Sitting of 16 May 1895

Preamble
House met at Three of the Clock.
CIVIL SERVICES ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE, 1895–96 (ROYAL PARKS AND PLEASURE GARDENS).
Estimate presented,—of the Additional Amount required in the year ending 31st March 1896 to defray the Expense of Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens (Class I. 2) [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.—[No. 266.]
CIVIL SERVICES ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE (FRIENDLY SOCIETIES REGISTRY.)
Estimate presented,—of the Additional Amount required in the year ending 31st March 1896 to pay the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies, 38 and 39 Vic. c. 60 (Class II. 15) [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.—[No. 267.]
CHARITY COMMISSION (WELSH INTER MEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889).
Copy presented,—of Report of the Charity Commissioners of their Proceedings under The Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
Copy ordered—
"Of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Order included in the Pilotage Provisional Order Bill."—(Mr. Burt.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 268.]

SCHOOLMASTERS (PENSIONS).
Return ordered—
"Showing the numbers and names of Schoolmasters and Schoolmistresses in receipt of Pensions from the Scotch Education Department, the school at which they were last engaged, the date when they commenced teaching, the age at retirement, the date of retirement, and the amount of pension paid to each."—(Mr. Weir.)

HOURS OF LABOUR (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).
Address for—
"Return showing (1) the State limitation of hours of work by adult men and women, young persons, and children in the texile trades in the different States upon the Continent of Europe and in the United States of America; (2) the ages at which such children are allowed to begin work, and whether they begin as half-timers or full-timers; (3) whether the State limitation is enforced by any and what system of inspection, and indicating the changes which have been made in these respects since the Berlin Conference."—(Mr. Whiteley.)

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
  Order read: That this Bill be read a second time.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDSdesired to ask if anyone was present who could answer certain questions with regard to this Bill, because if not he should have to request that its consideration be deferred till to-morrow.
  *MR. SPEAKER: It stands by Order for to-day already.
  MR. ROWLANDSremarked, that it was very unfortunate that if a Member desired to ask a question with regard to a private Bill, no one interested in such Bill should be present to answer him. The Bill now before them took powers for obtaining the control of a certain railway, and he desired to ask if the directors intended to make any alteration in the passenger fares over that particular line?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I do not know what the purpose of this Bill is, but I assume that it is not a Bill which deals with the question of fares.
  MR. ROWLANDSsaid, the company distinctly took control of the particular railway by this Bill, and once having got it under their control they would have the entire management of it. In the interest of the travelling public, he wished to ascertain if it was proposed by the directors to take any, and, if so, what, action with regard to passenger fares? He did not wish to oppose the entire Bill, but he desired to have some information on this point, and in the absence of anyone who could give him

  1309
  an answer, he would move that the Debate be adjourned till to-morrow.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second that?
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to second that Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to:—That the Debate be adjourned till to-morrow.

  Message from the Lords:—"That they have agreed to Military Lands Provisional Orders Bill, without Amendment."
QUESTIONS.

  SPECIAL CAMPAIGN PENSIONS.
  *SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can state what number of compassionate pensions to soldiers who served in the Crimean and Indian Mutiny campaigns have been granted since he made his statement on the Army Estimates; and whether all the applications from men of 65 years of age and upwards have now been dealt with by the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. W. WOODALL,): Since March 15, when the Army Estimates were introduced in this House, 118 special campaign pensions have been granted, and 119 are in various stages of consideration. All the qualified claimants over 65 years of age at home have been dealt with or are among those mentioned as under consideration; but new claims are constantly received, and the claims from men in the colonies are only taken up as they are renewed.
  *SIR JOHN LENGsaid that he presumed that these cases included those of the old soldiers who were incapacitated from work by ill health.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked whether the rule that men must be in a state of destitution before they could receive assistance was still enforced.
  *MR. WOODALLsaid, that the rule was interpreted very generously.
  MR. HANBURYasked how far this rule, which really discouraged thrift, had
  1310
  been abolished. What in fact was the present rule?
  *MR. WOODALLsaid, that he hoped the hon. Member would not press the question, as he thought it inadvisable that a public answer should be given.
  MR. HANBURYsaid that he must put the question on the Paper.
  *MR. WOODALL: Very well; I will ask the hon. Member to put it down.

  BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS COMMISSION.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that the Commission on Bovine Tuberculosis has been proceeding for the past five years, and that numerous questions have been asked thereon, whether the Government have delayed the practical consideration of this matter; and whether they expect to be able to announce their decision within a reasonable time?
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Her Majesty's Government will recommend that the scope of the inquiry of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the effect of food derived from tuberculous animals on human health shall be extended so that the Royal Commission may further inquire and report on administrative procedures available for reducing the amount of tuberculous material in the food supplied by animals to man?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE,): The Royal Commission on Tuberculosis issued their report a few days ago, after a prolongued inquiry. The evidence which has been taken during that time has not yet been issued. The Report makes no recommendations. The Commission has arrived at various conclusions of fact as to the existence of tuberculosis in animals, and as to the possibility of its being communicated to consumers of meat and milk. These conclusions appear to point to the expediency of an extension of the system of inspection of dairies, slaughterhouses, and butchers' shops, and possibly to the general establishment of public

  1311
  slaughter-houses. Until the evidence taken by the Commission is published, and time has been given for the consideration of the very large and difficult questions involved, I shall be quite unable to state what the intentions of the Government are upon these matters, or whether it is desirable to have a further inquiry as suggested by the hon. Member for West Salford.
  MR. LEES KNOWLESasked whether the right hon. Member would issue directions to magistrates, sanitary inspectors, and other officials, as to what meat they should condemn, and what meat they should not condemn.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he did not think he had any power to issue such directions. The inspectors of meat were appointed by the local authorities.

  DALRY MINES, AYRSHIRE.
  MR. J. A. M. MACDONALD: On behalf of the hon. Member for South West Ham (Mr. J. Keir Hardie), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether he is aware that the miners employed in No. 7, Blair Pit, Dalry, Ayrshire, appointed James Crawford as their check-weigher on 1st May, in the form prescribed by the Mines Regulation Act; that a letter was sent to Mr. Cunningham, the manager, inviting him to attend at the ballot, but that the manager refuses to allow Crawford to take his place on the pit head until the miners sign their names at the office that they are in favour of him acting as check-weigher; and (2) whether such action is in accordance with the Mines Act?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): My attention has already been called to this case by the Inspector. The facts are as stated in the first paragraph, but I am informed that the following day the men agreed to sign the paper, and that the check-weigher has been allowed to take up his duties. I do not think that the manager was entitled under the Mines Act to require the miners to sign the paper.
  MR. J. A. M. MACDONALD: On behalf of the same hon. Member, I beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department—(1) whether he is aware that
  1312
  in certain pits in Dalry, Ayrshire, workmen are prohibited from ascending the shaft before Four o'clock, even when their work is finished earlier, or when from any cause they are unable to continue at work; and (2) whether he will introduce a clause into the new Mines Act putting a stop to such proceedings?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I understand that it is a fact that in certain pits in Dalry, workmen are prohibited from ascending the shaft before Four o'clock, but I am informed this rule is not strictly enforced in case of illness or other reasonable excuse being made. I will consult the Secretary of State as to the last question.

  FATAL ACCIDENTS TO RAILWAY SERVANTS.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the importance of the Board of Trade being represented at inquests on fatal accidents to railway servants, he will cause a circular letter to be sent to coroners in England and Wales, intimating that the recent increase of the staff of the Board of Trade by the appointment of practical railway men as sub-inspectors of railways, will now enable the Board to be represented more frequently at inquests, and recommending coroners to apply by telegraph to the Board of Trade to send an inspector or sub-inspector to attend all inquests on such fatalities?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I am informed by the Board of Trade that in railway cases when a coroner asks for technical assistance, it is their practice, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, to direct an inspecting officer of railways to attend the inquest. They will be willing to continue this practice in important cases involving the deaths of railway servants, and on receiving a request from the coroner they will direct a sub-inspector to attend. A circular letter scarcely appears to be necessary, as coroners are well aware of the practice of the Department.

  NAVIGATION OF THE THAMES.
  SIR THOMAS SUTHERLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade has the power to cause

  1313
  the inquiry now proceeding under Section 189 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1894, as to the practicability and expediency of improving the navigation of the Thames and the estuary thereof," to be extended to the whole of the river as far upwards as London Bridge, in place of the limits fixed by the Act, that is to say, from the Nore Lightship to Thorney Creek; and whether, if the Board of Trade have the power, they will exercise it?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE,): The Board have no power to extend the inquiry to which the hon. Member alludes. The Admiralty, having re-surveyed the limits fixed by Section 189 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1894, are now engaged in examining the shoal patches between Thorney Creek and Gravesend. The Conservators of the Thames are also making a survey of the river above Gravesend. These surveys and examination, when completed, will be placed before the Commissioners who are holding the inquiry referred to.

  PROPOSED PASTEUR INSTITUTE IN DUBLIN.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether applications from various quarters have been made to the Irish Local Government Board to take necessary steps to establish a Pasteur Institute in Dublin; and (2) whether, having regard to the fact that this system involves operations upon living animals, he will be able to give an undertaking that public money will not be applied to the establishment of an institution of this character in Dublin?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): I understand that the Boards of Guardians of a large number of Unions in Ireland have adopted a Resolution of the nature referred to in the first paragraph of the question. The Local Government Board are now collecting information as to the amount expended from the poor rates in sending poor persons to the Institute in Paris for treatment, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the whole matter will be carefully considered when it comes before me.

  KILLYBEGS PIER.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can now state when the building of the pier at Killybegs, which was promised by the late Government upwards of four years ago, and by the present Government upwards of two years ago, will be commenced?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT,): I am sorry that as yet we have not been able to come to an arrangement with the Congested Districts Board, nor to estimate the amount that will be available from railway funds.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can see his way to abolish guarantees for local telegraph offices throughout this country, as the liability to give such guarantees seriously hampers the development of sparsely populated country districts?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: I cannot hold out any hope of an abolition of the guarantee system, but I would remind my hon. Friend that much has been done of late years to encourage the extension of telegraphs in country districts. Rural sanitary authorities have been empowered to give guarantees for this purpose; the conditions of the guarantee have been very considerably lightened; and the Post Office is constantly making inquiries as to whether the business likely to be done at village post offices will justify the extension of the telegraph without any guarantee at all. The result has been that the number of country telegraph offices is increasing steadily, and at a growing rate In 1890–91 the increase was 275; in 1893–94 it was 673.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, what is the total number of telegraph offices in London and metropolitan district; whether he is aware that there are 40 telegraph offices in the metropolis within a radius of two miles; and whether he can spare a few of these town offices in order to be in a position to establish more offices in the rural districts, with a view to encourage the people of such districts to remain in them and abstain from flocking into the towns?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY,): There are about 500 telegraph offices in the metropolitan district, or, in other words, about one office to 10,000 people. Elsewhere there are about 9,150 offices, or one office to 3,600 people. The offices in the metropolis have been established to meet the requirements of the public, and are only maintained if they pay their way. To close any of them would not facilitate the establishment of telegraph offices in rural districts, which, however, are being extended with increasing rapidity year by year, the number of offices added in 1890–91 being 275, and in the three following years 349, 561, and 673.

  INDIAN GUARANTEED RAILWAY STOCK.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the transfer of some of the Indian Guaranteed Railway Stocks the Companies require a certificate of burial in the case of the death of one of the holders, and will not accept a certificate of death; whether he is aware that this often involves great difficulty and delay; and whether he will consider the advisability of altering this requirement in future?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. HENRY FOWLER,): The Indian Guaranteed Railway Companies are administered by their respective Boards of Directors. I have ascertained that though the procedure followed by each of the Companies varies somewhat in detail, the general practice is to accept either certificates of death or of burial.

  MOUNT CHARLES QUARRIES, COUNTY DONEGAL.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that one of the principle industries in the district of Mount Charles, County Donegal, is the quarrying and exportation of the Mount Charles freestone, a work which gives employment to labourers and small farmers; whether he is aware that the quarries are two statute miles from Mount Charles (Salthill) pier, and a
  1316
  little more than one mile from the railway station, and that between the quarries and the pier and railway station there are steep hills, the result being that horses are only able to carry a little over half an ordinary load to the places of exportation; and whether, having regard to the increase in the cost of transportation of stones thus carried, and to the fact that special orders could not be executed, as stones over a certain weight could not be drawn over the Glencough Braes, he would consider the propriety of instituting public works for cutting through these hills, which would give employment for relief of the distress in this neighbourhood?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am informed that the facts are generally as stated in the question, and that at Presentment Sessions held at Mount Charles on the 9th instant a presentment was passed for the cutting one of the worst hills. With regard to the suggestion that the Government should undertake the cutting of these hills as relief works, the Local Government Board state that no representations have been made to them as to the existence of distress in the locality such as to justify the opening of such works, and the Board's Inspector is of opinion, that no such works are required in this district at present, I have directed the inspector to make further inquiry and to report to me at an early date on this point.

  NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. J. H. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether his attention has been drawn to the grave inconvenience and annoyance caused to the travelling public by the recent refusal of the North British Railway Company to allow passengers from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy to travel by the 4.25 p.m. train, notwithstanding that it stops at Kirkcaldy for the purpose of taking up passengers; (2) whether he is aware that in giving evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, in opposition to the proposed scheme of a rival company, the late Mr. John Walker, manager of the North British Railway Company, stated that the inhabitants of Kirkcaldy would have full advantage of all passenger trains passing Kirkcaldy; and (3) whether, in view

  1317
  of the strong dissatisfaction with which the present action of the North British Railway Company is regarded, he proposes taking any action in the matter?
  MR. BRYCE: I can quite understand that the people of Kirkcaldy may be put to inconvenience by the facts stated in my honourable Friend's question. The Railway Company, however, state to me that they are only able to make this train keep time at Dundee and the other places north of Fife which it serves, by refusing to book passengers from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy; and they add that there are trains from Edinburgh at 3.55, 4.40, and 4.50 p.m., so that, in their view, passengers from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy have adequate afternoon facilities. The Board of Trade have no power to take any action in the matter; complaints regarding the absence of due facilities can only be addressed to and heard by the Railway Commissioners.
  MR. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second paragraph of my question. I would also ask whether it is not the case that this very train has to wait a quarter of an hour at Dundee for connections?
  MR. BRYCE: I daresay that is the case. I will endeavour to get some information on the subject.

  HOURS OF LABOUR IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
  MR. WHITELEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will agree to the Return as to the State limitation of the hours of labour in foreign countries which stands on the Paper this day?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I understand the hon. Member consents to the alterations which I have communicated to him privately, and if that is so, he can have the return.

  PEA PESTS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the pea bug has been introduced by American peas, grown by contract for English seedsmen, and that their existence is admitted by the producers, who advise soaking in petroleum before use; and that pea fields are being ploughed up
  1318
  in Essex and elsewhere owing to the damage done by this insect; and whether he will stop the importation of foreign seed peas known to be infected by the bug?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER,): There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the particular insect to which the hon. Member refers under the term "pea bug," and I should be obliged to him if he would place me in possession of any information on the subject which he may possess. The insects of which specimens were sent to me from Brain-tree were, as I am advised, Sitones lineatus, commonly described as the pea and bean weevil. This insect has been well known in this country for many years, and the leaflet now being issued by the Board of Agriculture sets out the measures which may with advantage be adopted with respect to it. I have no power to take the action suggested in the latter part of the question.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, that he had some of the bugs with him. Would the right hon. Gentleman have consignments of peas coming from America marked as such and kept in bond in order that the bugs might develop there instead of on the land?
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I am afraid that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests is outside of my power.

  QUEENSLAND LABOUR TRAFFIC.
  *MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement of Dr. Cecil Wilson, Anglican Bishop of Melanesia, that Sir J. B. Thurston, Her Majesty's High Commissioner in the Western Pacific, had informed him, after a recent cruise amongst the islands, that he had been saddened throughout his jurney by the evidences of the fearful depopulation resulting from the Queensland labour traffic; whether he is aware that it was admitted, in the course of a recent trial at Brisbane for kidnapping, that the Government Agent on board the labour-recruiting vessel William Manson had sanctioned the taking on board of seven single women contrary

  1319
  to the regulation forbidding the recruiting of women unless they volunteered with their husbands, and that other irregularities occurred on the same vessel with the cognisance of the Government Agent; and whether, in view of this recrudescence of the malpractices associated with this traffic in bygone years, he will urge upon the Governor of Queensland and Her Majesty's High Commissioner in the Pacific the necessity of the utmost vigilance and the closest supervision?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): My attention has not been called to the statement of Dr. Cecil Wilson, Anglican Bishop of Melanesia, that Sir J. B. Thurston, Her Majesty's High Commissioner in the Western Pacific, had informed him, after a recent cruise amongst the islands, that he had been saddened throughout his journey by the evidences of the fearful depopulation resulting from the Queensland labour traffic, otherwise than through the newspaper extract which has been forwarded to me by the courtesy of my hon. Friend. Sir John Thurston has in recent despatches expressed the opinion that the labour traffic has tended to depopulate some of the islands. The Governor of Queensland has reported that the master and Government Agent of the William Manson have been committed for trial at Brisbane for kidnapping; but the official report of the trial has not yet been received. The High Commissioner for the Western Pacific has arrived on leave, and it is intended to confer with him on this and other questions connected with the islands of the Pacific, but it is premature to discuss the question of addressing the Governor of Queensland in the sense suggested.

  ST. CLEARS PARISH COUNCIL, CARMARTHEN.
  MR. LLOYD MORGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Parish Council for St. Clears, in the county of Carmarthen, have communicated with him in reference to the use of the justices' room for the purpose of holding Parish Council meetings under Section 4 of the Local Government Act, 1894; whether, having considered the representations made to him, both for
  1320
  and against the use of the room, he communicated his consent to the chairman of the Parish Council; whether the Standing Joint Committee, in the face of this communication, refused the Council the use of the room; and whether, under the circumstances, he will direct the Standing Joint Committee to grant the Parish Council the use of the room on any reasonable occasion?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The facts are as stated in the question. The Standing Joint Committee are bound by Section 4 of the Local Government Act, 1894, to allow the use of the room to the Parish Council. I think they must have misunderstood the law, and I will communicate with them further.

