert the contrary, is it not an important—is it not the best—course to apply the evidence to be obtained from places where the proposed change has been tried? Upon that point my noble and learned Friend gave us no evidence. We must remember that in no country but our own does this law exist, and from none of them did my noble and learned Friend produce one jot of evidence to show that under their law did family life differ in the slightest degree from that which prevails in this country. I have frequently spoken on this subject with those who live under a different state of the law, and they do not appear to comprehend the alarm with which this proposed change in our law is regarded by some among us, because they say that the social relations of brother-in-law and sister-in-law with them is precisely the same as they are with us. Such facts as these are far more important than mere theories as to the effects likely to be produced. The noble and learned Earl read an extract from the letter of a lady, in which she said that the women of this country would regard such a change in the law as is now proposed to be made as loathsome, and that if it were made many women would refuse to take care of the children of their deceased sisters because of the possibility of their brothers-in-law marrying them. With all respect for that lady, I say that she does not represent the views of her sex in this country. I know many women who are as pare in their lives and thoughts as my noble and learned Friend's correspondent is, and who, I venture to say, care as much for domestic life as she does, who take a totally different view of the subject, and believe that the change in the law would be the best possible thing for the children of the deceased wife. The noble and learned Earl said that this was a question which affected not the poor but the rich, but he produced but very slender evidence in support of that allegation. That allegation is certainly contrary to all the information that I have received upon the subject, and it
  1192
  does not appear to be supported by the probabilities of the case. My noble and learned Friend made no allusion to the fact that Cardinal Wiseman, in the course of the evidence which he gave before the Commission in 1847, had stated that the persons for whom dispensations had been obtained for the purpose of enabling them to marry their deceased wives' sisters belonged not to the middle, but to the poorer classes. In my opinion, therefore, it is of the deepest importance to the poorer classes that this change in the law should be made. My noble and learned Friend went on to contend that as in fact these marriages, although forbidden by the law, were frequently contracted, and as the persons contracting them were received by those who belonged to the respectable and law-abiding class, it was unnecessary that the proposed change in the law should be made, especially as the family property, if there were any, was always settled upon the children of the marriages. But surely, my Lords, it does matter whether the children of such marriages are legitimate or not. In my judgment consideration ought to be shown in this matter to those who have not violated the law. My noble and learned Friend appears to overlook the fact that among the poorer classes the great evil is not that they contract these marriages, but that the parties live together without marriage at all. Thus, by creating a purely artificial objection to these marriages, the law is absolutely conducing to immorality. The whole basis of my noble and learned Friend's argument appears to rest upon this: that if the change in the law were effected it would be impossible for the old relationship between brother-in-law and sister-in-law to exist. But why should that be the case merely because it is possible for them to marry? I do not think that the instances of such marriages would be very numerous. In the first place, a wife is usually somewhat younger than her husband; and, in the second place, women generally live longer than men, and therefore a man might not even, if he wished to do so, have an opportunity of marrying his deceased wife's sister. Why you should suppose that a man looks forward to the possibility of marrying his deceased wife's sister, and that his whole married life is to be blasted in consequence of his doing so, I confess, has to me always been puzzling.

  1193
  I do not think that such a change in the law would make the slightest difference in the relations between husband and wife and sister-in-law. In fact, there are many other relationships, such as those between cousins, in which equal difficulty might be said to exist. It is said that if we were to allow such marriages as these a sister-in-law could not keep the house of the husband of her deceased sister without scandal arising. That is an argument which I confess I cannot understand. In my opinion, if the parties could marry each other if they chose to do so, there would be much less risk of scandal than there is at present. If the change in the law were made, in my view people would soon come to regard the matter with indifference, and all idea of scandal would cease. My noble and learned Friend asked where we were going to stop if we once made this change in the law; but I think that there is far more danger of sweeping away still further the law relating to prohibited degrees by retaining this obstacle to marriages which a large number of respectable and law-abiding people regard as desirable than if this reasonable change were effected. I confess I think the danger will be much greater if you keep