  POLICE PROTECTION IN SOUTH LEITRIM.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since police protection has been granted to a man named M'Cordick, in the parish of Drumreilly, South Leitrim, the constabulary have turned his house into a temporary barrack, and employed him to run messages; and whether he can state for what further period the police intend to continue making payments to this man for these purposes?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am sorry to say that I have not been able to complete my inquiries on this subject. If the hon. Member will put the question down again for Monday I hope I shall be able to answer it.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1887) REPEAL BILL.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will grant an early day for the discussion of the question of referring the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act (1887) Repeal Bill to the Standing Committee on Law, &c?
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will be able to afford an opportunity for the Adjourned Debate on the Motion to refer the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act (1887) Repeal Bill to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: It is not possible for the Government in the present state of public business to give any undertaking on this subject. The Irish Land Bill must be the first and paramount object of their consideration in the distribution of time for Irish business.
  MR. J. REDMOND: What I wish to know is, whether the right hon. Gentleman will allow anything to interpose between this Coercion Act Repeal Bill and the House, except the Irish Land Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: Questions of that kind ought, I think, to be addressed be to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House; but I have no reason to doubt that the Irish Land Bill will follow the Welsh Bill.
  MR. J. REDMOND: That is not what I asked.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say that this Bill will be taken after the Land Bill?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: Surely the hon. Member must be aware that this is not a Government Bill, though the Government heartily and cordially sympathise with its object.
  MR. W. REDMOND: What I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that no time will be given to other Irish Bills besides the Land Bill until this Bill is taken up?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: Oh no; I certainly cannot say anything of that kind. There is at least one Irish Bill, if not two, which has a prior position in the list of the business of the House.
  MR. W. REDMOND: What Bills?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: The Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill for one.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is that the only Bill?
  MR. J. REDMOND: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give precedence to the Coercion Act Repeal Bill over another unofficial Bill, the Irish Sunday Closing Bill?
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any English Bill whatever will be considered?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: All these different questions ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

  EVICTIONS AT KINROSSIE.
  *MR. ALPHEUS C. MORTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any further information as to the proposed eviction of crofters at Kinrossie, Perthshire; whether he is aware that the Sheriff Clerk of Perthshire is also agent for the Messrs. Nairne, the proprietors of the land in question; and that the Procurator Fiscal of Perthshire is also connected in business with the landed proprietors in the county; if he will cause inquiry to be made whether the dwelling-houses in question were wholly built, or extensively repaired, by the occupying crofters or their relations, and whether any of the crofters in question have resigned their holdings voluntarily; and whether he will order an independent inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  SIR JOHN G. KINLOCH: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask him whether it is the case that these tenants have been compelled to leave their holdings without any compensation being given for the improvements made by them in their houses and lands?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN,): The Sheriff Clerk and Procurator Fiscal of Perthshire were both appointed a considerable time ago, and they are not debarred by their Commissions from private practice as law agents. The Sheriff Clerk is factor on the estate of Dunsinane belonging to Messrs. Nairne. The Procurator Fiscal is factor upon two small estates, upon neither of which are there crofters. It is understood that the predecessors of the present occupants built their houses with assistance from the proprietors, and that in consideration of this they got their holdings, which are separate from their houses, at a low rent. The Sheriff informs me that the houses are generally speaking old, and that no one has made repairs of any importance upon them without assistance from the proprietors. Of the six crofters who have now received notice to quit,

  1323
  four retain their houses, and those who desire new crofts will receive them. Two crofters are warned out from both houses and crofts. I shall inquire as to the reasons in respect of which it is proposed to remove them from the estate. I will at the same time inquire as to the question addressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth.
  DR. DONALD MACGREGOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that it is alleged that these people have been evicted on account of political partisanship, and whether that is true or not?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The information I have from the Sheriff confines itself to this, that they made themselves offensive to the proprietor, and I want to know how they made themselves offensive. As the Sheriff has given me that information I shall consider it my duty to inquire how they made themselves offensive.
  *MR. ALPHEUS C. MORTON: Must I put down another question in order to get an answer on that point?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: That is for the hon. Gentleman to decide. I shall endeavour to obtain the information for myself.

  ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCHES AT TARA.
  MR. THOMAS W. RUSSELL: On behalf of the right hon. Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was proposed to make certain archæological researches at Tara; if so, under whose superintendence the works would be carried on; and whether a survey and relief model would be made showing the present configuration of the earthworks?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: Such a proposal has been put forward by private persons, but it is not supported either by the Royal Irish Academy or by the Royal Society of Antiquaries in Ireland. Any recommendation from those two societies would receive every attention, but in its absence the Board of Works, in whom this ancient monument is vested, would not be justified in giving the necessary permission for the proposed work.

  CONDITION OF SOUTH LEITRIM.
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Local Government Board Inspectors visited the distressed districts of Beihy, Keeldra, and Cattan, in South Leitrim, and whether any report was made in the case of Thomas Colreavy, of Drumhass, in Cattan division; whether he is aware that this poor man, Colreavy, died on Saturday last from the effects of hunger, and the priest who attended him in his last moments found that he, his wife and family, had not a morsel of food in the House; whether the Local Government Board Inspectors allege, when cases of extreme destitution are pointed out by the local clergy, that there is no money available; whether he would consider if drainage works could be started with advantage in this district; and whether, to prevent further cases like Colreavy's occurring, he will order relief works to meet the acute poverty existing there?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: Two of the Board's Inspectors visited the divisions named in the question last month, and carefully inquired into the condition of the people. No exceptional distress was found to exist in the district. I am informed both by the Local Government Board and by the local police that the man referred to did not die from hunger, as alleged, but from comsumption, from which he had been suffering for the past two years. The police also state that there was food in the house at the time of his death, and the neighbours of the family also state there is no truth in the allegation that the man died from hunger. The Inspectors assure me that they never stated there was no money available to meet cases of extreme destitution. The relieving officer is supplied with funds for providing for any cases of sudden and urgent necessity that may arise. The Local Government Board advise me that no necessity exists at present for undertaking relief works in this district.

  ESTATE REGULATIONS IN LEWIS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Malcolm Campbell, a crofter at Garrabost,

  1325
  near Stornoway, Island of Lewis, recently beg an to improve his house by rebuilding it of stone and lime instead of turf, and by providing two doors, one for his family, and the other for his cattle; that when the walls were two feet high the factor of the landowner intimated that, if the work were proceeded with, and two doors put into the building, the structure would, under the Estate Regulations, be pulled down; that, as a result of this threat, the house was built with one door only; that after the house was finished the sanitary inspector summoned Malcolm Campbell for contravening the Public Health Act by constructing his house with one door only for the admission of both people and cattle, and that Sheriff Deputy Campbell, at Stornoway, gave judgment requiring the said Malcolm Campbell to provide two doors to his house before the 12th June, 1895; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to protect small tenants in the Island of Lewis from Estate Regulations which conflict with the law?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The Sheriff of Ross and Cromarty reports to me that Malcolm Campbell recently commenced to alter his house, but that in doing so he built only a thin dwarf partition, seven feet high and four and a-half inches thick, between the dwelling room and the byre, leaving a space of six feet open to the ridge of the roof, and having a doorway in it for the passage of cattle through the dwelling-house into the byre, there being no separate entrance to the byre from the outside. In doing this he contravened the Estate Regulations issued to the crofters both in Gaelic and English, and did not act under any other or contrary instructions from the Estate officials. In the course of proceedings taken against him by the Sanitary Authority he was required by the resident Sheriff to build a solid partition nine inches thick between his house and his byre carried up to the roof, and to make a separate entrance to the byre from the outside. I may add that the Sheriff is of opinion that the Estate Regulations are in this respect perfectly proper and consistent with law.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under
  1326
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the examples of torture inflicted in Bitlis prison, a list of which appears in The Daily News of the 14th instant; whether a similar statement has been communicated from authoritative sources to the British Embassy at Constantinople and to the Foreign Office; and what action the Government intend to take with regard to the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY,): The statement referred to, which appeared in The Daily News, has not reached Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople was instructed in March last to call attention to the reports which were received from various parts of Asia Minor of the ill-treatment to which prisoners were subjected. He will be asked whether he has received any authentic information as to the tortures said to have been inflicted in the prison at Bitlis, and if such should be the case, to represent to the Turkish Government the necessity of a strict investigation.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the necessity that the execution of the reforms to be introduced into the Armenian provinces should be under direct, adequate, and continuous European control, he is able either to state the nature of the special provisions by which that object is to be carried out, or to lay the text of the Joint Note upon the Table of the House?
  SIR E. GREY: It would be undesirable to make a public statement as to the terms of proposals which are now under discussion between the Ambassadors and the Porte.

  THE CHANNEL FLEET.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty—(1) whether there is any probability of the Channel Fleet visiting Invergordon this summer; and (2) whether he is aware that the anchorage at Invergordon is one of the best in Scotland?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): I

  1327
  am unable to answer the first question at present. The excellence of the anchorage at Invergordon is beyond dispute.
  MR. WEIR: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the question, will he be able to do so during the next few days? Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer the first paragraph of the question a week from now?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I think not. The Channel Fleet is to proceed to Kiel for the opening of the Baltic Canal, and the decision as to their future movements will not be taken just yet.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he has received a communication from the Lord Mayor of Belfast, requesting that the Channel Fleet may visit Belfast this summer during their cruise in the Irish Channel; and if he will favourably consider this request in the interest of the Navy, and direct such a visit, which would be highly appreciated.
  *SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: The official communication from Belfast has been received, and the question of the ports to be visited by the Channel Fleet after its return from the opening of the Baltic Canal will shortly be considered.

  AMMUNITION FOR VOLUNTEERS.
  VISCOUNT NEWARK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the price of Martini-Henry rifle ammunition (which had been for a number of years £3 2s. per 1,000) was raised last year to £3 13s. 9d., and why the present price of carbine ammunition, which contains a smaller charge, is £4 3s. 3d. per 1,000; and, whether he can see his way to reduce the price of the ammunition, which is a heavy charge upon Volunteer battalions that frequently buy a considerable quantity?
  *MR. WOODALL: The prices are taken from the vocabulary of stores current at the time. In the edition of 1886, which gave the lower price for Martini-Henry ammunition, the cost was that for which the cartridges were produced in the ordnance factories. The cartridges for which the higher price is quoted in the 1893 edition are obtained almost exclusively from the trade, the
  1328
  ordnance factories being mainly employed in making cordite ammunition. The higher relative cost of carbine ammunition results from the smaller quantities required.

  "COSTA RICA PACKET."
  *MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it will be necessary to introduce a Bill to give effect to the Convention entered into by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Netherlands for the reference of the claims of the captain, owners, and crew of the Costa Rica Packet to arbitration; and, if so, whether he can indicate the probable date of its introduction?
  SIR E. GREY: It will not be necessary to introduce a Bill for this purpose in this country.

  ROYAL ARTILLERY CANTEEN ATDOVER.
  MR. GEORGE WYNDHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the Royal Artillery Canteen at Dover are selling mineral waters to other regiments and to retired officers at a price with which local makers, who have to pay rent, rates, taxes, and wages, cannot compete; and, whether the canteen is allowed to supply other persons than those of the regiment to which he belongs?
  *MR. WOODALL: The regulations allow the Royal Artillery Canteen at Dover to sell mineral waters to other regiments. I am informed that they do not sell to retired officers or to any persons not on the strength of the garrison.

  ROYAL COLLEGE OF SCIENCE, DUBLIN.
  MR. JUSTIN McCARTHY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any steps are being taken to provide better accommodation for the Royal College of Science in Dublin; and whether any design for the necessary buildings has been or is being prepared?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. A. H. D. ACLAND,): I am in correspondence with the Treasury and

  1329
  the Irish Office on this subject. The Professors of the College have prepared some block plans to show their requirements.

  NEWFOUNDLAND AND CANADA.
  *MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the reported failure of the negotiations for the admission of Newfoundland into the Dominion of Canada; and, on whom the responsibility rests?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: We are not as yet in a position to make any statement in regard to these negotiations.

  PORTRANE LUNATIC ASYLUM.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Control of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland invited 12 architects to submit anonymously designs for the proposed Portrane Lunatic Asylum; that the letter of conditions inviting competition stated, amongst other things, that a Committee of Selection would select not more than three out of the 12 competitors, and place them in order of merit; that the Committee of Selection did select three, and stated that they were of equal merit; that the Board of Control thereupon obtained estimates upon the three designs, and when they were obtained adopted the design which would cost, according to the official surveyor's report, £30,000 more than one, and £48,000 more than the other of the designs which had been adjudged by the Committee of Selection to be of equal merit with that adopted, thus imposing a grave additional burden upon the ratepayers; that the methods pursued in the conduct of the competition for designs and in their selection have been condemned by the Council of the Institute of Architects of Ireland as violating certain fundamental conditions regulating the competition, on the faith of which generally the competitors submitted their designs for adjudication; that they had hold that, in view of the facts no adjudication has taken place within the meaning of the conditions; and, whether representations
  1330
  will be addressed to the Board on the subject, with a view to their adopting steps for holding a fresh competition?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: This question is to be brought before the Board of Control at its meeting to-morrow; but I think my hon. Friend will be good enough to postpone the question until they have come to a decision.

  CHRISTIAN BROTHERS' SCHOOLS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government have agreed to the rules drawn up by the Commissioners of Education in Ireland regarding the Christian Brothers' Schools?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: I forwarded my reply to the Commissioners, as I stated to the hon. Member it was my intention to do. The Commissioners have that reply under their consideration, and in the meantime I do not think it would be courteous to that Board publicly to indicate the purport of it.

  ARMY FOOD SUPPLIES.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, when he mentioned the fact of contractors mixing frozen meat with home-killed meat, he meant home produce killed at home, or imported beasts merely killed at home?
  *MR. WOODALL: The home-killed meat, of which 40 per cent. must be supplied, may consist either of home produce killed at home or of imported beasts slaughtered at the port of disembarkation. There would be great I difficulty in distinguishing between them.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: May I ask whether, in these circumstances, any soldier is ever certain that he has the chance of enjoying the roast beef of Old England?
  MR. LOPES: May I ask whether it would not be a fair description of the English soldier that he is "mainly manufactured abroad"?
  [No further answer was given.]

  SMALL HOLDINGS IN IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has come to any conclusion as to the advisability of taking steps this Session to

  1331
  assimilate the Jaw of Ireland with that of Scotland with reference to power for obtaining land for the enlargement of small holdings in congested districts?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: The Congested Districts Board, by whom this matter was specially considered at their meeting on the 10th inst., are aware that there are large tracts of land that could be used for the purposes of enlargement of the holdings of small occupiers and the promotion of migration in congested districts. The Board, however, are of opinion that it will be impossible to give due effect to this important department of their work unless additional funds are placed at their disposal and compulsory powers given to them to acquire such lands at their just value.

  POTATO DISEASE IN IRELAND.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board will make advances to Boards of Guardians for the purpose of purchasing spraying machines for the protection of the potato crop; and whether he will advise the Board of Works to make loans on the same terms as for reclamation, &c., to enable small farmers to purchase spraying machines and hand separators for the improved manufacture of butter?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am informed that neither the Local Government Board, nor the Board of Works, nor the Congested Districts Board, has power to make advances to Boards of Guardians, or to individuals, for the purpose mentioned by my hon. Friend. Experiments have been made by the Irish Land Commission in recent years for the purpose of testing the value of certain applications as preventatives of the spread of potato disease. The results of these experiments have been most successful, and directions, in leaflet form, have been widely circulated throughout the country by the aid of Boards of Guardians, the Constabulary, and local persons. The Congested Districts Board have also supplied spraying mixture to persons in possession of spraying machines, and this season it is proposed to expend a sum of £1,200, or perhaps more, in the purchase and distribution of spraying mixture. I make these observations in order to show that the Government
  1332
  has been alive to the importance of a matter which so largely concerns the interests of the Irish farmer, and I would add that it appears to me that landlords have it in their power to supplement the efforts of the Government very considerably in this direction, as well as to further their own interests by corning to the assistance of their poorer tenants and supplying them with the appliances which have been found by experience to be so valuable in checking the ravages of the potato disease. I am glad to see it stated in the Press that one landlord, Lord De Freyne, has ordered as many as 75 spraying machines, which he intends to present to his tenantry as a gift.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN COUNTY TIPPERARY.
  MR. F. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when will the Local Government Board send the valuer to value the plots of land for the labourers in the parish of Emly, County Tipperary; and why has the Local Government Board delayed such a very long time about getting those valuations made (under the Labourers' Act) in Emly and Rhodus?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am informed by the Local Government Board that the scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages in this parish is not yet ripe for the appointment of an arbitrator. Appeals have been lodged against four of the 80 cottages sanctioned by the Board's provisional order, and these appeals must be heard by the Privy Council before the scheme can legally be carried into effect. When the Order in Council shall have been issued, the sanitary authority can apply to the Board of Works to appoint an arbitrator to assess the compensation to be paid for the lands authorised to be acquired. The appeals will be heard before the Privy Council on the 5th June.

  BANNOW POST OFFICE.
  MR. P. FFRENCH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a resolution was passed by the Wexford Board of Guardians on Saturday last, pointing out that there is great dissatisfaction in the Bannow district owing to the decision of

  1333
  the postal authorities to erect a telephone in Bannow Post Office, and not a telegraph for which the ratepayers gave a guarantee of £35 a year; that there is not one word about a telephone in the deed signed on behalf of the Wexford Board of Guardians and the postal authorities; and that the guarantee was given for a telegraph only; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will advise the postal authorities to carry out their part of the contract?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to his previous question, there has been no departure from the terms of the contract for a telegraph office at Bannow. The telephone is a telegraph both in law and in fact, and is largely used for ordinary telegraph purposes.

  AYR PRISON MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland under what authority the Prison Commissioners reduced in 1892 the salary of the Medical Officer of Ayr Prison from £80 to £70, the former sum having been fixed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in 1879?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: A Treasury Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to consider the salaries of prison medical officers and chaplains in Scotland reported on 5th June, 1889, that in the case of medical officers and chaplains—
  "who do not give their whole time to the service each case will of necessity be considered by the Prison Commissioners on its merits whenever a vacancy occurs."
  The Report received the approval of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on the 25th June, 1889, and on the vacancy occurring at Ayr in December, 1891, the Prison Commissioners reported to the Secretary for Scotland on the merits of the case, and the Treasury approved of the salary being £70. The present Medical Officer accepted this salary on appointment.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland where an application is granted under the Local Government (Scotland)
  1334
  Act for an alteration of parish boundaries would he provide by his order for the repayment of the expenses originally incurred in providing school accommodation for the parish which is diminished in area?
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: I am prepared to take into consideration any claim which may be made for financial compensation where an Order under the Local Government Act alters the boundaries of School Board districts, and to provide for such compensation where the claim is made out by a Supplementary Order. But each case must be judged on its own merits, and I cannot admit that an alteration of area is always a ground for payment to that diminished district.

  MUTILATION OF ANIMALS IN GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the numerous cases of mutilation of horses, sheep, pigs, and other animals, recently reported as having occurred at Blakeney, in Gloucestershire, and to the prosecutions for certain of these offences; and whether he will state what steps are being taken to put a stop to these cruelties?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: My attention has been drawn to the crimes mentioned in the question. It appears that in the last 16 months 15 serious offences have been undetected, two of them being maiming of animals. I have been, and still am, in communication with the police on the subject, who are using every effort to protect property and detect the offenders; and have made a considerable addition to the men on duty for this purpose.

  IMPRESSED HALFPENNY STAMPS.
  MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if envelopes can be impressed with halfpenny postage stamps at the Inland Revenue Office, Somerset House, on the same or similar conditions as paper and cardboard can now be impressed with postage stamps of other values when presented there?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: Envelopes, if unfolded, can be impressed with halfpenny postage stamps at Somerset House on the same conditions as unfolded envelopes can now be impressed with stamps of other values, but the regulations affecting cardboard are different.

  INDIAN CADETS.
  SIR H. SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the case of the survivors of sixteen candidates who passed into Addiscombe at the first examination, held in December 1859, under paragraph 17 of the regulations for admission for cadetships in the Engineers and Artillery of Her Majesty's Indian Forces under Clause 34 of the Acts of 21 and 22 Vic., chap. 166; whether, after being sworn in as Indian Cadets, they were, after the decision was taken to amalgamate the Services, sent for and informed by Sir Frederick Abbot, the Governor of Addiscombe, that it was not proposed to appoint any more Officers to the Indian Artillery and Engineers, but that these cadets would retain all their rights and not be losers by the change, and by a similar promise, when they joined at Woolwich as Commissioned Officers, were induced to volunteer for general service, and in fact were appointed to and served in India, and were furthermore paid the £100 promised to those who obtained Commissions in the Artillery and Engineers of the Indian Forces, by the regulations under which they were examined for cadetships, and were in effect treated as if they had passed into the Indian Service; and whether, as one of the four surviving Officers concerned has recently been retired upon a pension of £450 a year, instead of the Indian pension to which he was entitled, it is proposed to adopt the same course with the remaining three Officers concerned; and, if so, on what ground the engagement into with these gentlemen by the Indian Government is now annulled?
  *MR. WOODALL: These Officers entered as students at Addiscombe with the expectation of joining the Indian Artillery or Engineers; but before their college course was finished, appointments to those corps had ceased, in consequence
  1336
  of the transfer of the Indian Government to the Crown; and as the only military opening available, they joined the Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers. The Officers were never in the Indian Corps; and I regret to say that their claim to be treated for pension as if they had been in those corps cannot be recognised. There is no record of any authority having been given to the Governor of Addiscombe to hold out any such promise to the Cadets, as is referred to in the hon. Member's question.

  CHARGE AGAINST AN INDIAN MAGISTRATE.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Kunhi Kannan, deputy collector and magistrate of Calicut, in the Madras Presidency, who was some years ago tried, convicted and imprisoned on a charge of having taken a bribe from an accused person whom he had tried in his capacity as magistrate; whether he is aware that the conviction of Mr. Kunhi Kannan rested almost entirely on the evidence of this accused person, who swore that he had had to call in a certain sum which was due to him on a mortgage, which sum he had handed over to Mr. Kunhi Kannan; whether he is aware that since Mr. Kunhi Kannan's conviction evidence has been forthcoming, in the shape of proceedings in a Court of Law, which prove that the sum which was due on the mortgage has not been called in, and therefore could not possibly have been paid to Mr. Kunhi Kannan; whether he is aware that the Madras Government, on whose prosecution he was convicted, have refused to grant any inquiry into this case, or any redress for the wrongful conviction to which he declares that he can prove he has been subjected; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to secure that an opportunity be afforded to Mr. Kunhi Kannan to establish his innocence?
  *MR. HENRY FOWLER: In consequence of a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford last year, this case was fully considered, and I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 2nd April 1894.

  THE MAHARAJAH OF BHURTPORE.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether he has received the report called for from the Government of India regarding the alleged setting aside of the Maharajah of Bhurtpore from the government of his State; (2) whether he is aware that the present Maharajah only ascended the throne on the death of his father about 14 months ago; and that the Government of India notified that the British Resident would conduct the Government for the period of 12 months; and (3) could he state the grounds on which the Maharajah has been set aside?
  *MR. HENRY FOWLER: My reply to the first and second questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. As to the third question, the Government of India were satisfied of the incapacity of the Maharajah to discharge his duties as Ruler of the State, and I have officially approved of their action.

  EXTRA POLICE IN COUNTY TIPPERARY.
  MR. MANDEVILLE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of extra police in the county Tipperary, and what is the amount of the annual charge for them upon the county funds; whether there is anything exceptional in the condition of the county in respect agrarian or ordinary crime; and when it may be expected that the extra charge for police in the county Tipperary will cease?
  *MR. JOHN MORLEY: The extra police in the county Tipperary at present numbers 30 men, who are all stationed in the South Riding alone, and the annual charge to the county in respect of this force is about £1,000 per annum, or slightly over one halfpenny in the pound at the valuation of the Riding. The county, at the present time, is in a most peaceable condition. Since August last the extra force has been reduced from 60 to 30 men, and this was only accomplished by breaking up several police stations, to which considerable local opposition was given. The Inspector General informs me that, having regard to the police necessities of the Riding, it is not, at present, possible to dispense with any more stations.

  INDIAN SERVICE OFFICIALS.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a despatch was sent home in January last conveying the recommendations of the Indian Government on the subject of leave and pension rules for the European officials (non-civilian) in the Indian Service; and when a decision may be expected?
  *MR. HENRY FOWLER: Such a despatch was received, and a reply was sent on the 11th of April giving the Secretary of State's decision on most of the points mentioned; but in a few cases the Government of India were asked to reconsider their proposals.

  BRITISH-INDIAN SUBJECTS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. H. O. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it be the fact that peaceable British subjects, natives of India, are liable to be expelled without trial from the Transvaal; and, if so, what is the crime alleged or disqualification on account of which these British subjects are punished; and whether the Government will take steps to make public in India the fact that natives entering the Transvaal are liable to expulsion without trial and with violence by subordinate military officers in the employment of the Boer Government, so that intending emigrants may not be exposed to unnecessary indignities?
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that British-Indian subjects can be expelled without trial from the Transvaal. The Government does not propose to take the steps suggested in the second part of the question.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER,pressing for a further answer,
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONexplained, that the dispute had been referred to arbitration. The Report of the Arbitrator had only just been received, and there had not been time to consider it.
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman has four times declined to give an answer. Can he tell us what were the alleged grounds upon which these British subjects were deprived of the opportunity of earning their own living?
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The complaint against them was the infringement of certain local sanitary laws. I have not refused in any case to answer the hon. Member. I have always informed him that an arbitrator was inquiring into the dispute, and we wished to see what the arbitrator said.

  BOER EXPEDITION AGAINST MAGATO.
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information with respect to the projected Boer expedition into the territory of the Native Chief Magato; and, whether, in the event of the Boers attacking Magato, British subjects will be permitted to enter into the service of a foreign Government for the purpose of carrying on hostilities.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have received information that the Boer Government are about to send a large command against the Basuto chief, Magato; whether this has been done because Magato has refused to submit longer to the exactions and taxes of the Boer officials; and, whether this is the same Magato who gave support to the British in the war of 1881.
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have no official information as to the supposed rupture between the Government of the South African Republic and the Native Chief Magato. As at present advised, I do not see that Her Majesty's Government would have any reason or ground for interfering with British subjects who chose to take service under the Government of the South African Republic in an affair of police of this kind. I have little doubt but that Magato was one of the native chiefs who offered support in 1881, but I should remind the hon. Member that Sir Owen Lanyon at the time refused all such offers on the ground that to call in the natives would be a political blunder and a crime.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the Magato territory was in the limit of the Transvaal as defined by the Convention of 1884?
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, it was certainly within what was recognised as the Transvaal Republic

  EX-INSPECTOR RUFF.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the legal advisers of the Crown have yet given an answer with reference to the case of Mr. Ruff, late Inspector in the Metropolitan Police Force, and whether their opinion was favourable to the claim that Mr. Ruff's pension should be reconsidered; and, whether he would concede Mr. Ruff's claim, rather than throw upon him the trouble of litigation: and afterwards, if it should be found to be necessary or desirable, to take steps to make the law upon the point clearer?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: I have received an opinion of the law officers of the Crown in this case, but, in my opinion, the matter is of so much importance that it is desirable that an authoritative decision should be obtained in a Court of Law. Mr. Ruff has been informed that if he will carry the appeal to an issue, his reasonable costs for legal assistance will be paid, and he has now stated that he accepts this offer, and has given the necessary instructions to his solicitors.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is a fact that the promoters of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill have been promised, on behalf of the Government, a day or days in the present Session for the discussion of the provisions of that measure after it has left the Grand Committee; and whether, in view of Irish opinion he will consider whether the time might be devoted to the Boards of Guardians Bill and the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act (1887) Repeal Bill.?
  *Mr. JOHN MORLEYsaid, he did not know that what the hon. member had stated was a fact, and in the present state of business he could not give any undertaking.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked when the Coercion Act Repeal Bill would be proceeded with?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say or give any undertaking.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Arising out of that, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question suggested by the Chief Secretary—whether he will give an undertaking, in view of the position which the repeal of the Coercion Act occupied in the Programme of the Government before the last General Election, that that Bill will be proceeded with before the Irish Sunday Closing Bill.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,): I must have notice of that. It is a difficult question to answer off-hand.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask whether it is true that the Chief Secretary declared that the repeal of the Coercion Act would be the first business of the Government after they came into power, and instead of that we are to have a Sunday Closing Bill and a perpetual Coercion Act.?
  *MR. J. MORLEY: I never made any such declaration.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that in a speech at Newcastle-on-Tyne——[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member asked a question, and has received an answer.
  MR. W. REDMOND: May I ask the indulgence of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman has given a denial of the statement, to put a question—whether I am correct in stating that he declared at Newcastle——[Ministerial cries of "Order!" and Chair!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is the same question which I ruled that the hon. Member could not ask, as he has received an answer.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Then, all I can say is, the Government have broken their pledges and behaved disgracefully.—Subsequently Mr. W. REDMOND said, that he wished to offer a personal explanation as to a statement he had made with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had said that he understood the right hon. Gentleman to deny that he had stated at Newcastle-on-Tyne, before the last General Election, that the
  1342
  work of repealing the Crimes Act, commonly called the Coercion Act, would be, if not the very first, at all events one of the first, pieces of business which the Government of the right hon. Gentleman would proceed with. Would the right hon. Gentleman deny that? [Renewed cries of "Order!"]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This is not a personal explanation. It is a demand for a personal explanation from another hon. Member.
  MR. W. REDMONDsubmitted that he was entitled to ask the question of the right hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentlemen has asked a question and has received an answer to it.
  MR. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny it.

  POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on a gentleman tendering lately for payment, through his bankers, a postal order for 1s. issued in 1886, which he had discovered amongst his papers, it was returned dishonoured; that an official demand for 1s. 6d. as commission, in addition to the halfpenny originally paid for the order, was made before the postal authorities would refund the shilling; and that the owner declined to pay 160 per cent. and preferred to let the matter drop; and whether, as the Post Office has the use of the money at compound interest, and the delay in presenting an order is obviously due to accident, he will in such cases allow payment of the whole, or at least the greater part, of the sum represented by the order, without enforcing the letter of the penal regulation as to delay in presentment?
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEY: My attention would not be called to such a case, because the course followed is that prescribed by the 1st Section of the Money Orders Act 1880. I have no power to alter the provisions which Parliament has seen fit to make on the subject.

  INDIAN RAILWAYS.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, when the Government of

  1343
  India became entitled some years ago to purchase the Great Indian Peninsular Railway, the Bombay and Baroda Railway, and other railways in the West of India, they waived that right for a period of years; and, if so, what is the yearly loss now to the revenues of India due to such waiver; what consideration did the railway companies give for the concession, and what gain is now accruing to the revenues of India from the consideration given by the railway companies; and whether he will lay the whole Correspondence upon the Table of the House?
  *MR. HENRY FOWLER: In 1870 the Secretary of State relinquished his right to purchase on the first opportunity and modified the contracts of the Companies in the circumstances described in paragraph 8 of the Railway Report for 1869–70 by the Government Director of Indian Railway Companies. I cannot say what has been the pecuniary advantage or disadvantage of the modifications of the Contracts, as I do not know what would have been the price at which the railways could have been purchased by Government under the terms of the original Contracts. Correspondence on the subject was presented to the House in 1874.

  CHINO-JAPANESE TREATY.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can now state the terms of the peace between Japan and China; and whether he can state what alterations have been made in the original terms of peace in consequence of pressure from certain European Powers?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: A statement cannot be made till the terms have been officially communicated by the Powers concerned.

  THE MANOR OF PENKELLY WALLENSIS, BRECON.
  *MR. ALPHEUS C. MORTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Lord of the Manor of Penkelly Wallensis, in the county of Brecon (a Brecon Manor formerly belonging to the Crown), has recently entered into an agreement with the Merthyr Tydfil Local Board to sell to them, as his private property, 78 acres of land, being part of 650
  1344
  acres known as Torglase Common, within the said Manor and in the parish of Llanfrynach, in the said County; whether he is aware that the said Lord of the Manor claims as his private property the whole of the said common (650 acres), notwithstanding that no Inclosure Act relating to the same has been passed nor any other process of law carried through; and whether he will have this case inquired into with a view of better protecting the rights of Commoners?
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNER: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to reply to this Question. The Board of Agriculture have no cognisance of the agreement to which my hon. Friend refers, nor have we any authority to determine whether or not the lands in question are commonable lands. In any case, however, a Lord of the Manor cannot by any action on his part prejudice any rights which the Commoners may possess. I have no power myself to institute any inquiry on the subject, but, under the Local Government Act of last session, the District Council may, with the consent of the County Council, aid in the maintenance of common rights, where the extinction of such rights would be prejudicial to the interests of the District.

  LOCAL LOANS.
  MR. J. HOWARD: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that 2¾ per cent. Consols are now above par, Her Majesty's Government can see their way to reduce the rate of interest now charged by the Public Works Loan Board to a rate not exceeding three per cent., with a view to the relief of Local Rates.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Local Loans Fund was established by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as a self-supporting fund. It has to pay interest at three per cent. on the stock representing the amount advanced. This stock is irredeemable till 1912. After paying this interest, together with the expenses of management and the annuity set up to make good the losses incurred in the past, these charges exhaust almost the whole amount received for interest, leaving a margin only of £8,000. It is apparent, therefore,

  1345
  that no reduction of the present rate of interest can be made compatible with the solvency of the fund. According to my observation, in these days the municipal authorities have very little difficulty in borrowing in the open market at a very low rate.

  LIMITATION OF SPEECHES.
  *MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Leader of the House, whether his attention has been called to a statement communicated to The Sydney Morning Herald by Sir Maurice O'Rorke, Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Colony of New Zealand, of the results of the operation of a time limit of half-an-hour for speeches in that legislative body, in accordance with a new Standing Order adopted at the beginning of last Session; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a similar Standing Order into this House?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Oh no, Sir; I think the limit of half-an-hour is a great deal too long.

  CROFTERS BILL.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will confer with the Opposition with a view of ascertaining if, by the withdrawal for the present of the part of the Crofters Bill which includes some additional counties, they would consent to its being committed to the Scotch Grand Committee?
  DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, he desired, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered, to ask him whether he was aware that, in the opinion of many Scotch Members, the extension to additional counties was one of the most valuable parts of the Crofters Bill, and that if he abandoned it to facilitate the opposition of hon. Members he would encounter much more formidable opposition in another quarter.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, does he understand that my aim was to save the ship?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In a day or two I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject, which I hope will relieve the difficulties that have arisen and deliver me from the cross-fire of questions.
  DR. MACGREGOR: In consequence of that reply, which is unsatisfactory here and will be elsewhere, I beg to give notice to the right hon. Gentleman, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I prefer not to oppose the Government. [Cries of "Order."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of the question in the ordinary way.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Then, Sir, I will put it on the paper for to-morrow.

  INCOME TAX.
  SIR MARK STEWART: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state to the House the percentage of Income Tax collected in England and also in Scotland; whether the collections are more satisfactorily and more cheaply carried out in Scotland than in England?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was the fact that the Income Tax was more fully paid in Scotland than elsewhere. That was, no doubt, due to the fact that there was less intolerance of taxation in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: I think it would be convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state the course of business for the next few days.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: If, as I hope, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is passed to-night, and we move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates to-morrow, it is proposed to take the Welsh Bill on Monday and Tuesday, and then to proceed on the Thursday and Friday with the Committee on the Finance Bill.
  MR. HENEAGE: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the Local Veto Bill? Does he intend to proceed with it before the Whitsuntide holidays?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I shall proceed with it as soon as I conceive that it is consistent with the business of the House that I should do so.

  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the proposed West Highland Railway guarantee, whether he will consent to lay upon the Table any Papers or Correspondence in connection therewith, subsequent to the Report of 1890?
  SIR JOHN HIBBERT: I will lay on the Table such papers or correspondence on this subject as will explain the action taken by the Treasury since the date mentioned.

  NEW WRIT.
  For the borough of Warwick and Leamington v. the Right Hon. Arthur Wellesley Peel, now Viscount Peel, who, since his election has been called to the House of Peers.—(Mr. Anstruther.)
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL [COSTS.]
  Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any Costs incurred, in Ireland, on an appeal, or case stated under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the creation of a Court of Criminal Appeal and Revision of Sentences (Queen's Recommendation signified), To-morrow, at Two of the clock.—(Sir John Hibbert.)

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
  James Bailey, esquire, for Borough of Newington (Walworth Division).
  Robert Williams, esquire, for County of Dorset (Western Division).

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
  SIR JOHN HIBBERTasked leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Friendly Societies. He said the Bill was based on suggestions made by a conference of Friendly Societies which met in January last, and which represented over 2,500,000 of members, and funds to the amount of nearly
  1348
  £19,000,000. The Amendments proposed were of a non-contentious character, and were principally intended to carry out improvements in the working of the Friendly Societies Acts which a 20 years' experience of them had shown be necessary. There were, however, two Amendments which he ought especially to mention, because he believed that if embodied in the law they might save a far-reaching effect on the habits of thrift and forethought of the working classes. One of these was to enable existing juvenile societies to amalgamate with the adult societies, with which they were connected, and the other was to allow any society to make a rule admitting members at one year of age, and thus to permit a child once admitted to a society to continue therein without a break during the whole of his life; and, at the same time, to make it possible, by a small payment, begun in infancy, to provide for a pension in old age.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid, this was a very important subject, and he trusted the Government would afford some time for its consideration. If Parliamentary debate was to be of any use, the House ought not to be asked to discuss grave and serious charges of this character between Twelve and One o'clock in the morning.
  Leave given, Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 17th June, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

  LAND TRANSFER BILL.
  Select Committee on the Land Transfer Bill nominated of,—Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Thomas Henry Bolton, Mr. John Ellis, Viscount Folkestone, Mr. Greene, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Long, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. W. F. D. Smith, Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Tully, Mr. Warmington, Mr. Wayman, and Mr. Wickham.
  Ordered: That the Committee have power to send for Persons, Papers, and Records.
  Ordered, That Five be the Quorum.—(Mr. Thomas Ellis.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."—(Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHERwho had given notice of the following Amendment—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Beer Duty should be readjusted with a view to the relief from taxation of home-grown barley and hops; and that import duties should be imposed upon foreign barley and hops used for brewing purposes,"—
  said, that he proposed to make some slight modification in the wording of his proposal, with the view of eliciting a more general consensus of opinion in its favour. It would not be necessary for him to furnish evidence to show that a grave crisis existed in agricultural affairs, and that a very large portion of the agricultural community were actually on the brink of ruin. That statement would not be seriously challenged. It had been admitted by Ministers themselves both on public platforms and on the floor of the House. But when any remedy for this acknowledged evil was suggested, this unanimity unfortunately came to an end. The remedies proposed covered a very wide and diverse field. Some advocated the dog-eat-dog style of remedy—that one section of the agricultural community should be invited to plunder the other section; that one class should feed upon the property of another. Then there were those who held theories as to the changes that should be adopted in the methods of cultivation. It was said that wheat, barley, and oats could be obtained in unlimited quantities on better terms from outside, and that agriculturists should turn their attention to the rearing of poultry and the growing of fruit. That was the egg and jam theory. It was not likely to commend itself to practical persons, especially after the recent experience that had attended efforts in that direction. And agriculturists were further deterred from
  1350
  embarking upon this system of agriculture when they found that foreign and colonial communities, by means of bounties on exports of agricultural produce, even dairy produce, were prepared to deal with any phase of English competition. Parliament had been invited to do something to relieve agricultural distress, and in response they had this Bill, which added very seriously and materially to the difficulties which faced the barley-growers in this country. This additional duty of 6d. on the top of an already large impost was distinctly a tax upon both English barley and English hops. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the abolition of the malt tax, the predecessor in title to the Beer Duty, had been generally approved in agricultural circles. He (Mr. Lowther) had not been in a position to criticise the Budget scheme of 1880 in the House of Commons as he was temporarily out of Parliament at that time, but he had availed himself of extra-Parliamentary opportunities to denounce the substitution of a Beer Duty and had taken advantage of his position of greater freedom and less responsibility to characterise that proceeding in terms which perhaps went beyond what Parliamentary restraints might prescribe. He had not hesitated to denounce the much-vaunted repeal of the Malt Tax as a financial juggle, and he feared he had added a transparent humbug and swindle, and a proposal which he did not think the meanest yokel in any corner of the three kingdoms would be taken in with. He considered the repeal of the Malt Tax one of the most gigantic impostures ever palmed off upon Parliament, because it did nothing whatever to relieve the home producer from the burdens under which he groaned, and so long as the foreign competitor, who paid no taxes at all, and who had the means of locomotion at his command, was enabled to compete on equal terms with the home producer, who had to pay all these taxes, so long would the inequality remain, and there would be no relief to the agricultural community. He could not understand why a tax on beer instead of upon malt should be any advantage to the producer of barley and hops. These views on the subject, to which he gave expression on the occasions to which he alluded, received strong confirmation so soon as