up this prohibition than if you were to break down the prohibition. A Marriage Law finds its strength and security in so far as it commends itself to men. Once a Marriage Law ceases to commend itself to respectable and law-abiding people, then does that law become endangered; and the best means, I believe, of ensuring the safety of the Marriage Law is to remove this restriction. It is said that once you removed this restriction other prohibited marriages would be promoted. I should like evidence that in many countries marriage with a deceased wife's sister leads to other prohibited marriages, and without such evidence the argument has no weight in my mind. The noble Earl pointed out that divorce prevails to a large extent in some of the countries where these marriages were permitted. He took the United States in the lump, which I do not think was quite fair, because the Marriage and Divorce Law differed in the various States. There are States in which this marriage is permitted where, I do not believe, that divorce is in the slightest degree more prevalent than it is here. The noble and
  1194
  learned Lord dwelt upon the fact that in the Bill there is no protection for the clergy, but I would point out that this Bill only renders valid a marriage before a Registrar, and, therefore, a marriage before a clergyman would not be any more legal under this Bill than it would be at present. The main question for your Lorships' consideration is whether this change in the law would be, as I think it would be, beneficial and wise, and whether it would remove a burden which has been grievous to many and has not been attended with any advantage to the community.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid, the proposal now before the House has been debated so often in the House, and had been so frequently examined with ability and exhaustiveness from both points of view, that it was not possible for him, at any rate, to hope to throw any new light upon it, or even to deal with the old and familiar arguments as well as they had been dealt with on many previous occasions. But he did not apologise for trespassing upon the time of the House, for since the House was last called upon to consider a similar proposal, several Peers, himself amongst the number, had taken their seats in the House, and, so far as he was concerned, he could not allow that opportunity to pass without entering his strong protest against this proposal to alter the Marriage Law of this country. He felt convinced that those who opposed the Bill were expressing the true opinion of the country. He believed that by far the largest portion of the inhabitants of the Kingdom regarded the Bill with aversion, and even with horror; and were strongly opposed to any such change in the Marriage Laws. He knew, of course, that the promoters of the Bill advanced a perfectly opposite contention. They declared that the people of the country were most anxious that the Bill should become law, and that they had repeatedly asked for its enactment. But he maintained that those who held that opinion had hitherto failed altogether to prove their case. The burden of proof lay entirely upon the promoters of the Bill, and what was the proof they advanced? They declared triumphantly that Bills more or less similar to this Bill had on several occasions been passed by the other

  1195
  House, and had been rejected by the House of Lords. Was that a proof that the Bill expressed a National demand? On the contrary, it appeared to him that the very fact that the repeated rejection of such a measure had been watched by the country without agitation of any kind clearly showed that it was either an unpopular proposal, or one with regard to which no feeling existed. If this Bill were so much desired, as some noble Lords would have them believe, why were the marriages only to be contracted before a Registrar? Why have not the promoters of the Bill cared to propose that in future all such marriages should be legal, no matter where contracted? Simply because they knew that the sentiment of the clergy was almost unanimously against them. The principle of the Bill was antagonistic to some of the fundamental laws of Christianity; and if the promoters of the Bill allowed that the Church was opposed to the proposal, was not that equivalent to an admission that the great mass of the people who followed the teachings of the Church joined the clergy in their dislike of the Bill? But, apart from questions of popularity, the whole weight of argument was against the Bill. It was thoroughly illogical. Could any measure be called just or logical which proposed to make an arbitrary distinction between two identical parallel cases in the prohibited degrees and which gave to man powers of marriage while the claims of the wife in identical circumstances were absolutely ignored? Indeed, the noble Lord who introduced the Bill admitted that it was not a logical Bill, and seemed to imply that few measures were logical. Of course, it might be said that the powers of marriage to which he had referred were demanded in the case of the husband and not in the case of the wife. But even admitting that, for the sake of argument, were the supporters of this Bill prepared to say that no further demand for relaxation in the Marriage Laws would be made in the future? The noble Lord who introduced the Bill did not give them much information upon that point. He told them to keep to the matter in hand, but he (the Earl of Dudley) thought they had every right, in settling this question, to a full explanation on the joint from the promoters of the Bill.