  1351
  this new principle was reduced to practice. He thought it would be scarcely doubted that the duty, as it at present existed, was far more onerous on the grower of barley than the old Malt Tax was in former days. Under the existing system, inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Midlothian, in 1880, by which the Beer Duty took the place of the previously existing Malt Tax, the burdens had fallen far more seriously on the growers of home barley. He found that this contention was put forward by many competent authorities of practical experience in the brewing trade. He had received many communications on the subject, including one which had reached him from the representative of a large brewing firm, in which that proposition was laid down. He had also in his hand a printed document signed by the Chairman of the County Brewers' Society, who distinctly said that by the present system English barley was placed at a very serious disadvantage. Other correspondents assured him that the Malt Tax was far less onerous to the home producers of barley than the imposition in its present form. As to the effect of this change, so far from proving a benefit to agriculture, its operation had proved exactly the reverse. As to the views of the agricultural community on this subject, he thought it would be found there was a very large consensus of opinion amongst the barley and hop-growing districts of England in favour of some remedy for the present state of affairs. What he had ventured to sketch out in the motion which stood in his name was a readjustment of the Beer Duty, which, he thought, the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out to them the other day as being the idea he principally favoured—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was understood to dissent]—though he did not give them any details as to the method by which that should be carried out. He certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman had viewed such suggestions with favour, and, in common justice to the English producers, some readjustment of that kind should take place. In the Motion he had put upon the paper he had suggested that a duty should be placed on foreign barley and hops which entered into competition with British produce. The Chancellor
  1352
  of the Exchequer the other day took some objection to the views which were put forward by several Members regarding the ingredients which were used for the making of beer. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was not the use of the so-called substitutes which militated against home-grown barley and hops, but it was the competition from abroad. It was possible, no doubt, that the free use of ingredients such as those which were referred to in the previous debate might have tended considerably in the direction then indicated; but he believed, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, in the long run, the foreign competition was in reality the enemy. Foreign barley was coming more and more into use, though, when it could be obtained at prices which would prove remunerative, he was told that good English barley was preferred, as a rule, to the foreign samples. In the proposals he had sketched forth he had not asked that a duty should be placed on all barley and hops coming to this country, but had confined his proposal to imports used for brewing purposes only, as there were some persons who held the theory that foreign barley was useful for cattle-feeding purposes. He himself however, did not think much of that view, and there were plenty of other things to feed cattle upon.—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is good for pig feeding."]—He was rather an extensive cattle-feeder himself, and he never, under any circumstances, used barley at all. Owing to the very large importation of wheat flour into this country as a feeder of stock he had felt very severely indeed the want of the home-grown acticle called corn offal, so valuable for feeding purposes; and pig-feeders would find that in the wholesale introduction of flour from abroad a very heavy blow was dealt at the pig-feeding industry of this country. In his judgment, the proposal he now made would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by putting a reasonable duty upon foreign hops and barley, to recoup himself for the money taken from him by the exemption from taxation of home-grown articles, and would also leave him a surplus in hand to carry out some of his financial operations. As to the action taken by many

  1353
  agricultural bodies on this subject, he would warn the right hon. Gentleman and the House against accepting the resolutions and statements of many agricultural Chambers as truly expressing the agricultural view. He held in his hand a resolution which had been adopted by the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He had had the honour to belong to that body for a good many years past, and it contained among its members a large number of personal friends for whose judgment he had the greatest respect. But that Chamber and many of the associated Chambers with which it was connected were largely dominated by what was known as the suburban fringe of agricultural community; that was to say, by those who lived in or near large towns, consisting in many cases of millers and middlemen, and persons whose interest was in many respects, rather against the home producer. Owing to the fact that these gentlemen for the most part resided in close contiguity to the places of meeting of the Chambers, their relative influence and voting power were largely in excess of their due weight. As a test of the real opinion of the agricultural world, he would rather point to the proceedings of such a representative conference as that which was held in St. James's Hall a few years ago, and at which a resolution was passed by an enormous majority to the effect that the continued imposition of rates and taxes on home-grown produce, while foreign produce was free from all such contributions, was an injustice and an anomaly which ought to be removed. He would warn the right hon. Gentleman against being led to believe that the agriculturists of England had gone back from that resolution because some weak-kneed resolutions had in recent years emanated from far less representative bodies. As he might be told, he was suggesting a return to Protection, which was viewed with such horror by many estimable Members opposite, he did not shrink from saying that he was in favour of recasting our fiscal system in the direction of protection to native industries. And when he spoke of native industries he did not confine himself to agriculture alone, but included the great bulk of the employments of the people. Public opinion, he believed, had largely changed
  1354
  on this subject during recent years. The cheap loaf had grown wondrous stale. People had learnt that it was no use having a cheap loaf if they had no money to buy it with. To stand with empty pockets and idle hands outside a shop which was full of tempting loaves might be very well for economists and philosophers, but the occupation possessed few attractions for more practically minded people. It would not be denied that opinion outside this country was now virtually unanimous against the one-sided system which we alone endorsed; whilst in this country a large body of opinion was already formed, and was continually increasing in favour of a reconstruction of our fiscal system. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he did not think the revenue from beer was raised in a manner which was objectionable, and that it was egregiously misspent—he referred especially to the sum which the right hon. Member for St. George's, in despair of what to do with it, threw at the heads of the County Councils, to be by them spent on what was called technical instruction. That money had, in his opinion, been squandered and wasted in a great many districts to which it had been sent.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): Would you give it to the Treasury?
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Yes, I would certainly. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resume the old position and let the County Councils provide technical instruction out of their constituents' pockets instead of the national purse, he would deserve the thanks of the great masses of the rural districts. As a County Alderman he had had opportunity of seeing how these matters were arranged. Technical instruction was understood by this House to be instruction other than ordinary book learning, but he had found Latin, Spanish and Portuguese actually sanctioned by the Science and Art Department under the name of technical instruction. In other words the doctrinaires and crochet-mongers had been allowed to have their way, and the money granted by Parliament with the view of enabling agricultural communities to make themselves acquainted with various subjects that would assist agriculture, had

  1355
  been absolutely wasted, and a mischevious system of expenditure encouraged. A log-rolling system prevailed in County Councils with regard to the distribution of this windfall from the pockets of the brewers. A County Councillor representing an urban district would say:—
  "Oh! I cannot be a party to agriculture getting all this, unless you give something to the High School in my town."
  And he had found as much as £50 a year given in the form of a single scholarship out of this fund to promote higher and secondary education, which was certainly never contemplated by Parliament, the assurance having been given that the money was for the encouragement of technical instruction only. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the money derived from beer was spent in really national objects, and not given to local bodies to be fritted away on the log-rolling principle. Now, with regard to the Amendment, he proposed to meet his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby by incorporating in his own Amendment the Amendment which his right hon. Friend proposed to move, so that his own Amendment would read: That in the opinion of this House the Beer Duty should be readjusted with a view to the relief from taxation of home grown barley and hops, inasmuch as a duty on beer is a tax on British agriculture, and has materially tended to the recent reduction in wages and employment of agricultural labourers. The proposal as thus amended, of course, differed substantially from the proposal of which he originally gave notice, but, as it now stood, it would afford the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of undertaking to re-adjust the Beer Duty in a manner which would be less oppressive to a class, which the right hon. Gentleman would admit, deserved some consideration and relief at the hands of the Exchequer.
  MR. E. HENEAGEseconded the Amendment as amended. He was as much against the duty on beer as any Member of the House, but he could not have supported the latter part of the original Amendment, as he was strongly against protective duties in any form whatsoever. He fully believed that the repeal of the Malt Tax was one of the greatest evils
  1356
  that had overtaken agriculture, and he would be glad to see that tax re-imposed, and the Beer Duty done away with. He was opposed to this increase of 6d. in the duty on beer, while he was utterly opposed to any form of prohibitive or protective duties. There was, no doubt, a difference, as the Secretary for India pointed out in his able speech on Indian Finance earlier in the Session, between Protective Duties, and Duties raised entirely for purposes of revenue; but it was not now the occasion or the time to discuss that question. That time might yet come when the revenue from beer and spirits should be materially diminished under Local Veto, if ever such a Bill were passed, and were to have the effect anticipated by its supporters—when the revenue from alcoholic drinks might be destroyed; but that time had not yet come, and, looking to the results of recent elections, was not likely to come. He opposed this duty purely from his earnest belief that agriculture could not bear the additional tax, which would, in fact, affect all classes engaged in agriculture, and all kinds of agricultural produce. It was a gross injustice in the present depressed state of agriculture. Wheat could not be grown now even to pay for its production, and now barley was to be rendered unremunerative to the farmer, who had been compelled to look for his profit to barley and oats. Barley had been affected by every addition to the duty on beer, and with it labourers' wages. Ever since last year the price of barley had been steadily falling, and within a week after the Budget was introduced last year, barley went down 2s. per quarter. That was foretold by everyone conversant with the Malt Trade. The House was afterwards told by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) that—
  "much depended upon whether the brewers believed the tax would really be for one year only"
  as to whether they would alter the specific gravity or quality of their beer; but the hon. Member also stated, in clear words, that if it lasted longer than one year, brewers would look about for cheaper substitutes with which to make their beer. The brewers never made any secret that they were only the persons through whom the tax was collected; they would not really pay it, and would

  1357
  either pay less for their malt or find substitutes. That the brewers had already begun to look out for cheaper substitutes was proved by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who stated that the brewers had not lost by the tax, but that a large amount of money had come into the revenue. That money must, obviously, come out of somebody's pockets. The consumers had not paid it, as he had not heard of the price of beer being increased. He was afraid that brewers did not believe in the great and vaunted concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his friends, and even large firms who had, up to last year, never used sugar, had now begun to use it. But whether that were so or not, maltsters had reduced their price for British barley. Last year, he recollected, that a large farmer had told him that he had sold 400 quarters at 12s. per quarter; he got it malt, threshed it early, and it was in good condition, and he expected a good price. A quarter of barley used to pay a fortnight's good wages, but now it would only pay a week's at the reduced scale. Consequently, it was not only the farmers, but the labourers, who suffered from this increased Beer Duty. Wheat was now little grown, except to supply the necessary straw. Barley and oats were the chief crops. But the price of the chief corn crops affected other agricultural produce, notably, the price or value of fat, and especially of store cattle. He was, early one morning last September, in a large cattle fair. Trade was paralysed. A large and well-known buyer of fat and store cattle told him that he could not give full value for store cattle because his clients could not pay it on account of the bad prices of all corn, and the want of money. Again, why should the national beverage of England be taxed more than Ireland's or Scotland's whisky, especially when the tax is indirectly injurious to a depressed industry? He objected to it altogether as an indirect tax on the raw material. It was neither paid by the trade, the brewer or maltster, the middleman, or the consumer; but was a direct tax on barley, affecting both farmer and labourer, whilst there was no fairness in the Beer Duty when the tax on spirits was reduced, even if the trade and consumer paid; but to put a direct tax on barley,
  1358
  and select any product of agriculture for extra duty now, was injury added to insult. Again, it should be the duty of a temperance Chancellor of the Exchequer, earnestly in favour of Local Prohibition, to look out for new sources of revenue, and not rely on alcohol. But, supposing for a moment that the consumer would pay the extra 6d. on beer, why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer tax the beer of the labourer and artisan instead of the brandy and soda and the whisky and soda of the more wealthy? He spoke most unselfishly, for, whilst he would prefer good beer, he unfortunately drank whisky. There were also several other intoxicating liquors besides beer and spirits, and he hoped and believed that the people of this country, and especially the farmers' labourers and artisans would clearly understand the Budget in conformity with all Government legislation during this Parliament; and there seemed to be no time for any English legislation except taxation. The so-called "predominant partner" was only fit to be taxed! English beer and barley were to be taxed by Irish votes, and there was no time to do anything for depressed agriculture but add to its burdens! He opposed this tax now, and would do so on every stage and in every way which the forms of the House and the Closure would permit. He now begged to conclude by seconding the Amendment.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if he could perceive what agriculturists themselves were agreed upon as to what was required to meet the evils of which they complained, ho would readily unite with them in trying to find, if possible, a solution. But the difficulty was that he could not ascertain what they considered to be a proper solution. What caused him despair was that agriculturists made up their minds that the crying injustice under which they suffered was the malt tax, and that the repeal of that tax would be the greatest boon and blessing to them; but no sooner was that carried out than they were told that it was the greatest curse that was ever inflicted on agriculture. It was a little discouraging when, after such a demand as that—a demand unanimously made—was conceded in the hope of benefiting agriculture, they should be told that they

  1359
  were inflicting the greatest injury on that interest. Now what was this resolution? It was to part at once with ten millions of money. That might be a very simple thing to talk about, but in the face of the expenditure which the country has determined to incur, to strike off such an amount as this from the revenue of the country would be a very serious matter.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that what was asked for was a readjustment of the duty.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that might be all very well; but they might readjust a man's situation by taking all the money out of his pocket. The contention of the right hon. gentleman was that there should be no tax on beer, and then the argument was that the duty should fall on barley. If hon. gentlemen opposite desired it, let 5d. more be put on the income-tax. That was really what their proposal came to, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would only consider their own interest in those matters—for he had previously said, and now repeated, that if they chose to strike off those indirect duties the burden must fall on direct taxation. If they struck off a revenue of ten millions off beer, they must substitute for it 5d. more on the income tax. In those circumstances, did hon. Gentlemen think they would be any better off, or that the agricultural interest would be in any way improved by a readjustment of that character? With regard to the 3d. which went to technical education, if the right hon. Gentleman had the support of the author of that 3d. and of the Members of the County Council behind him who shared his views that that money was wasted, he should not at all regret to see it brought into the exchequer. There had been a very large expenditure, and that expenditure had to be met, and the question was whether they could have a better form of meeting it than that which the Government had proposed. He would call the attention of his right hon. Friend to the fact that if the whole of the beer duty was removed to-morrow they would not raise the price of barley one single 6d. He had asserted that before, and he was only repeating what he was sure the late Chancellor of the
  1360
  Exchequer would agree with. Supposing there was no malt tax or beer duty at all, the brewer would always use the cheapest materials to suit his purpose. There was no doubt that the cheapness of barley improved the profits derived from keeping pigs, and also benefited agriculturists in other ways. It was said that the duty on beer had diminished the price of barley, but he would ask had it diminished the price of wheat? Everybody knew the price of wheat had fallen a great deal more than that of barley. From the year 1880, when the new system was introduced, to 1894, barley had fallen from £1 13s. to £1 4s. 6d., while wheat had fallen from £2 4s. to £1 2s. The fall in the price of wheat, however, was not due to the beer duty, because the price of wheat had fallen all over the world. If his right hon. Friend believed that it was due to free trade, why was not the agriculture of protectionist countries flourishing? What did the right hon. member think of the language of the agrarian party in Germany, and could he find a protectionist country where agriculture was thriving now? [Cries of "France."] They would find that the agriculturists of France were quite as loud in their complaints. He had taken some pains to inform himself on the subject, and he had found that the complaints in protectionist countries with reference to the prices of grain and of produce were quite as loud as they were in free-trade countries. The payments which had to be made in produce had forced produce on the market in a way which had lowered prices. He hoped that hon. Members were not going to vote for the Amendment under the impression that if this extra 6d. upon beer were taken off barley would be 6d. a quarter dearer; this was a complete delusion, for it would make do difference whatever, except that the whole of the ten millions would go into the pockets of the brewers. The brewers would buy their materials just as cheaply, and therefore this Amendment would throw away an immense revenue. He believed the system adopted in 1880 of putting the tax on the beer instead of on the malt had worked on the whole to the advantage both of the receivers and of the payers of the tax; but he should be perfectly prepared

  1361
  to consider the subject and to discuss it upon a future occasion. So great a change as going back from the policy adopted in 1880, however, was one that could not be undertaken in the month of May in making provision for the finance of the year, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not support an Amendment which, if adopted, would throw away a revenue of ten millions.
  MR. H. T. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENas a representative of an agricultural constituency, joined most emphatically in the protest which had been made against the utter neglect with which the Government had treated agricultural interests. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had really gone out of his way to inflict a most unnecessary burden on an industry which was already almost at its last gasp. If he thought the tax would fall on the brewers he should still think it unfair to continually torment one interest, but it had been very widely admitted that this tax would ultimately fall upon the farmers, and through them upon the agricultural labourers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had found it necessary somehow or another to raise money for a deficit, but what had been the policy of the great Liberal Party which, especially at election times, posed as friends of the agricultural labourer? They had deliberately selected out of others this particular industry for additional taxation. Recent events had proved that the constituencies had seen the real value of the sympathetic utterances which was all they got from the other side of the House. Was there no other source from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get this sum? The right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to say he would be only too glad to do something for the relief of agriculture, but could find no source from which to get the necessary revenue. If he would only consent to a change in our fiscal system he would find numberless sources of taxation. He did not know whether many Members had taken the pains to see what an enormous revenue might be raised from a very moderate imposition of duties upon competing foreign products. The imposition of a duty of 2s. a quarter on foreign oats would bring in £500,000; a duty of 4s. a quarter oil foreign maize would bring
  1362
  in £1,500,000; and a duty of 4s. a cwt. on foreign hops would bring in £40,000. By this means they could protect a British industry, and stimulate British trade. Reference had been made in that Debate to the distressed state of Agriculture, which was the direct result of our fiscal policy. There was an historical document in existence, the contents of which were possibly not known to many Members of that House. He referred to the protest of Peers against the Repeal of the Corn Laws. The depression of agriculture had not come upon us suddenly, but was the foreseen consequences of the abandonment of sources of revenue to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could return if he wished. The document to which he had referred was very interesting. The following were the reasons for the Peers' protest:—
  "(1) Because the repeal of Corn Laws will greatly increase the dependence of this country upon foreign countries for its supply of food; (2) because there is no security or probability that other nations will take similar steps; (3) because it is to be apprehended that the removal of protection may throw some lands out of cultivation; (4) Because it is unjust to withdraw protection from the landed interest while that interest remains subject to exclusive burdens imposed for purposes of general, and not of special advantages; (5) because the loss to be sustained will fall most heavily on the least wealthy portion of landed proprietors, will press immediately and severely on the tenant farmers, and through them, with ruinous consequences on the agricultural labourer; (6) because indirectly injurious consequences will result to the manufacturing interest, and especially to the artisans and mechanics from competition with the agricultural labourers thrown out of employment; (7) because the same course will produce evil results to the tradesmen, retail dealers, and others in country towns, not themselves engaged in agricultural pursuits, but mainly dependent for their subsistence on their dealings with those who are so engaged; (8) because a free trade in corn will cause a large and unnecessary diminution of annual income, thus impairing the revenue of the country, at the same time that it cripples the resources of those classes on whom the weight of local taxation now mainly falls."
  He thought there was more than one lesson to be learnt from the document which he had just read. One was that, at any rate 50 years ago, a more accurate forecast was made of what would be the result of this legislation by the House of Lords than by the House of Commons; and that might lead certain rash politicians to consider whether now the country was not likely to obtain sounder advice and wiser counsels from the House