  1196
  Let them say clearly and distinctly how far they intended to proceed in this matter. Would they stop at this point and thereby maintain two distinct modes of marriage for the man and the woman, or would they follow the proposal up to its logical consequence and do away with any prohibited degree which happened to be inconvenient to a section of the community? The fact was, that those who supported this proposal appeared to have ignored the principle on which the present marriage system was based. They assumed that it was the outcome of mere expediency or convenient arrangement, and that, therefore, they were violating no fundamental principle in changing the system to meet the pressure of some passing desire. Surely the system really rested on far deeper foundations. Surely it was part of the idea on which the whole of our social organisation had been built up, and which had assumed its present form under the direction of the primary principles of Christian belief; in other words, that our Marriage Laws were not independent arrangements which could be altered at haphazard by experimental politicians, forming as they did one of the corner-stones of the great fabric of Christian civilization. If they began to tamper with these laws in defiance of the sentiment from which they had sprung, they swept away all possibility of stopping before they got to the end of all the prohibited degrees. If they disregarded the feeling which at present made these marriages repugnant to many people—he thought to the majority of people—there was no reason why they should not disregard it in other cases as well. And as that feeling constituted the real strength of our marriage system it was difficult to see how far changes once begun might not extend. On that account he opposed the Bill, but there was another reason why he hoped it would be rejected. It seemed to him that the legalisation of these marriages would lead to social inconveniences of the most serious kind, chief among them being the division between the law of the State and the law of the Church which must be created. The law of the Church would still continue to prohibit these marriages, while the law of the State would permit them. What, then, would be the position of a conscientious clergyman if these marriages were per-

  1197
  mitted? In a case in which two people who had married in this way wished to partake of the Sacraments of the Church, would he not be justified in refusing to administer them? He believed that in a Bill of a similar kind now before the other House a clause was inserted exempting the clergy from the legal penalty for such refusal. It was with great regret that he (the Earl of Dudley) had heard from the noble Lord who introduced the Bill that clause had been omitted from the measure intentionally, and not from an oversight. The Bill would inflict on the clergy a cruel hardship; but their resistance would in all probability be successful, for in the face of public opinion it would be impossible to enforce penalties for disobedience without, at any rate, the risk of straining to its utmost limit the present relations between Church and State. But even if this clause were inserted in the Bill at a later stage, which the noble Lord led them to believe, it would be that social inconvenience would remain almost as great as before. Everyone acquainted with the conditions of life in our country districts knew very well what would happen if two people were refused the ordinary rites of the Church on the ground that they were not properly married. They would, to say the least of it, be treated with great coldness by their neighbours; and if not actually compelled to leave the village, their lives, at any rate, would be made exceedingly uncomfortable. And this was not mere fancy. Even in his small experience instances of that kind had occurred, and many of their Lordships must have known of such cases. He would point out that the whole burden of the inconvenience of the change in the law would fall upon the very class which it was the professed object of the Bill to benefit—the poor and uneducated. The rich and educated, if they contracted these marriages, would do so with their eyes open. They would know the consequences their action entailed, and would be prepared to accept them; but the poor would not know, until too late, that the union they contracted was regarded as a sin by a large section of the community. Hitherto the law of the Church and the law of the State had been practically identical, and they had been saved from those disastrous conflicts
  1198
  between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities which had given rise to so much trouble in other countries. If this Bill passed, a new departure would be taken, and an alliance which had been productive of so much benefit to the national life of this country would be weakened, if not endangered. On these grounds he should vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
  *THE ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I must acknowledge the very conciliatory tone assumed towards the Episcopal Bench by the noble Lord who opened this Debate. I should like to say that I am quite certain his intention was to be as just as possible towards the Church. But your Lordships have received, beyond the speech of the noble Earl, another appeal which emphasizes still more strongly the desire "to uphold the legitimate authority of the Church." An appeal has been circulated amongst your Lordships which asks "the spiritual Peers not to use their exceptional position" on this occasion to oppose the measure. I do not know how it has happened, but that appeal has not been sent to the spiritual Peers, so far as I know. It has not reached me, nor those with whom I have spoken on the subject, and I saw it simply by accident. As your Lordships have been thus addressed in print, I do not think it proper that I should pass over the appeal, though it has not been made directly to me. I do not know what is meant by "the exceptional position" which the spiritual Peers are not to make use of on this occasion. They have, indeed, special opportunities of knowing the wants both of rich and poor, and if they are asked not to use those exceptional opportunities, when called on to state what they think right and to support it, I must say it is rather an extraordinary request. If it means more than that, I cannot admit that the spiritual Peers in this House are in an "exceptional position" in regard to legislative matters. You might as well say that a Bill is carried by the vote of the Viscounts as by the vote of the Bishops. A majority, according to the system of this House, is a majority of the whole House. The appeal that has been issued I should not further dwell upon but that it bears the names of some of the most respected Members of this House. It