  1363
  of Lords upon great public questions than from the House of Commons. These considerations might, perhaps, cause those to pause who were so eager for the destruction of the Second Chamber. He hoped there were signs that before long this so-called Free Trade would disappear, and that they would once again take a common-sense view of the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the low prices of barley and oats were due to foreign competition. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had made that admission, because if he really believed that foreign competition had led to low prices, the remedy was in his own hands. He also rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had returned to his old love and had advocated the imposition of a duty upon foreign barley. He wished to call attention to two remarkable speeches delivered in that House by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, and the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition respectively. What had they said? The right hon. Member for St. George's, referring to the question of the possibility of the land of this country going out of cultivation said:—
  "It is a stupendous question and I think it right that we should face it, and that no preconceived notions, no formulas, should prevent us from facing the consequences. Whatever remedies are proposed, they should be treated with earnestness, they should not be scoffed at, but should be looked upon as an earnest endeavour to solve a question as grave as has ever been submitted to us."
  The Leader of the Opposition speaking on the same point used curiously enough, nearly the same expressions. He said:—
  "Supposing, as is theoretically possible, that the result of the existing system of international industry was, that the whole land of England was turned out of cultivation, and every agricultural labourer was driven into the manufacturing towns—it may take place, and if so, you would have to take into account other considerations than these purely economic arguments which are the basis of Free Trade. If such a possibility is going to come upon us, it will strain all our statesmanship in dealing with absolutely novel and unexpected circumstances, and some cherished formulas must be thrown over if we are going to deal with it."
  What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by this? He hoped the words meant that the right hon. Gentleman recognised
  1364
  the possibility, nay the probability, of dealing with the question after his return to Office. Any statesman who would have the courage to face the question and to make the reconstruction of our fiscal methods the basis of his policy would command, he believed, a support in the country which would cause so-called Free Traders opposite no little surprise.
  *MR. R. L. EVERETTsaid, that it was always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because he expressed the honest sentiments of his mind; and, although those sentiments were somewhat out of date, they were received with respect as coming from one of the few survivors of a party which had very nearly disappeared. He was specially glad that the hon. Member had brought before the attention of the House the protest which was recorded by Members of the House of Lords on the occasion of the repeal of the Corn Laws. He would recall to the hon. Member's memory the fact that during the 34 or 35 years immediately following the repeal of the Corn Laws, agriculture in England enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity. But in the time of the Corn Laws there was almost continuous distress. Four inquiries were held upon the subject of agricultural distress between 1815, when they were imposed, and 1836; and tens of thousands of men were out of employment. The workhouses were crowded with able-bodied people, and the gallows were groaning with the weight of the unfortunate creatures who had been driven by want and misery to break the law. The land of the country was of less value, and the labourers were paid at a lower rate than during the 30 years that followed the repeal of the Corn Laws. He had compared the average price of a quarter of wheat, barley and oats conjointly in the 30 years preceding the repeal with the average price in the corresponding period subsequently to the repeal. He found that the average price of the conjoint products was almost exactly the same in the two periods. The difference did not amount to 1s. The price was about 114s. a quarter while the Corn Laws lasted, and it was within a few pence of the same amount during the first 30 years of Free Trade. There was the clearest evidence that Free

  1365
  Trade and agricultural prosperity had run together, and the country's experience of Protection was not such as to make us anxious to return to that system, but at the same time he fully admitted that in the last 15 years agriculture had been going down hill under Free Trade at an alarming rate. He had before had opportunities of explaining what he believed to be the causes of this depression. Ever since the great change was initiated under which one of the precious metals was deprived of its old position, and the currency of the leading Western nations thus became restricted, prices had been gradually falling. Last year the great fall was, in his opinion, the direct result of the closing of the Mints in India and the repeal of the Sharman Act in America. When the closing of the Mints was discussed in the House, he said it would inevitably drive prices here down much lower. These, however, were not the questions which he had risen to discuss. He wished to make a few observations upon the statements that had been made respecting the Malt Tax. Complaint had been made of the repeal of the tax, and a desire expressed for its re-imposition. He remembered the long agitation having for its object the repeal of the tax. It was not until 1880, when the right hon. Member for Midlothian took the matter up that they were successful in obtaining its repeal, which generations of agriculturists in England had earnesly contended for. What the advocates of the abolition of the Malt Tax asked for was the total abolition of the tax; but he was one of those who were glad even that the transfer of the tax to beer was made, and he was still grateful to the Government that effected it. When hon. Gentleman talked about the reimposition of the Malt tax as a beneficial change for the poor, he would not advise them to preach that to the agricultural labourer. In the county to which he belonged the labourers had the good sense to brew their own beer, and they were able to do it now without a farthing of taxation. There was nothing that had been done by Governments in past years which was so thankfully remembered by the agricultural labourer as that which had enabled him to get his malt almost at the price of barley, and to brew good
  1366
  wholesome beer without any taxation at all. He honestly believed County Councils might with advantage use some part of the money provided for technical education in teaching the people in agricultural districts how to make homebrewed beer where they did not know how. In that way, he believed, a great boon would be conferred upon the people. With regard to the effect of this tax upon the farmer, if a comparison was made between barley and wheat, it would be found that they had now changed places. Farmers always used to make the more money out of wheat, but now the case was reversed. To-day, of all the things produced on a farm, that which had suffered least in price was the best barley, Even last year it realised something like 40s. a quarter, and when he compared the fall in the price of barley with that of wheat or oats, or cotton, or iron, or sugar, or any of the great products of the world, he could not find that there was any reason to find fault with the change of this particular duty. He would like to see in the House a greater spirit of economy. He thought the voting of £4,000,000 for the Navy last year a great step to take; but this year £2,000,000 have been added. He went into the Lobby against that great expenditure, and he had thought to have seen some of his agricultural friends opposite going into the same Lobby. If the House insisted on this increased expenditure, the money must be found. It was insane to cry out about taxation while hon. Members opposite urged the House on to increased expenditure. He thanked the House for allowing him to say these few words, but, as one who had worked hard for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and had been gratified by receiving expressions of thankfulness from the agricultural labourers in his own county, he could not allow what had been said about the Malt Tax to pass without challenge.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERwished, by way of personal explanation, to state that he did not intend to advocate the entire repeal of the Beer Duty, but to confine his Amendment to the increased duty. He believed the word "increased" was in the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, and he now wished to have it inserted in his own Amendment. He did not wish to do anything irregular,

  1367
  but he wished it to be understood that he did not intend to advocate the entire repeal of the Beer Duty.
  *COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTwished to point out how entirely the interests of town and country were bound up in this question. Depression in agriculture meant depression in the towns. It increased very much competition in the labour market, and, therefore, any Amendment or proposal that would tend to mitigate the present unfortunate condition of agriculture was to the direct advantage of the towns, and so to the constituency which he had the honour to represent. The hon. Member for Suffolk had confined himself to the first 30 years after the introduction of free imports, and he was particularly silent as to the last 20 years, and as to the present condition, not only of the rural but also of the artisan population. The hon. Member drew a harrowing picture of the state of affairs which he believed to exist in 1844 and 1845, but why did he not speak of the state of affairs which authentic documents on the Table showed to exist at the present time? There were now hundreds and thousands in receipt of poor relief and large numbers of unemployed, and although at harvest time, and in other ways, they might be able to make up a fair livelihood, the rate of wages in the winter was falling lower and lower. Although he generally agreed with his right hon. Friend below him, he would forgive him for saying that he cordially preferred his Amendment before it was altered. He would confine himself to the first part of the Amendment, that was the relief from taxation of home-grown barley and hops. When an agricultural question was under discussion the Minister for Agriculture promptly left the House. It was, indeed, astonishing that, when everyone in the country recognised the present distressing condition of agriculture, the responsible head of the Agricultural Department should refrain always from contributing to the Debates in the House when an agricultural question was brought forward.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: He spoke yesterday on a Bill.
  *COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: He spoke yesterday on an entirely different subject.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I was defending my colleague from the statement that he was always absent from the House whenever the subject of agriculture came up. Yesterday there was an agricultural subject and to-day there is not.
  *COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTasked what was the question of relieving home-grown barley and hops from taxation but an agricultural question? Was it a manufacturing subject, or an artisan subject? He contended that it was the duty of the Minister for Agriculture to be present in the House when any agricultural question was under discussion. But however that might be, it was perfectly clear to anyone who had listened to the course of the Debate, that although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taunted his right hon. Friend with having altered his Amendment and made some arrangement with his right hon. Friend opposite, he had not touched on the salient point of the Amendment, namely, the paramount necessity of doing something to relieve the agricultural depression. Had the right hon. Gentleman studied the facts in this question of barley? If he would look at the last statistical abstracts published he would see that the production of barley, like that of wheat, had gone down year by year. He had taken out the figures from the "Statistical Abstract." In 1884 there were produced in Great Britain 73,000,000 bushels of barley, and in 1893, with a considerable increase of population, only 59,000,000 bushels, being a decrease of 14,000,000 bushels. In the same period the production of wheat fell from 80,000,000 to 49,000,000 bushels. All this time barley produced by foreign labour was imported free into this country. Between 1884 and 1893 the importation of foreign barley increased from 12,000,000 bushels to nearly 23,000,000 bushels. Therefore, in these ten years the importation of foreign barley nearly doubled, while the production of home-grown barley largely diminished. How was the English

  1369
  farmer to live in these circumstances? How was adequate employment to be found for labourers if at every step the farmer was met by this gross and unfair competition? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to make the foreigner bear some portion of our taxation, the only alternative was to relieve English farmers from some of the burdens thrown upon them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to refer with delight to the depression in agriculture prevailing in France and Germany. He would not pretend that there was not any depression in those countries, but he would say the depression there was not anything like so accentuated as was the agricultural depression in this country. He had been present in the French Chamber of Deputies more than once when the subject had been under discussion. What did the "Statistical Abstract" reveal with regard to the state of agriculture in France and Germany? Did it show that the production of wheat was going down from year to year in France? Did it show that acre after acre was going out of cultivation, and that great difficulty was experienced in obtaining employment? No; on the contrary, we found absolutely a different state of affairs. In 1889 there was 297,000,000 bushels of wheat produced in France, and in 1892 the production had risen to 301,000,000 bushels.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: May I respectfully ask what this has to do with home-grown barley?
  *COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself who introduced the matter, and it was on the right hon. Gentleman doing so that he left the House to fetch the "Statistical Abstract" in order that he might be able to give authentic information. So far from the statement being accurate that the Protectionist countries were in a worse state than free-importing England, the reverse was the fact. The acreage of land under corn in France, and the production of corn in France, increased from year to year. In Germany there was a considerable increase in the acreage under corn, and also in the production of barley. He hoped
  1370
  they would have the advantage of hearing the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, who could tell the House that in the recent Mid-Norfolk election both the candidates advocated the putting of a duty upon foreign barley; and the candidate who at last thought he had gone a little too far for his supporters and withdrew his advocacy of a duty, was ignominously defeated. So far from these being the views of a disappearing party, they were the views of a coming party, and would ultimately be heard on every platform in this country, although he might not live to see the day. Undoubtedly the time would come when both farmers and manufacturers, artisans and agricultural labourers, would recognise the great injury that was being done by the fiscal system that now prevailed, from this free importation of foreign produce and foreign manufactured goods, while we had to bear the heavy expenses of Government, and were heavily taxed through the increased rates on every acre occupied, and on every house inhabited. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, or some one of his successors, would yet have to face this difficulty of agricultural depression and the free import system, which had as much interest for artisans as it had for agricultural labourers.
  *DR. MACGREGORsaid he had taken much interest in the Budgets of this year and last year from a national point of view. He had already taken the opportunity to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his present proposals, which appeared to be wise and judicious. There was nothing sensational in the Budget, and, so far as it went, it fitted the occasion exactly. He pointed out last year that the increased tax upon spirits was out of all proportion to that upon beer; and, practically, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now admitted the fact, for he had said that the weight of taxation upon the cost of spirits relatively to the cost of beer was in the proportion of 700 per cent. on the cost of spirits to from 34 to 40 per cent. on the cost of beer. That showed how indefensible it was that the tax on spirits should have been kept so high, whilst it was so low on beer. As a Scotch Member he felt it was unjust to

  1371
  Scotland that the increased tax should be continued, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted wisely in taking the extra tax off spirits whilst keeping it on beer. Some Members said that if you were taking the extra tax off spirits you ought to take it off beer; but that did not at all follow, because it had been disclosed that, instead of having pure beer, brewed from barley, malt and hops, we are now getting a solution of sugar, which was much cheaper than malt and hops, and that meant a larger profit to the producer. Therefore, it was unfair of the brewers to expect to escape taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the enormous increase in the quantity of sugar used in brewing; and this was a serious matter for the consumer. As a very moderate consumer, and also as a medical man who knew something of the effect of pure beer, as well as the effect of adulterated beer, he warned the public that the beer produced from sugar was a very different article from that produced from malt; and he advised the consumers, that is the public, when they asked for a glass of pure beer, and paid for it, to see that they got it. [Laughter, and cries of "How?"] It was not for him to point out how, but he would go so far as to say it was the duty of the Government to see that an article of diet was not adulterated; it was the duty of the Government to prevent adulteration, which, in other words, meant deceit. To say that a tax on beer depressed agriculture was simply absurd. The depression in agriculture was due, not to the taxation on beer, but simply to foreign competition, and that was due to the Party opposite and their friends who evicted the people from off the land, and expatriated the people until they had become our competitors abroad, and sent home cheaper barley than could be produced in this country. No artificial means would improve agriculture. What was wanted was compliance with the economic laws of supply and demand, that the people should be placed back upon the land, that the land out of cultivation should be tilled. Then we should have consumers on the land, and, instead of paying heavy railway charges to send produce to market, it would be to a greater
  1372
  extent consumed where it was grown. Commodities if overtaxed became unproductive, and it was the same with land. It would not bear a profit for the labourer, farmer, and landlord. Instead of reducing the tax on beer to relieve agriculture, the true solution of agricultural depression lay in the one word, "Rent," which was a tax upon land. To improve agriculture they must reduce rents, to enable the tiller of the soil to make a profit and keep up with foreign competitors. Speaking the other day on the consumption of beer and spirits, he took occasion to say that pure spirits and beer, if moderately used, ought not to hurt anyone. He was not then prepared for the staggering statement that so much sugar was used in the brewing of beer. Adulterated beer or spirits must be highly injurious to the public if they partook of either in any quantity. But while a man or woman either was in perfect health they were better without alcohol in any shape or form. It should be treated as a drug and prescribed by the physician.
  *MR. SPEAKER,interposing, pointed out that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the subject before the House.
  *DR. MACGREGORsaid, he would only say that all his professional life he had advocated temperance. But while he advocated temperance he did not advocate the total abolition of beer and spirits. If they abolished them a substitute would have to be provided, and substitutes that might occur to hon. Members might be worse, bodily and mentally, for the community than the reasonable consumption of alcholic beverages purely and properly made. It was in adulteration that the mischief and abuse of beer and spirits consisted. It might be in the recollection of hon. Members that St. Paul said to Timothy: "Take a little wine, for thy stomach's sake." Mr. Disraeli once said he was "on the side of the angels." He himself was, in this matter, on the side of the saints. The brewers might thank their stars that, as regards this tax, they were getting off so cheaply. He advised the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the next occasion to make it 8d. instead of 6d., and take the extra 2d. per pound off tea, This would be preferable to the community, and the brewers would not

  1373
  suffer. What was the cause of the imposition of this tax? Why was it necessary? Had not the Party opposite and their friends insisted upon extravagant expenditure for the Navy? He protested against this extravagant expenditure when it was proposed, and he protested against it now.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member really must speak to the question before the House, which is the Second Reading of this Bill.
  *DR. MACGREGORsaid, he would endeavour to keep to the question, but it was only fair to point out that when the Party opposite had demanded this expenditure it came with bad grace from them to grumble about the taxation necessary to meet it. No article of consumption could stand increased taxation better than beer. In spite of the tax the consumption of beer increased, and the brewers had not suffered. They could well bear this tax, and if it were increased he would support the increase by his vote.
  MR. WYKEHAM CORNWALLISsaid that, as a Kentish Member, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what foundation he based his statement that this was not an agricultural question? It was contrary to the opinion of the agriculturists of the County of Kent. He and others had during the last ten days attended numerous meetings of agriculturists in Kent to protest against this increased duty on beer, and they had found a unanimous feeling against it. It was resented at the present time with particular bitterness, because agriculturists felt they had had very little sympathy from the present Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if agriculturists were unanimous he would be glad to help them. There were one or two things about which agriculturists were unanimous, and in which he could assist them. Not only in the County of Kent, but throughout the country they were unanimously of opinion that the Minister who represented Agriculture in that House should have a seat in the Cabinet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spent a large portion of last Session in promoting an Act which, in the long run, must inevitably injure agriculture; and this year's Budget was
  1374
  to try, by acting in time, to help to redress the difference that existed between realty and personalty in their respective payments to the expenses of this country. There were many other things in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might help agriculturists. For instance, he might ask the War Office to see that the British Army were fed on home-grown beef. He himself did not understand certain remarks that had fallen on the opposite side of the House. How did the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconcile his Local Veto Bill with the fact that in Suffolk he made it possible for the agricultural labourer to brew beer in his own house, when publicans' licences were taken away?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Do I understand that the omission of the word "increase" is an omission that could not be remedied?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That can only be put in after the Amendment stands part of the question.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Then I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis) Moved—
  "That no measure for meeting the Imperial expenditure for 1895–96 will be satisfactory which is based on the estimate of an increased revenue of £1,500,000, from duties so variable and uncertain as the Death Duties as revised by the Finance Act, 1894."
  The hon. Member said he had merely proposed to move this pro formâ, in order to raise the general question of the Budget, of which the Death Duties formed the principal part. He shared the feeling of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the national expenditure was growing serious, but he did not share the opinion of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Dr. Macgregor) that it was caused by extravagant expenditure on the Navy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not fully show how large his expenditure this year was to be—he stated it at £95,981,030. But there was another £1,000,000 for naval works, and £2,400,000 was to be raised from Death Duties by Imperial taxation to go to the relief of local taxation. These

  1375
  made the total expenditure £99,381,000, or nearly a Hundred-million Budget. According to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would get small increases of revenue from various sources, but these were compensated by decreases, and the net result was a net increase of revenue of £1,500,000, the whole of which was due to the Death Duties. The Budget rested entirely upon that, and it was the duty of the House to consider whether the right hon. Gentleman was likely to realise that £1,500,000, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that probably this would be the last time he would speak on these matters in his present responsible position. In other words, he proposed to leave the risk of his estimates to the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the next Chancellor of the Exchequer came in, he being then irresponsible, would reproach him with a deficit of his own contrivance. It was necessary to guard the position of the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, by examining the figures, especially those of the Death Duties, so that they might play Hamlet without leaving the Prince of Denmark out. It had always been a tradition to conceal the working of the Death Duties from the public. When the Death Duties were moderate this might have been sound policy, and more or less defensible. But now, with a system of aggregation and graduation, borrowed from Tom Paine and the French Revolution—but which the French had now repudiated—with new and unheard of methods of finance, it was right to know how the system worked. But the old tradition of concealment continued. It was a remarkable thing that neither from the "Statistical Abstract," nor the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, nor the Budget statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could adequate information be got. Up to November last the practice when wills were proved was to set forth in documents accessible to the public, not only the gross amount but the net amount of the estate. Since November last that had been changed, and the gross amount only had been given. He did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that. It was not the right hon. Gentleman's doing. It was
  1376
  due to the policy of concealment of the facts in regard to the Death Duties, which might have been defensible under the old system, when the Death Duties were moderate and levied as other taxes were levied; but under the new system of aggregation and graduation—or a system of one law for the rich and another for the poor—the country had a right to clear and adequate information.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman is not in order in criticising the mode in which the Finance Act, in regard to the Death Duties, is administered.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, of course, he bowed at once to the ruling of the Speaker. But he might be allowed to say that it was his intention to criticise, not the administration of the Death Duties, but the mode in which their results were published. In the Quarterly Revenue Returns, for instance, Stamps and Death Duties were lumped together. Nowhere was the total of the Death Duties given—neither in the Budget Speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the statistical abstracts published yearly, nor in the Report of the Revenue Commissioners—nowhere except in the Finance Accounts. He had listened with bewilderment to the Budget Speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman dealt out a tangle of Death Duty figures in three or four places of his speech. He endeavoured to collate these conflicting figures, but failed, and he was indebted to the courtesy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some additional figures, and to the Board of Inland Revenue for still further figures, with a view to arriving at some clear conclusion. He would illustrate the tangle by a few facts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when comparing, in his Speech of May 2nd, the Death Duties of one year with another, said that "the total of those Duties—that is, Probate, Account, Estate, Legacy, and Succession Duties"— was in 1893–4 £7,578,000. Not at all; it was not that sum. The total, as given in the Finance Accounts, was£9,941,855. The right hon. Gentleman again told the House that for 1894–5 the actual yield was £8,727,500. Not at all; it was £10,862,000. The figures of the right hon. Gentleman showed a difference between the two years of £1,149,500,

  1377
  whereas the real difference was £920,145. By leaving out of account the part of the Death Duties which went in aid of local taxation, both the totals of the two years and the differences between them were falsified. The amount paid to local taxation in 1893–4 was £2,300,000; in 1894–5 it was £2,100,000. Formerly the contribution to local taxation was one-half the Probate and Account Duty. Now it was one and a-half per cent. on the value of property that would have been subject to Probate and Account Duty if that Duty still existed. Who settled the exact amount of such property he did not know. It was all done in the secret recesses of the Inland Revenue Office, and no figures were published to show whether it was done on a right or on a wrong system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that his Estimates last year of the yield of the Death Duties this year were "a marvellous achievement," since they had turned out to be so very near the exact results. But the right hon. Gentleman admitted that four serious disturbing influences had affected his calculations—that whereas he counted on seven months' return he got only five; that there were 75,000 fewer deaths; that the values were lower, and that there had been great delay in delivering the accounts. If those four great disturbing influences which the right hon. Gentleman had not reckoned with had been at work, and that notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman came out close to the mark, it proved to demonstration that his original estimate was wrong. The truth was that one blunder compensated for another. But let the House consider the figures which were given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Death Duties, as recast by the Finance Act of last year, "were estimated to yield in 1894–5 £8,800,000, or an increase of £1,222,000." An increase of £1,222,000 was the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman. But what happened? As he had already said, the total yield in 1893–4 was £9,941,855, and by adding to that the estimated increase of £1,222,000 they got an estimated yield for 1894–5 of £l 1,163,855, whereas the actual yield for 1894–5 was £10,862,000, or £301,855 less than the right hon. Gentleman's estimate. There
  1378
  was, therefore, a difference between the estimates and the realisation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not of the small fraction of £32,000—as the right hon. Gentleman stated in his speech on May 2nd—but of ten times as much, or of £301,855 on a total estimated increase of £1,222,000. The achievements of the right hon. Gentleman were, consequently, not so marvellous as he would have the House believe. And this misleading result had been laid before the House because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given partial and incomplete figures and made partial and incomplete comparisons. But he would leave the golden, egg and come to the goose herself. The most serious part of the whole matter was the effect which the Death Duties had had on personalty. According to the Returns, about four-fifths of all the property subject to the Death Duties was this personalty. Out of a desire to assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had published in some newspapers, early this year, and before the Budget came on, an estimate that personalty for the purpose of taxation in 1894–5 as compared with 1893–4 would be found to have decreased owing to the influence of the Finance Act, by some £19,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the decrease had been "over £18,000,000," so that he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) had made a pretty accurate guess as to the effect of the Death Duties on personalty. But let the House mark the effect of this decrease on the contributions in aid of local taxation. In 1893–4, the amount was £2,363,059; and in 1894–5, £2,153,059, or a decrease of £210,000, so that this new system of taxation which avowedly doubled the charges on land with one hand, with the other took away a large part of the contributions towards the local taxation which land had mostly to bear. This fall in the contribution was not at all anticipated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Speaking of the contribution on the 16th April 1894, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I propose for the present to continue it by an equivalent which is calculated to brine about similar pecuniary results, through an arrangement which will secure to the local authorities out of the new Estate Duty the same contribution as that to which, under the law, as it at present stands, they are now entitled."

  1379
  And the right hon. Gentleman added—
  "We estimate an ultimate increase upon the Death Duties of between 3¼ and 4 millions. They will then amount to about £4,000,000 of which £2,500,000 goes to local taxation."
  Finally, on June 22, 1894, in Committee on the Finance Act, speaking on an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Horsham to Clause 16, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The hon. Gentleman has said truly that under the Act of 1888, half the Probate Duty is assigned for the assistance of local taxation. But that amount is preserved exactly as it is under this clause; that is to say, half the probate grant with the increments that may accrue on the growth."
  The result, however, had been that, instead of similar pecuniary results or the same contribution, there were dissimilar results and a different contribution, for, while the amount of the Death Duties was greater, the contribution to the local authorities was considerably less.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Local taxation does not get half the Death Duties; but half the Probate Duty. If the hon. Member would try to understand the very elements of the matter he would not make those mistakes.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought it would be well if the Chancellor of the Exchequer understood the question. He rested his case upon this—that while there had been a large increase of Revenue from the Death Duties, local taxation got £210,000 less than last year. This was no doubt due to the drop in personalty. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given three explanations for this drop in the returns of personalty. In the first place, he had attributed it to a decrease in the value of the securities. That was not the case, however. He had received information from bankers and Stock Exchange authorities that, so far from there having been a decrease in the value of securities, there had actually been an increase in the value during the past year. Therefore, that explanation abandoned the right hon. Gentleman and came over to his side. There should have been an increased instead of a diminished yield under this head. In the second
  1380
  place, the right hon. Gentleman said that there had been a decrease in the deaths. The right hon. Gentleman supported this explanation by stating that in the last three quarters of 1894 there had been, in England and Wales, a mortality of 350,523, against a mortality of 425,667 in the three quarters of 1893, making a difference of about 75,000. But this calculation was incomplete. Why had the right hon. Gentleman taken only three out of four quarters of each year for only two out of the three countries for comparison?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I took the four quarters of each year.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had only given the figures for the three quarters of each year, and had given reasons for confining his figures to those periods. He, on the other hand, had taken the four quarters ending March 1894, during which the mortality of the United Kingdom was 739,269, and compared them with the four quarters ending March 1895, during which the mortality was 680,867, showing a difference of 58,402.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member is only confirming the figures I have already given.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was again wrong. Here, then, there were, not 75,000, but 58,402 persons who ought to have died but did not do so. But even supposing they were to kill those 58,402 persons in the financial year to please the right hon. Gentleman, was it to be assumed that all those persons were millionaires? Certainly not. Not one in ten of them left any property at all—and a large proportion of those who did left only small properties, while only 2,000 belonged to the wealthy classes. This, however, would only account, at the outside, for some £8,000,000, and what had become of the other £10,000,000? The third reason that the right hon. Gentleman had given for the fall in personalty was that there had been great delay in the application for Probate. He had already said that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong, and that there had been no delay in the application for Probate. He had quoted extracts from the daily newspapers to

  1381
  show that wills were proved on the whole as they were before, namely, within some two months of the deaths, some, indeed, in three weeks. But the damning fact remained that over £18,000,000 less was returned last year of personalty on which these duties could be levied, whereas there should have been through the normal increase some £8,000,000 more, and thus a total of some £25,000,000 had been withdrawn from taxation by the effect of the new duties imposed by the right hon. Gentleman, He had always predicted that that would be the case, and the right hon. Gentleman had always decried it, and the result must have been a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman of no very agreeable kind. Let him endeavour to point out to the right hon. Gentleman what was the real reason of this enormous amount of property being withdrawn from taxation. In the first place, a great amount of English capital had been driven abroad by the financial operations of the right hon. Gentleman; and, in the second place, he had been assured by a well-known banker that large sums of foreign capital which had been left for generations in his hands by foreigners—great foreign families and foreign sovereigns—in the belief that the money would be safe in this country from brigands, revolutionists, and anarchists, had been removed, and because the owners did not believe that England was any longer a safe place in which to leave capital, seeing that the principles of the brigand, of the revolutionist and the anarchist were now professed on the Treasury Bench. It must be remembered that withdrawals, avoidances and evasions had only begun, that every day was likely to add to their effect, and that as yet but few had told upon revenue. The question was whether the Revenue would recover this loss in the return of personalty. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself appeared to doubt it, because he had only estimated to pay during the current year £2,400,000 to local taxation, which was 1½ per cent. on the whole personalty, so that the right hon. Gentleman must have estimated the whole personalty at £160,000,000, or less than in 1893–4, a normal year, and less than 1892–3, or
  1382
  1890–1, or 1891–2. By the normal increase under the old system the amount would have been £180,000,000. But would the right hon. Gentleman even get his £160,000,000? He would not unless his estimates were more accurate this year than they had been last year. Of course the right hon. Gentleman might be saved by an epidemic among millionaires, though even that would not remove the objection to this uncertain and variable duty. He had made some other forecasts to which he would again refer. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to keep a collection of his (Mr. T. Gibson Bowles) speeches, and whenever the right hon. Gentleman found himself at a loss he tried to get out of the difficulty by quoting from one of them. The other night the right hon. Gentleman had quoted from one of them that was so old that he himself had forgotten it, and, as usual, the right hon. Gentleman had not quoted even that fairly. His general argument was founded upon a comparison between 1893–4 and 1894–5, as regarded expected increases. In a letter of his which had appeared in The Morning Post of the 25th April last, he had said that probably there would be an increase in the amount of the Death Duties during the June and December quarters of 1894, but that the subsequent quarter would show a diminution therein. Well, while the June quarter showed an increase of £139,786, the September quarter of £311,652, and the December quarter of £440,331, the March quarter only showed £26,332. Was not that a diminution? He admitted having overlooked the effects of the panic in his speech, but so also had the right hon. Gentleman, for he himself, on May 10, 1894, had estimated that there would be a loss of Legacy and Succession Duty (on estates under £1,000) of £100,000, whereas these particular duties had increased by £274,000. This was due to the panic, and to the panic the right hon. Gentleman owed the fact that he had received £274,000 more than he expected. Deduct the amount caused by the panic. The right hon. Gentleman had been wrong in his estimate by £576,000, whereas he himself had been wrong by some £346,000, and this, although the right hon. Gentleman had the official figures before him, to which he, of course,

  1383
  had not had access. The right hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to say that he (Mr. Bowles) was a perfectly foolish person, that he afforded an excellent illustration of the old saying that:—
  "A little learning is a dangerous thing. He has learnt a little about this subject, just enough to lead him into making extraordinary mistakes, not enough to enable him to form a sound opinion."
  Surely the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the impounding Clause 8 of the Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman replied that he would not do so. But he had to do it eventually. In that case he should like to know who had made the mistake, and who had formed the sound judgment?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon Gentleman's remarks are rather remote from questions of finance.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESthought he might be allowed a little latitude in replying to a personal attack. Then there were the foreign executors, as to which he told the right hon. Gentleman he would have to abandon the attempt to get Duty from them, which he said he would not abandon, but at last had to. Who, then, made the mistake? Who expressed sound opinions? Again, it would be remembered what happened in regard to Clause 15. The right hon. Gentleman, being driven by him (Mr. Bowles) to move a further Resolution thereon, came down and actually had to move, not the Resolution which he had himself put upon the Paper, but a different Resolution, which he (Mr. Gibson Bowles) had suggested. [A laugh.] That was an historical fact, and the right hon. Gentleman knew it. Who made an extraordinary mistake there? Who held sound opinions? It was hard the Chancellor of the Exchequer should attack him after the assistance he had rendered the right hon. Gentleman. Furthermore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Legacy Duty was not touched by the Finance Act. Had he forgotten Sections 1 and 16——
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is now proceeding to refute observations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Death Duties.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he would leave that point; he had no doubt he would have other opportunities of dealing with it. As to the future, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate was no more accurate than it was last year, he would not get what was anticipated, nor would he get it if the March quarter proved, as it often did, an index for the forthcoming year. In the latter case, instead of getting £12,500,000, he would not get £11,000,000. Still, he might be saved by an epidemic, or by millionaires. So far the Death Duties depended much on the weather, which in 1891–2 sent up the property returned for taxation by £25,000,000, and the receipts of the Revenue by a million and a-quarter. But this only showed the variable nature of these Duties and the risk of relying on them for the foundation of a Budget. It would take several years yet to see the full effect of the new Duties, but he thought avoidance and evasion would largely increase.
  *MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS*MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke) moved—
  "That no Bill for the Finances of the year will be satisfactory which does not provide for the application of the Land Tax towards the reduction of the local taxation in the counties in which it is levied."
  He was pleased to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer say he had great sympathy with the Motion, and that if he had the money he would be glad to remit the Land Tax.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Not exactly to remit it, but to deal with it, and to make it a less unjust tax than it is regarded to be.
  *MR. JEFFREYSsaid, that what he meant was remit it to the counties. Originally the Land Tax was imposed not only upon land but upon personal property, and at that time it was 4s. in the £ on land and 24s. per £100 upon personal property. Every year from 1798 to 1833 an Act was passed constituting the Land Tax part of the revenue of the country. In 1833 the tax upon personal property was abolished, but the tax upon land was continued. The quota from each period remained exactly the same, and therefore, as the assessment of the parish went down, the rate per £ of the Land Tax increased. The consequence was that in many

  1385
  rich parishes where there was a very large rateable assessment, the Land Tax was a very small matter indeed: it was only 1d., in some cases only a ¼d. in the £ But in some parishes, where the assessment had been considerably reduced, the same amount had to be taken out of the parishes, and therefore the Land Tax was very high indeed. Let him give a specimen of the burden of the Land Tax in a parish in Hampshire. He ought to say this was not personal to himself, because on his estate the Land Tax was redeemed. In the parish he had in mind he found a gentleman's Income Tax under Schedule A, only amounted to £7 14s. 2d., whereas the Land Tax on the same property was no less than 3s. 9d. in the £ and amounted in the aggregate to £48 2s. That showed what a very severe tax this was upon a parish where the assessment was low, and in these days agricultural land was assessed at a low rate in most parishes, and the Land Tax had consequently become a very severe burden. His contention was that if they raised a certain amount of money from the land, and excused personal property, the amount raised ought to be applied to the counties in which it was raised, towards a reduction of local taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now there was one point upon which he wished to be assured, and that was what the agriculturists wished. They did not agree on some points, but he was quite certain they unanimously agreed with the proposition that the Land Tax should be applied in the counties in which it was levied towards the reduction of local taxation. Almost every Chamber of Agriculture in the country had passed a resolution to that effect. In April the Central Chamber of Agriculture unanimously resolved:—
  "That all land devoted to agriculture should be assessed to local rates at one fourth its annual value."
  and:—
  "That the Land Tax levied in the respective districts be handed over to the local authorities to be applied towards the deficiency caused by the previous sub-section."
  He believed 600 parishes had redeemed the Land Tax, and therefore, it would be very unfair to remit the tax altogether. He did not ask for entire
  1386
  remission. Another argument against his proposition was, that many counties would get a large amount, whereas others would get a very small amount; but that was only a matter of accident. The same thing might be said in respect to licences. Some counties received a large amount from licences, and others only a small amount. In Hampshire, for instance, the proceeds from Local Taxation licences amounted to £58,000, while in Herefordshire they only came to £38,000. That was merely a matter of accident and was not a proper argument to use against his proposal. He hoped he would be allowed to read the opinions of former great authorities in the House on the subject of this tax. In the Debate in 1798, Mr. Pitt said:—
  "I am ready to admit that I consider it to have been an original defect in the present plan of re-partition, that no periodical revision was fixed. I think it would have been wise to have made such a provision."
  Sir Robert Walpole in the Debate of December 1732, said:—
  "There is no tax that ever was laid upon people of this nation that is more unjust and unequal than the Land Tax. The landholders bear but a small proportion to the people of this nation, yet no man contributes to this tax but he that is possessed of a landed estate. The Land Tax is the most grievous, the most unequal, and the most oppressive tax that was ever raised in this country,"
  That only showed what former Members and high authorities in the House thought of the Land Tax, and he was astonished that, year after year hon. Members had acquiesced in this tax being put into the Imperial Exchequer, because, if it was a tax at all it was a local tax and ought to be applied locally. There was another matter on which he desired to ask a question. He noticed that, whereas the amount of the tax last year was £1,015,000, it was put down this year as £1,020,000. But the tax was a fixed quantity.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the difference arose because there was sometimes a retardation in the collection.
  *MR. JEFFREYSsaid, the explanation was quite sufficient, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with him that the tax was a fixed quantity. He wished the Land Tax to be applied towards the reduction of local taxation, which had

  1387
  become such a heavy burden on the counties that unless some relief were given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he did not see how agriculture was to hope at all. It was true that the rates in the counties were low compared with the rates in town. But, on the other hand, a man who farmed a large extent of land and paid £200, but lived in a house that was rated at less than £20, did not pay rates on the house alone, but on every single acre that he occupied. He was supposed to make £200 a year, and had to pay rates upon practically the whole of his income. The tradesman or doctor who lived in the same parish, and who might be making an equal income, paid not on his income, but on the rateable value of his house. Thus, if the rate were 2s. 6d. in the £ and his house was rated at £24, he would pay £3, against £25 paid by the farmer. He agreed, however, that contributions to the whole local rates were not of much benefit to agriculturists, because occupiers of houses and the railways got a large share of them. What he proposed was, that agricultural land should only be rated at a quarter of its value instead of the whole. That would be a direct remission to agricultural land. It might be said that would be a very unusual thing to do. But there was already a precedent for it. Land only paid a quarter of the sanitary rate. The same thing held good with regard to municipal rates, in cases where there was agricultural land within a municipality. The precedent was also carried out with regard to the Income Tax. The Income Tax levied on the farmer was only 3d., instead of 8d., but no remission was made in regard to the great bulk of rates—the Poor Rate, the Police Rate, the Highway Rate, and the School Board Rate—rates which were of no use whatever to the actual acres cultivated. He would also like to point out that land already paid a double Income Tax under Schedules A and B. It might be said that his proposal would require a very large amount of money, but the amount was not so large as was thought. The total assessment of agricultural land in England and Wales was £33,000,000 sterling, and the average rate, excluding the School Board Rate, was 2s. 3d. in the £ the amount yielded thus being £3,800,000; therefore, if they
  1388
  reduced the assessment to one-fourth the present amount, there would be a deficiency of £2,850,000, but towards that the Land Tax would give £1,020,000, so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have an immense amount to find. If they were to do any good to the land, it must be by reducing the taxation upon it. He was not one of those who advocated protective duties—he did not think the country would stand that, and he did not know that it would be for the benefit of the country—but by reducing local taxation they would help every single man who farmed an acre of land in every single county in England and Wales. It seemed to him that was the only true way of giving any relief to agriculture, and therefore he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he could not see his way to give that relief this year, would, at any rate, be able to do so next year.
  *MR. HENRY LOPESdesired to enter his most emphatic protest against the Budget which had done nothing to remedy the unjust incidence of local taxation as between realty and personalty. He considered it the imperative duty of those who sat on the Opposition side of the House to show, not only that no additional burdens should be imposed on the land at the present time, but, that the question with regard to the incidence of taxation as between real and personal property had become a much more serious question since the passing of the Budget of 1894. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had always expressed great sympathy with the distress in agriculture, but that sympathy had always been confined to words, and had not been put into practice; it had been confined to this House, and had not been mentioned outside. They had, nevertheless, hoped that when this Budget was introduced some steps would have been taken to re-adjust those burdens which, at the present time, fall entirely on the land. He ventured to say that the entire omission of agriculture or of the incidence of local taxation from the Budget might be characterised as showing an amount of callousness and entire want of appreciation of the severity of the distress now being endured by the agricultural interest, which was almost incredible. He regretted to find that the Government had no experience of the