  1199
  suggests that we should not "enforce the canons of the Church of England." I venture to say that that is not what we are about. The canons of the Church of England have been altered before, and could be altered again if due cause were shown; but we maintain that the canons of the Church of England in this particular are in harmony with the canons of the Universal Church. A noble and learned Lord on the last occasion disputed that, going back to very early times indeed; but in the clever and able and learned speech he made he could only contravene that fact by impugning absolutely the veracity of one of the noblest characters who ever lived, who was a statesman as well as a Churchman. If his plain evidence as to what was the custom in his own time—the fourth century—is to be set aside on the assertion that what he says is not true there is no evidence in history at all. There are three grounds on which I must oppose this Bill. One of them, on which the noble Lord opposite has just spoken, and on which I shall only have to add one word, is the severance it would introduce between the laws of the Church and those of the State. It has been denied by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the Bill would cause this severance. He characterised the objection we felt as "mere fringe." I think I shall be able to show the House that it lies at the very root of the measure. My second objection is that this Bill is contrary to the principles which constitute the foundations of the law, sacred and profane. Thirdly, I oppose this Bill because it would legalise technically a class of marriages which are looked upon with abhorrence by what I believe to be a majority of our fellow-subjects, and which would tend to destroy those affectionate and safe relations on which the security of the family rests. As to the first point, it is said in the printed Paper circulated amongst your Lordships that it is the intention of the promoters to "uphold the legitimate authority of the Church." Well, they can only profess "to uphold the legitimate authority of the Church" by their having marriages of this kind performed before the Registrar and not forcing them on the clergy. If any clergyman, in obedience to the universal law of the Church of England and
  1200
  the law of the State of England up to the present time, declined to administer Holy Communion to those who the Church assures him are not married, but are living together without marriage, he would be immediately open to an action at law. Now and again application is made to me with a view to actions at law, and if once the law of the State permitted this class of marriages. It happened that if clergymen, in obedience to the law of the Church, refused Holy Communion to persons by the State married, actions would be immediately brought. The noble Earl said the Bill would not interfere with the clergy in regard to the power they now have for punishing these marriages. The clergy do not want to punish; but if this Bill were passed, the clergy would be liable to punishment for refusing Holy Communion, conscientiously and in obedience to Ecclesiastical Law, to persons who had contracted these marriages. The punishment is on the other side. But to support the Bill would not be right, even if it had regard to the legitimate authority of the Church. It would still not be right for the spiritual Peers in your Lordships' House to vote for it on any such ground or to withhold an expression of their opinion. These marriages are opposed to law, scriptural and Roman. It has been said to-night, as it has been said before, that if a prohibition is laid down in the Bible there is an end of the question, but that it is not in the Bible. I can only say that opinions differ on that point. Having examined the matter most carefully, I can only record my solemn conviction that if these marriages are not expressly forbidden in the Bible they are certainly forbidden there by the clearest and most complete analogy—though it is impossible that I should detain the House at this hour by giving proof of that. It is my solemn conviction that the analogies of the Mosaic law completely carry the point. There is one Biblical argument which has been urged over and over again in this House against us, but which, I notice, has not been urged to-night. We have not heard tonight that the injunction to a brother to marry his brother's widow bears upon this question. It certainly has no bearing upon it. These marriages were a close restriction upon a custom that uni-

  1201
  versally prevailed before, and which prevails to the present time in Central Asia. The Jewish law confined that practice to the narrowest point; and if it is still singular, there is no law in our own Codes which pretends to be absolutely co-extensive with morality. Our Lord has told us that there were things which were left in the Mosaic law, because of the hardness of men's hearts. But this cannot be gainsaid: that as soon as the Roman Empire became Christian; as soon as the great Codes of Law were formed, at the same moment with the earliest Christian Creed, these marriages were expressly included among those which were prohibited. It ought to be sufficient for this House that Christianity introduced such a law. That ought to be sufficient, even supposing there had been nothing to forbid these marriages before that. But that cannot be maintained. It is very well known that the same law which finally enacted it states that the ancients ("veteres") believed that this marriage was allowable. But there is no definition of what the "ancients" are or how far back that may reach. But we do know that early in the third century we have from the greatest writer of the time—under Alexander Severus—we have a definition of affinity, and the statement that marriages of affinity and consanguinity are equally not to be contracted. It is true that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is not mentioned an so many words; but it is clear from the argument, which is the basis of the whole statement, if naturally applied, that this relationship is included in the prohibition. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, challenging the Episcopal Bench, asked us whether certain marriages which are now allowed by our law were not forbidden at that same time, just as marriage with a deceased wife's sister is now. The noble and learned Lord's learning possibly extends to regions of knowledge which are closed to me, but I presume that the noble and learned Lord refers to the marriages of first cousins, which are forbidden in the Theodosian Codex, but not in the same way nor with the same sanction nor on the same ground. Augustine tells us that the marriage of first cousins was forbidden by human law, but not by Divine law; that the prohibition was carried on the grounds of
  1202
  expediency and experience, and with the consent of the whole human race. The question has been asked whether marriage with a deceased wife's sister would have been allowed by dispensation by the Church of Rome if the Papal See had held it to be contrary to the Divine law. The question shows a strange misapprehension of the claims of the Papal See. The theory is, that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and that, therefore, he can dispense in regard to things which may in a certain sense be forbidden even in the Divine law. He interprets. That is the whole theory of dispensations, and it is in accordance with this theory that very recently dispensations have been granted for the marriage of uncles and nieces, and if the question is at all to the point we should have to say on the same ground that the marriage of uncles and aunts is not contrary to the Divine law. Lastly, I oppose this Bill because it would technically legalise more marriages of a sort which are at present heartily disapproved of by—I may not call them the best, but a most respected and a very vast section of the community. The marriages which are made after divorce do not carry with them that moral approval which it is most desirable that marriages should carry. The view of such people does not rest upon the law; it does not rest upon any enactment. It is an instinctive deep-rooted aversion. The law did not create that aversion, and the law, operate as it may, will never overcome it. If in making this assertion I only show my "ignorance of human nature," it is an ignorance shared by a large portion of my kind. I think that I have shown that my opposition to the Bill does not turn upon a single canon. It has been stated that if things remain as they are two brothers ought not to marry two sisters. That is an entire misapprehension of what is meant by affinity. The persons married may not marry their several connections by affinity, but those connections, of course, are not precluded from marrying together. The noble Lord produced an effect by saying that the table of our prohibited degrees was an arbitrary one; that it looked as if they were selected without any regard to principle. On the contrary, the principle is as clear and simple as it can possibly be. It is simply this: a man cannot marry his

  1203
  mother or his mother-in-law or anyone upwards, and he may not marry his daughter or his daughter-in-law or anyone downwards. He may not marry his aunt or aunt-in-law, or his sister or sister-in-law. Throughout, this table is the most complete and simple thing which could be produced; and if anyone will take the trouble to check the tables at the end of the Prayer Book, you will find that that simple principle covers them all. If this Bill passes, how could it be maintained a year hence that a man may not marry his wife's niece, when he has been permitted to marry his wife's sister? The niece is further off—is less of the same blood. If the one prohibition goes, the other must go also. It has been urged that nine-tenths of marriages within prohibited degrees are with sisters-in-law. Of course they are, because the parties would be about the same age and in the same circumstances. It is much less likely that a man would marry his aunt or his niece than his sister-in-law. I must point out that the premises of the argument on the other side are that people have broken the law or that they wish to break it, and will that argument stand any comparison with the arguments which are opposed to it on the other side? We maintain four things, which are entirely independent one of the other. If any were disproved each of the others remains and is sufficient. The first argument is that it is forbidden in Scripture; the second that it is forbidden in the history of jurisprudence ever since Christendom began, and I believe it can be shown that the prohibition had its roots much earlier in the history of the civilisations of the world. The third argument is that it has not been the usage of civilised nations up to the present moment, and their history shows that more and more they have relied upon the family for their centre and base. Lastly, I do rely largely on the social feeling of what I am persuaded is for the majority of the people of this country. I trust that it will be felt that what is endangered by this Bill is nothing less than the integrity of the family, which is the citadel of society, and of progress, and of religion. If we ask why the law has stood in England when other nations give it up, the answer is that in England, above all, the family is recognised as the centre it is. It is England which under-
  1204
  stands best the word home and its associations. Esto perpetua.
  On Question, whether ("now") shall stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 120; Not-Contents 129.
  Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day six months.

  CHARITY COMMISSION (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Leave given to the Lord Welby to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons (pursuant to message of the 1st instant), if his Lordship think fit; and his Lordship (in his place) consenting thereto, a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
  BOARDS OF CONCILIATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confer additional powers on Boards of Conciliation and Arbitration—Was presented by the Earl of Onslow; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 112.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. (No. 71.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
WEMYSS, &c., WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 80.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 34.)
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
ELECTRTC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 99.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. (No. 72.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
COMMONS REGULATION PROVISIONAL ORDER (LUTON) BILL.—(No. 91.)
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 41.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL [H.L.] (No. 50.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PISTOLS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 40.)
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read, and discharged.
MUSIC AND DANCING LICENCES (MIDDLESEX) BILL.—(No. 69.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
COMMISSIONERS OF WORKS BILL. (No. 68.)
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
ARBITRATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.] (No. 78.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

INDIAN RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. (No. 101.)
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.