  1389
  gravity of the situation. The Royal Commission appointed in order to relieve the Government of any responsibility, had naturally failed to open their eyes. He hoped he would not be accused at the present time of belonging to a class which was anxious to avoid taxation. Last year, night after night, the Chancellor of the Exchequer taunted him and his friends with the fact that the agricultural interest was unwilling to be taxed in a rational and reasonable manner. He ventured, however, to say that the landed interest had never raised such a contention as that. Every penny derived from land ought to contribute its just quota to local and Imperial purposes. All that they had ever contended was, that they should not be compelled to contribute more than their just share. Land ought not to be rated or taxed, either out of proportion to the real value of the land, or out of proportion to the amount paid by other property. Whenever the relief of local taxation had been broached, the Government had always replied that no remedy could be applied so long as the gross anomaly between real and personal property in respect to the Death Duties existed. That answer was no longer valid, and their claims for a reconsideration of this question had become alsolutely irresistible. Personal property ought to be assimilated to real property in regard to local taxation. It was not, at the present time a question as to whether rates had been increased or decreased: it was now merely a question of fairness in the matter of equalisation between one description of property and another. It was not a question of subvention. It was no longer possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that £7,000,000 had been given to relieve of local taxation, and that they had no right to demand any more; because that was given on the old basis which the Government had upset. The Government had destroyed the settlement of 1853, and, in their Budget of 1894, had done away with the concessions which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian had made in favour of land. Those concessions had been granted because in his opinion land was more heavily taxed at that time than personalty, both with regard to local taxation and also with
  1390
  respect to the Income Tax. Those concessions were valuable. A successor to real property over £10,000 value paid only 2½ per cent., instead of 4 per cent. He was taxed upon the life interest, and not upon the capital value, and was given 4 years to pay in without interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken these advantages away, and what had he given in exchange? A reduction in the Income Tax Assessment, one-eighth in regard to land, and one-sixteenth in regard to houses. For those small advantages they were extremely grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they were not equal to the advantages which they had previously enjoyed, and which were so ruthlessly abolished by the passing of the Budget of last year. His complaint was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not carried out the principle of equalisation as a whole; and if the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to carry out the equalisation in its entirety why did he take it up piecemeal in 1894? He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman so far that it would be unwise to give any further subvention—to give any further sum from the Imperial Exchequer to local taxation. They were told that only one-fifth of the £4,000,000 granted from the Imperial Exchequer for the relief of local taxation went to the land, in this state of things it was high time that the question of subventions was left alone altogether, and that agriculturists looked for relief from another source. He agreed with that. There was another reason for this than that just given. He rather fancied that the agricultural community—the farmer and the labourer—drank as much beer, smoked as much tobacco, and consumed as much tea as the rest of the community, and therefore that they furnished a very fair proportion of that money which was afterwards allocated for the relief of local taxation He thoroughly agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that matter, but he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there were other means of relieving the land, and one was that the Imperial Exchequer might take over entirely the education of the country, which was a national object, or the relief of the poor, which had already been recommended by a Royal Commission. It was because he felt that,

  1391
  at any rate, the agricultural interest would receive some slight relief from local burdens if the proposal of his hon. Friend was carried that he cordially supported the Amendment. So far as he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that the Land Tax was an unjust and unfair one. There was no doubt that its incidence was more severe in England than in Scotland. He hoped that although the Chancellor of the Exchequer might not be inclined, or might be unable to do anything in the matter this year, he would give a promise that, if the unexpected should happen and he occupied the same position next year, he would at any rate consider the question and do what he could to meet the request of his hon. Friend.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had asked him what he would do in the next Budget. He felt no difficulty in giving a promise that he would do his best to reconsider the question of the Land Tax, because, as he had said before, he thought it was one of those taxes that could least be defended. All taxes were odious, but he admitted that there were greater inequalities with some than with others. The Land Tax was one of them, and he had no hesitation in saying that it required to be recast and revised. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment had, however, raised a much larger question, and he could not answer for the action of those who might happen to follow him in his position. The hon. Member who had just sat down had opened up prospects that might or might not commend themselves to those who might have charge of the finances of the country. Imperial taxation was already sufficiently heavy. The hon. Member raised the point as to where the money required to relieve agriculture was to come from. It would come in a very large degree from those whom it was intended to relieve. That was the fact, and he wished hon. Members would only reflect, when they made those demands, how the gap was to be filled. It was his firm belief when he heard the great additional demands that were made upon Imperial taxation, as had lately been done day after day and
  1392
  night after night, that people seemed to imagine that there was a sort of artesian well called the Consolidated Fund, which came out of the bowels of the earth and sent up an inexhaustible supply of money to be poured into the Exchequer. That was really the basis of all those demands. But where did that fund come from? It came in a very great degree from the pockets of hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as from those of other people. In making fresh demands on the Consolidated Fund, the money, in his opinion, must inevitably come in the largest degree from direct taxation in one form or another. There were great complaints, and he did not wonder at it, of the high rate at which the Income Tax stood. It certainly stood much higher than he wished to see it. But they might depend upon it that the more they piled up those demands upon Imperial taxation, the higher they would find the Death Duties grow, the higher they would find the Income Tax become, and the very persons who were seeking to relieve in pennies would inflict on themselves fines in pounds. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would do well to reflect that the relief they obtained from local taxation would be trifling compared with the burden they would cast upon themselves in the shape of Imperial taxation, and of this they would, in the long run, have to bear their share. The Amendment before the House had reference to the Land Tax, and required that it should be reconsidered and recast. He had already admitted that this ought to be done; he had thought so for some time, and should have been prepared last year to reconsider the question, but he had to deal with larger matters. This year he could not deal with it because he had not a sufficient margin at his disposal to enable him to do so. He hoped that the assurance he had given would satisfy the hon. Member, and that he would not, at all events, compel him to vote against the Amendment by going to a division upon it, because he would then have the judgment of the House against a revision of the land tax. The adoption of the Amendment would practically be the defeat of the Budget, and, holding the opinions he did, he should be very sorry to be compelled to vote against the Amendment

  1393
  and to have recorded in the journals of the House a condemnation of the Amendment in the sense in which he did not wish to see it condemned.
  MR. GOSCHENcongratulated his hon. Friends on the fact that a distinct assurance had been extracted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—a pronouncement in favour of some remission of a tax which bore hardly upon agriculture. His hon. Friends must consider whether it would be better to hold the right hon. Gentleman to the views he had expressed than to compel him to register his vote against the Amendment. He thought that if he were in the place of his hon. Friends he should prefer to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer bound by the declarations which he had made in favour of dealing with the Land Tax rather than that those declarations should be modified by compelling him to vote against the Amendment. But that was a point for his hon. Friends to decide. All he could say was that he thought they had cause to be satisfied with what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who at one time was disposed to attack every kind of concession made to the land as favouring to what he used to call Tory landlords. He had now come round to the position in which he would gladly do something for the agricultural interest. He was afraid that in former times to have proposed a repeal of the Land Tax would have been treated as if it had simply aimed at the landlords' as against other interests, but now they had got a new departure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking with the greatest authority, had now come to the conclusion that agriculture demanded some recognition. As misfortunes had fallen upon that interest, it was right that the House should take its claim into recognition. He was glad to be able to say that they had now got it on record that both Parties in the House were pledged in the direction of a reconsideration of all questions relating to the taxation of land, inasmuch as agriculture stood at present in such an exceptional position. It had been too much the custom of hon. Members opposite, in regard to his own previous declarations, to quote what he had said 20 or 25 years ago with regard to the land as if it were applicable at the present time. When he had had
  1394
  the honour, 20 or 25 years ago, of submitting a Report to the House upon taxation on land, everything was in an entirely different position to what it was now. Rents had fallen, and the country was alive to the distress of the three classes—landlords, farmers, and agricultural labours—whose interests, as was becoming more and more recognised, were solid and identical. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taunted the landed interest with wishing to escape from the burdens which he placed upon them with regard to the Death Duties, and had been disposed to think that the country gentlemen of England did not wish to contribute their fair quota to the increased expenditure necessary for the defence of the country. He looked upon the present attitude of the right hon. Gentleman as a changed attitude; the events of the last year had shown him that all classes interested in agriculture required to be treated with more tenderness than he was disposed to show last year. The concession of opinion which he had made with regard to the Land Tax—and he admitted that the right hon. Gentlemen could not make a concession of an actual presentation of money—was a very valuable indication, not only in regard to the tax, but because it acknowledged that there had been force in the demands of the agricultural interest to be treated somewhat leniently with regard to Imperial taxation. He could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman could not permit the vacuum which would be made in his Budget by the remission of this tax, which, as he had said, would be difficult to replace. He submitted to his hon. Friends that it would be wiser to accept the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman in favour of the remission of the Land Tax rather than to go to a Division; but in either case they had won a success.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, the question of the Land Tax was of extreme importance to those in the agricultural districts. He had long thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was by no means hostile to the agricultural interest, and he believed he meant well by them, and would carry his words into effect if he could. In the reduction of local taxation in general, and of the Land Tax in particular, lay the only

  1395
  chance of agricultural salvation. Hon. Members on the previous day had seemed to think that by a Land Tenure Bill the Millennium might be brought about, but he was perfectly certain they were wrong. It was not by introducing the dual system which they had in Ireland, or by making things somewhat unpleasant between landlord and tenant that any relief could be found for agricultural ruin. Whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer might promise to do for them he was afraid he would not take certain hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway into the Lobby with him. He remembered that, in the Parliament of 1886–92, the hon. Member for Northampton led a very considerable body of Gentlemen into the Lobby solely for the purpose of increasing the Land Tax, and putting a fresh burden on agriculture. He wished the hon. Member for Northampton had got half-a-dozen farms in Essex out of cultivation; if he had he would have a more intimate knowledge of the question. What was the Land Tax? It was imposed in the Middle Ages entirely as a war tax, because agricultural property was then the only thing of real value, whereas now it was the only thing which had no value at all. Property which existed in land was now practically valueless, and surely that was a reason for a readjustment and reconsideration of the Land Tax. The local taxation upon the farmer was much heavier than it was upon the professional man, and he thought the Land Tax in each county should be given in aid of the reduction of local taxation. They were not ungrateful for the efforts of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them aid, but he had always thought that the system of grants in aid was to put 1s. into one of a man's pockets and to take 2s. 6d. out of another. The agricultural interest generally, however, did not, he believed, take that view. The other day he had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he would do when the whole of Essex went out of cultivation, and the right hon. Gentleman made no answer, but the situation in Essex and in other parts was so serious as to justify the tone which the right hon. Gentleman had now adopted. Hon. Members representing agricultural districts would now
  1396
  feel that, like the importunate widow, they had got something by continual asking.
  *MR. F. S. STEVENSONexpressed satisfaction that no single Member had risen to defend the existing Land Tax. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had twitted the Chancellor of the Exchequer with having changed his attitude on this point, but those who heard the speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the March of 1893, when he (Mr. Stevenson) brought forward a Resolution on this subject, could have made a forecast of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman had made that night. On the former occasion the right hon. Gentleman raised certain objections, on points which could be easily remedied, to the Resolution, but there were no objections raised by him to the principle that the tax was unfair in its assessment, and the mode by which it was levied and inflicted a great hardship upon the smaller cultivators especially, owing to the decrease in the value of land, and the fact that, while the valuations of the large properties had been reduced, the necessity for levying fixed quotas from the parishes led to heavier contributions being exacted from the smaller owners. He believed that the system of a fixed quota lay at the root of the whole difficulty. The proportion raised was enormously greater in some counties than in others. In proportion to population and valuation Lancashire and Yorkshire paid scarcely anything, whilst an enormous amount was paid by the Eastern Counties in the shape of land tax. Although he fully recognised that the Land Tax was grossly unfair at the present time, he was by no means satisfied that the remedy proposed in the Amendment was the best. No doubt it was the simplest, and could be most quickly brought about, and in the absence of any other mode of dealing with the Land Tax, would probably be the most satisfactory. But if it were possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the aid of the Board of Inland Revenue to effect a revision of the Land Tax by reducing the amount payable by agricultural parts of the country, as compared with such Counties as Lancashire and Yorkshire, that would be an infinitely better plan. In March of 1893 the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  1397
  gave a promise that the Board of Inland Revenue would not only endeavour to examine into the hardship of the quota system, but would also direct their attention to devising some mode by which the system of levying the Land Tax could be altered. He did not know to what extent those inquiries had made progress, but if the speeches delivered that night, and the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer led between this and next year in that direction, he thought that a good object would have been served by that Debate.
  *MR. ABEL H. SMITHdrew attention to the case of certain small freeholders in the New Forest District of Hampshire, who felt the present Land Tax press very heavily upon them. Many of these small holders had never been called upon to pay the Land Tax until January, 1894, and they found the burden almost more than they could bear. He regretted very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not found himself able to give any relief this year in the direction suggested by the Amendment, but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that should he occupy the same position he now filled another year, he would not be allowed to depart from his promise. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the relief given to local taxation by subventions from the Imperial Exchequer had not been of much benefit. He would, however, point out that the payers of Imperial taxation were far better able to pay these burdens than the payers of local taxation, because person property had to bear its share of Imperial taxation. He was very sorry that no relief was given this year to local taxation, because it was really becoming a serious question, in a great many parts of the country, how long the land was going to be kept in cultivation at all; and if the present low prices continued it was inevitable that enormous quantities must go out of cultivation. If that unhappily should prove the case it would be nothing short of a national disaster. In these circumstance he was sorry nothing had been done to give relief to those who were so sorely pressed at the present time, and they should look forward to the next Budget to give assistance in this direction.
  MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBYexpressed satisfaction at the words of comfort to the agricultural world which had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He controverted the argument that grants in aid were simply putting into one pocket what had to be paid out of the other, and were no real help to the agricultural world—pointing out that there were some people who paid Imperial taxation who did not at the same time pay rates. As the rates fell entirely on real property, he failed to see how grants in aid could be said to be payments paid out of one pocket and put into the other pocket of the same taxpayer. He was glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer his definite statement that the Land Tax was one of the least defensible taxes there was. On behalf of his agricultural friends, he thanked the right hon. Gen-very much for his good intentions. He was going to say he hoped the right hon. might have the opportunity of putting them into effect, but he hoped in the interest of the agricultural world, that, at any rate, somebody would put these good intentions into effect on the first available opportunity.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLcalled attention to the fact that, on the east coast of England, there were parishes which had been largely washed away by the encroachments of the sea, and urged that it was a great injustice that the inhabitants should have to continue to pay Land Tax fixed for a whole parish, one half of which had thus disappeared. A legal friend, to whom he had mentioned such cases had told him he ought to persuade the Treasury to charge that part of the land which had been washed away upon the foreshore. Obviously it was a monstrous thing that his constituents should have to pay taxes on land that did not exist, and has not existed for a long time. He hoped that the question, about which he had had correspondence with the officials of the Inland Revenue, would really receive the right hon. Gentleman's attention.
  MR. P. A. MUNTZsaid, that for along period it had been imagined that there was very little sympathy in the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer towards agriculture; and it was, therefore, all the

  1399
  more gratifying that they had obtained from him an expression of sympathy. There were differences between different sections of the agricultural community, with regard to the causes of the depression and the remedies that ought to be applied. One of the weaknesses of the agricultural community was, that you never could get them to act together. If they would only realise the enormous influence they would have by being united, probably agricultural depression would not be the urgent question it was to-day. But whatever divisions of opinion might exist, upon one thing all sections of the agricultural community were agreed, and that was the relief of local taxation. Therefore, they could all, with singular unanimity, support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Basingstoke. He hoped that, while continuing the Debate for a short time, they would rest satisfied with the expression of opinion they had elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not go to a Division.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYsaid, the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so fair and so unexpectedly encouraging that he agreed it would be wiser not to go to a Division, but rather to keep the right hon. Gentleman tied to his declaration on the possibility—remote, as the right hon. Gentleman himself seemed to indicate—of his being Chancellor of the Exchequer next year. It was something that they had got an authoritative declaration that the Land Tax was an unfair one. That being the case, there was less reason why it should be made more unjust by the manner in which it was assessed and collected. That was in the power of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remedy this Session. It would not require additional legislation, because the matter was under the control of the Inland Revenue Commissioners. He wanted to call attention specially to the enormous expenses of assessment and collection in connection
  1400
  with the Land Tax. In the parish in which he lived, according to the Return for the year 1893–94, the Land Tax amounted to £76 18s. 3d., and upon this the Assessor, as that officer himself had informed him, was allowed by the Commissioners a sum within a few pence of £6—that was to say, the Assessor was actually paid about eight per cent. for assessing that tax. That was apart altogether from the charge for collection, which was a separate charge, and the eight per cent. was actually added to the Land Tax and collected with it.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: These persons are not officers of the Inland Revenue.
  MR. HANBURY: True, but it is done with the sanction of the Inland Revenue Board. The instructions sent out by that Board were very clear, but what did the Inland Revenue Commissioners do? When it came to paying this man for his services, they actually allowed him the surplus Land Tax which he had levied as a reward for his work. No system could be worse than that, and therefore he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to reform it at once, because it added enormously to the burden of a tax which was admitted to be unjust, and it induced the Assessor to raise as much surplus Land Tax as he could.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEdid not rise to prolong the Debate, but to remind the Chancellor of the point made, earlier in the evening, by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, with regard to the subvention to local taxation out of the new Death Duties. It appeared that whereas under the recent arrangement no less than 2½ or 2¾ millions sterling were afforded to the agricultural interest in relief of local taxation, that provision was now diminished by £210,000. That was a serious loss to the agricultural interest, if the figures were correct, and the point deserved the serious consideration of the Chancellor of the

  1401
  Exchequer. It appeared there had been sudden drop in the sum allocated to local taxation. According to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, the new Death Duties, in respect to personalty, were being largely evaded, the arrangements made under the Finance Act being such as to tempt people to be guilty of evasion. The result was, that the fund from which local subventions came was being reduced, and so an injury was inflicted—he did not say intentionally—but accidentally, upon the suffering agricultural industry. If the hon. Member for King's Lynn was wrong in saying that this loss was suffered, they would all be glad to be told so authoritatively.
  *MR. EVERETTsaid, that the only remuneration which an assessor of Land Tax received was the surplus amount which he collecetd in addition to the quota, and that amount was limited to £5. In many cases the surplus which he took was less than £5. Having regard to the trouble to which an assessor was put, to the repeated calls which often had to be made, to the liability to personal disbursements, to the work that had to be done with reference to the Rate Book, and to other matters, the remuneration was certainly not excessive.
  MR. JEFFREYSasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRODRICKhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make some reply to the observations addressed to the hon. Member some three or four hours ago by the hon. Member for King's Lynn.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he would gladly have replied, but the hon. Member for Kings Lynn had prevented him from doing so by not moving his Amendment. Upon the last Amendment it would have been out of order to reply to the hon. Member. If the hon. Member for King's Lynn had had the courage of his opinions
  1402
  and had moved his Amendment, he certainly would have answered him.
  *MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he had already explained that he had only put the Amendment down as a formality.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the hon. Member for King's Lynn asserted that there had been a heavy lossin consequence of the financial arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Member shook his head; then let him dispose, if he could, of the figures of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. If the hon. Member did not admit the accurracy of the figures he ought to refute them. According to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, in the year 1894–95 the sum paid in relief of local taxation was less by £210,000 than the sum paid in 1893–94. The difference could only be accounted for in one or two ways. Either it was due to a change in the mode of collection, or, to a decrease in the amount of property assessed for duty. If it were due to the latter cause they had some right to complain of the falsity of the expectations held out by the right hon. Gentleman last year. Time after time was the right hon. Gentleman's attention called, during the discussions on the Finance Bill, to the probability of evasion on the part of those who held large sums in personalty. It was pointed out that the result of evasions would be to reduce the profits to the Exchequer, and consequently the sums paid over for the relief of local taxation. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make some re-assuring statement. He did not profess to be so great a pundit on this subject as his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn, nor would he put his official knowledge against that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he thought that when his hon. Friend assured the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taking too bold a line in reckoning on a further increase of £1,500,000 from the Death

  1403
  Duties next year, his hon. Friend very likely over-estimated his statement. It was towards the close of the present year that this operation would begin to bear fruit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiled, but he would tell the right hon. Gentleman of three operations which had come within his knowledge within the last month. One man sitting by him the other day told him he had, in the month of March, out of a total personalty of just over £1,000,000 given out right to his children £500,000. If that man died next March, the actual amount which would be assessed to duty would be about half a million sterling, and actually less would be paid under the new duty than under the old. The second case brought to his notice was that of a lady who was possessed of a considerable income, and also of some £400,000. She had two daughters, and she gave £200,000 to one, and £200,000 to the other. If the lady died next year £400,000 would escape duty, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get less than he would have got before the Finance Act. There was another form of evasion with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not deal. It was that of persons who possessed small property, and not being able to alienate it in their lifetime went to an insurance office and purchased an annuity, distributing what remained amongst their descendants. He could cite the case of a person who two months ago made away with £80,000 in that way. He thought his hon. Friend was right in warning the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this particular tax was going to prove a highly speculative one.
  *SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the main feature in the present Budget was, of course, the reduction of the Spirit Duties, and he could not but regret the course taken by the Government. What was the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He was happily able to grant some remission of taxation, and what
  1404
  tax did he reduce? He told them that, in his judgment, the Land Tax was the worst of all taxes. He said:—
  "I entirely admit that the Land Tax is of all taxes the most unsatisfactory, and I believe one of the first duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to look into the question of the Land Tax with a view of putting it entirely on a new footing. I have not been able to do that this year. I cannot do it this year because I have not the funds at my disposal to enable me to deal with it."
  The right hon. Gentleman might at least have remitted a part of the Land Tax; but instead of that he applied the whole of his surplus to reducing what appeared to be the very best of all taxes.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have not got a surplus.
  *SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that no doubt technically the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not got a surplus, because technically the Spirit Duties lapsed. If, however, he had continued the Spirit Duties at the same rate as last year, he might have reduced the Land Tax, which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said was the worst of all taxes. Instead of doing so he did not touch the Land Tax, but he reduced the tax on spirits. He continued the worst tax, and reduced that which was perhaps not only no evil but a positive benefit to the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reduced the tax on the favourite drink of Scotchmen and Irishmen, and left that on the Englishman's beer as high as ever. It was, indeed, astonishing that this should be the main feature in the Budget of a great temperance reformer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer drew a distinction, indeed, between himself as a temperance reformer and as a Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his Budget statement he said—
  "But I venture to say that my character of temperance reformer I except altogether from my action as Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has always been admitted that in the departmental character of Chancellor of the Exchequer you must deal with taxes in their fiscal character, and not at all upon a social view of them."
  The right hon. Gentleman poured some ridicule on the first Amendment that

  1405
  evening as a composite Amendment; but he was a composite statesman. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he reduced the duty on spirits; as a Member of the Cabinet he introduced the Local Veto Bill. As a Chancellor of the Exchequer he took steps to increase the consumption of spirits; as a temperance reformer he attempted to reduce it. A German Prince Bishop was said to be very exemplary as a Bishop, but to be very tyrannical as a Prince; but it was pointed out to him that, if the Prince went to the lower regions, it would be very hot for the Bishop. Unfortunately, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman gave practical effect to his wishes. Reducing the duty on spirits would tend to increase the consumption, whereas his programme as temperance reformer was likely to remain a matter of theory on paper, and they were not likely to see anything practical done. Although he did not think the Local Veto Bill the best way of dealing with the question, he yet sympathised with the wish of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the consumption of intoxicating liquor; and from that point of view he greatly regretted the course taken in the Budget. They could not technically challenge the reduction of the Spirit Duties, because the extra amount came off automatically; they must, therefore, content themselves with a protest, and by pointing out how surprising it was that the only duty singled out for reduction should be the duty on spirits, and how inconsistent such a course was on the part of a temperance reformer.
  *MR. BENJAMIN COHENsaid, his right hon. Friend who had just sat down, called the Chancellor of the Exchequer a composite statesman, because, while he reduced the spirit duty he introduced a Local Veto Bill. The right hon. Gentleman certainly deserved the sympathy of the House, because he was obliged—such was the irony of fate—to introduce a Budget in
  1406
  which he quoted figures which seemed to furnish convincing arguments against the necessity for the Bill which he had introduced only a fortnight before. He told the House that the consumption of tea had increased by 5,650,000 lbs. and the taste for brandy was declining; that it required a frost to induce people to drink rum, and that the extra spirit duty had not yielded a return at all corresponding to his expectations. The facts seemed to furnish the strongest reasons why the right hon. Gentleman need not have spent his valuable time on the preparation of a Bill, which the figures showed to be less and less wanted each year, instead of devoting it to the subject of local taxation, which he admitted last year was urgently in need of reform. The subject had been so amply dealt with that he would only say that he had studied the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave in his lucid, but in some respects rather disappointing, statement, and he could not get over the fact that the amount given to local taxation appeared to be £210,000 less than last year. They were naturally a little disappointed that it should be so, and all the more because the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them last year that the arrangement was one which he had "at present" made—and he emphasised the "at present"—because he had not the opportunity last year of reforming the system as he admitted it ought tube reformed. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would still give that extension of aid which to their minds seemed to be so necessary, or that he would clear up the doubt they still entertained as to the amount given to local taxation. He passed next to that portion of the right hon. Gentleman's statement which referred to the Post Office Savings Banks. The right hon. Gentleman referred with great satisfaction to the growth of the amount of the deposits in these banks. He shared the right hon. Gentleman's satisfaction. He thought, with some qualifications which he would proceed to state

  1407
  that those returns afforded evidence not only of the prosperity of the masses, but, of what was equal importance, of their thrift, and he would go a little further. He rejoiced that the prudence of the depositors induced them to place their savings in such safe—such absolutely safe—keeping as the Post Office Savings Bank. The right hon. Gentleman would recollect that several hon. Members, he believed his right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's was one, expressed a doubt whether some of these large savings were not attracted to the Post Office Banks by the higher rate of interest allowed by the Government, compared with that obtainable during the last two or three years at the private and great joint stock banks of the country. He confessed he was inclined to this opinion himself when he listened to the right hon. Gentleman's statistics, but an examination of the subject led him to think those influences had not been operating as much as one would imagine. He regretted they had no figures showing the number of depositors in the Post Office Banks, and the approximate amount of each account.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have them. The increase in the number of depositors is extremely large. I have the figures since 1885. I will not give them all. They are too long. But in 1885 the number of depositors was 3,500,000; in 1894, 6,100,000. Persons of larger means put in large sums, and persons of small means small sums. Taking 1893 as compared with 1894, the number of depositors in 1893 was 5,748,000; and in 1894, 6,100,000.
  *MR. COHENsaid, he hoped that valuable Return might be laid on the Table. But it did not quite touch the point to which he wished to draw attention, namely, that the deposits in the private and joint stock banks had grown instead of diminishing. He knew of no returns which gave the total amounts of deposits in the
  1408
  Joint Stock and private Banks of the country. The total must be something prodigious. But he had extracted some interesting figures from a very useful publication by Mr. H. W. Birks, which gave an analysis of the accounts of 12 very large Banks whose head office is in London, but most, if not all, of which had several large and important branch offices in the Provinces. He found that in only these 12 Banks the total of these deposits, which included current accounts—it was most important to bear that fact in mind—was on 31st December, 1894, £151,924,000, and on 30th June, 1893, £137,638,000, so that in those 18 months the deposits at these 12 Banks had increased about £16,000,000, or very nearly 10 per cent., which was a far larger rate of increase than he could trace during any similiar period as far back as he could search the records. And the same result was shown by a reference to the Government statistical abstract. The total deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks increased from £30,411,000 in 1878 to £75,850,000 in 1893, but while the rate of increase in the first ten years of the period he had named rarely exceeded £2,000,000, in the last three years it was about £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 each year. He ventured to trouble the House with these figures because they seemed to him to bring out very forcibly the point he wanted to press on the right hon. Gentleman's attention. In the Joint Stock and private Banks the deposits included, as he had said, current accounts, and he thought the figures he had quoted established conclusively that a considerable portion of them, certainly a large part of the increase, was due to the stagnation and depression of trade which had characterised the last two or three years under review. And he pressed this point on the right hon. Gentleman, because, if he was right, as he was pretty sure he was, in tracing the cause, we must look for the withdrawal of a portion of these deposits from the private Banks and from the Post Office

  1409
  Savings Banks as soon as trade revived, and as soon as those engaged in trade could get better use for their money, than the rate allowed by the Joint Stock Banks or even than the rate offered by the Post Office Savings Banks. This seemed to him, he would not say serious, but a very important point, worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, especially in view of what he hoped were signs of a revival of trade. The right hon. Gentleman referred the other day to the high price of Consols. He had been too long in the City to make even an attempt to foretell the course of the money market or the prices in the City. But it was absolutely certain that the price of the funds had risen to its present record level because of the purchases of the Government and the Banks to employ these large deposits, and because of the purchases of those who sought an investment of their capital while the money market was so easy and the capital needs of their own business so small. But let the money market get a little dearer, which would itself cause Consols at once to drop, and then in a market with a drooping tendency ex-hypothese, the Government would be obliged to realise some of its Consols, bought at a much higher level, in order to meet the withdrawals of deposits which would assuredly follow from an activity in trade. This situation would of course not touch—it would not concern—the depositors, but it would affect very directly the imperial Exchequer. He could appeal to the great city experience of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for India, to consider what would be the effect on the market of large Government sales of stock. And it would be from the Post Office Banks that the withdrawals would primarily be made, because their rate of interest was stationary while that of the joint stock banks would advance with the rate of the money market. While on this question of the rate of the money market he would like to congratulate
  1410
  the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the reduction of the unfounded debt. He could appreciate the temptation to increase the unfounded debt, or at least not to diminish it, which was offered by the low rate at which the right hon. Gentleman could place his Treasury Bills; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to great credit for having reduced the total of this debt from £36,000,000 in 1891 and £21,000,000 in 1893 to £17,400,000, of which only £10,272,000, as he had told them, was in the hands of the public. He complimented the right hon. Gentleman also on the reduction of the funded debt by the handsome sum of over £12,500,000 in the last two years. He regarded these gradual and automatic reductions of our funded debt as the great reserve of the country which he believed would be more powerful, as it certainly was less wasteful than the colossal armaments of the great Continental powers. He rejoiced, therefore, to hear that after this year both the old and the new Sinking Funds will be free from the temporary purposes to which they were diverted, and he hoped it would not be necessary again to alienate them. The right hon. Gentleman referred in his Budget to the sound and thriving condition of the masses of the population. He hoped and he believed the right hon. Gentleman had not overstated the case. But the prosperity of all classes of the people depended, he was, sure, on the soundness of the national finance. That soundness in its turn was built up on our carrying out the Acts of Parliament which in times of less wealth and of less prosperity in all classes of the population, were passed by our ancestors for the reduction of our National Debt, and for the maintenance of the national credit. He apologized to the House for the length at which he had detained it, but he should like to say one word, before he sat down, on the Death Duties, in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman betrayed some

  1411
  disappointment because the proper number of persons did not die when it was expected, and he supposed hoped, they would leave this world, and because of the decrease in the value which the right hon. Gentleman told them had taken place in securities which are not gilt edged. As to the inconvenient time at which the people died he had not the same means as the right hon. Gentleman to pronounce an opinion, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman ascribed too much to this cause. The present year would enable us to judge better. But the right hon. Gentleman did not refer at all to a force which he fancied must have been, to some extent at least, at work—he meant the transfer of property by wealthy parsons in their lifetime in consequence of the new duties imposed last year. But on the subject of the value of securities, he ventured very respectfully to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. He quoted from a list given in The Economist of 16th February, based on the table in the Bankers' Magazine, giving a review of last year. That interesting table gave the increase in the value of 334 very representative securities as £129,163,000 on a total nominal value of £2,747,000,000, or something over 4½ per cent. In that table were included British, Indian and Colonial Government securities, Corporation Stocks in the United Kingdom, and English railway debenture and preference shares. These are what are known as gilt-edged securities, and deducting, therefore, the increase in value on those, which was in round figures £55,000,000, they found that instead of the decrease in value of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, there was an actual increase in value of no less than £74,000,000 sterling on a total nominal value of £1,456,000,000, or about 5½ per cent. He made these corrections, not at all with the view of criticising now what was done last year, but while joining in the well-deserved tribute paid to the skill of the right. hon. Gentleman's advisers,
  1412
  he thought he was a little hasty in attributing a falling-off in his anticipations to a depreciation in the value of securities which, in fact, has not taken place. At any rate, in Suez Canal shares, we know there has been no depreciation of value, and the right hon. Gentleman will be fortunate if his successor in years to come had as good reason to look back with gratitude to his great Budget of 1894 as we all have, from a financial and Imperial point of view, to rejoice at the sagacious and statesmanlike purchase of the late Lord Beaconsfield and the Conservative Government, of which he was the chief.
  *SIR JOHN LENGsaid, the hon. Member for East Islington, speaking as a financial expert with accurate knowledge on the subject, had rendered a valuable service by putting an end to the fallacy that an increase of deposits in the Savings Banks necessarily led to a decrease in the deposits in joint stock banks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of the late Conservative Government was unwilling to accede to the demand to extend the amount of the deposits that might be placed in the savings banks on the ground that it would be competing with the other banks of the country, but it was now established by the figures quoted by the hon. Member for East Islington that the increase of the deposits in the Savings Bank had not affected the business of the other banks of the country. He wished to make a suggestion which he was surprised had not been already made to the House. He thought that it was quite unnecessary on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) to have proposed the renewal of this impost, seeing that there was a source open to him whereby, without adding to the taxation of the country in any form, he might have met this comparatively small deficit. It had been stated upon high authority that the total deposits in the banks of this country equalled, if they did not exceed, the National Debt. A

  1413
  large amount of these deposits remained in the hands of the bankers as dormant capital in the shape of unclaimed balances belonging to deceased persons, or to those who had left the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by taking a very small percentage of those unclaimed balances, would have obtained far more than would have been sufficient to meet this small deficit. This really trumpery tax of 6d. per barrel upon beer had been a source of much controversy, and had the right hon. Gentleman appropriated the unclaimed balances in the hands of the bankers, it would have been unnecessary for him to have imposed fresh taxation upon the country for many years to come. The time had come when, in his opinion, this subject could no longer be blinked. Of course, it would be a distasteful one to the bankers, but financiers had been directing their attention to it for a long time, and had been pointing to the vast sums of money which certainly did not belong to the bankers. In justice and in equity, the country ought to take charge of this money. In view of the privileges that were conferred upon them, the banks ought to be called upon to render a return of their unclaimed balances which had not been claimed for a certain period, say 10, 14, or 20 years, he did not care which. That had already been done in our own Colonies, in the United States, and in Continental countries with the most satisfactory results. In Canada Blue Books were issued every year which showed that considerable sums of money were claimed by persons entitled to them as next-of-kin, while large sums remained unclaimed. After a certain period the latter were transferred to the Treasury and State. He had brought this subject before the House on this occasion in a very imperfect manner, but it appeared to him that in future Sessions the question would demand and would receive more attention than it had done in the
  1414
  past, because the House certainly would not agree to the imposition of fresh taxes upon the country. He rather regretted that as this impost upon beer was to be renewed, that upon whisky had not been also continued. At the same time there would have been no necessity for the re-imposition of either of them if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only been bold enough and courageous enough to grapple with this question of unclaimed balances. Whoever held the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer in future would find himself obliged to deal with this subject, first in the interests of those who directly or indirectly were entitled to the money, and secondly, in order to take care that these millions of money should be applied to the relief of the taxpayers of the country.
  *MR. HARRY FOSTERreferred to the statements that were so frequently made to the effect that the increase of deposits in the Savings and other Banks was an indication of a corresponding increase in the prosperity of the country. Both in Ireland and in this country there had been for many years past a gradual increase in the amount of the Post Office and bank deposits, but he contended that instead of that fact being an indication of the increasing prosperity of the countries, it was, on the contrary, a proof that there was not sufficient profitable enterprises in which to invest money, and that capital was a drug in the market. There was one other question which he thought was worthy of the attention of the House, and that was how far their policy of encouraging the increase of the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank tended to the general prosperity of the country? What became of those deposits? Undoubtedly, by the policy pursued, the Post Office had become a competitor with private banks. If private bankers accepted money on deposit, they used it by

  1415
  helping traders. The money went out by way of loan to customers in pursuit of legitimate trade enterprise, and brought in profit to the bankers and the traders. But money in the Savings Bank could not be used in that way. Those who had custody of the money had not the local knowledge possessed by private bankers. There was an appreciation in Consols to-day, and he believed that was largely due to the fact that the Post Office Savings Bank, being restricted in its field of investment, was a large purchaser of Consols. It had been pointed out that if there were a revival in trade, and greater inducement for the employment of capital in trade where larger interest was to be obtained, the capital value of Consols would decrease, and so the capital in the hands of the Post Office would show considerable reduction. They all rejoiced to see any measure which would induce thrift among the people, but he did not think that they ought to draw the inference from the fact that the Post Office Savings Bank deposits were increasing, that, therefore, the prosperity of the country was increasing, or that it was necessarily a matter for congratulation.
  MR. G. J. GOSCHEN: I do not think that anyone will be surprised that the greater part of the evening has been occupied with matters which concern agriculture. I think it is acknowledged in all parts of the House, and not least by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, that the agricultural interest has some title and right to come before the House and state its case. It is not unnatural, I think, that not only the question of Imperial Taxation, but also the question of Local Taxation, has occupied a considerable part of the discussion. That matter has been dealt with pretty freely by my hon. Friend and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will not allude to the Land Tax, which occupied us at an earlier period of the evening; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, I think, himself repeated that if he saw his
  1416
  way to assist the agricultural interest he would gladly do so, and the question has been raised several times whether the contributions which have been raised have really given to the agricultural interest that assistance which they desire. Under the late Government it is known £4,000,000 went to the ratepayers, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he could have done better, in some different form, for the agricultural interest than by giving them these £4,000,000. But only a portion of these £4,000,000 went to the agricultural interest. A great part went to another class who, we thought, had also a fair claim upon the Imperial Exchequer—namely, the ratepayers in towns. I do not know whether the younger Members of the House of Commons are aware of the pressure which is always put on successive Governments, not only by the ratepayers of the country, but also by the ratepayers in the towns. They made common cause, and defeated the right hon. Member for Midlothian. An hon. Member who enjoyed very much the respect of this House—Sir Massey Lopes—and who took up the question with great ability, established, to the satisfaction of the majority, in a House in which Liberals were predominant, that there was something more to be done with reference to local taxation, and that assistance should be given to the ratepayers. A charge was brought against me by the Secretary of State for India and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I had assisted the landlords unduly. The reply to that was, that the towns also had a claim which was considered to be a good claim, and that claim the late Government endeavoured to satisfy. I pointed out myself earlier in the Session that if any more assistance were to be given to the agricultural community it ought not to be done by the same system of contributions which had prevailed hitherto. We have satisfied the towns, and now the agricultural

  1417
  community have a special claim, and it is perfectly clear that a different system must be adopted if the agricultural community are to be assisted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion replied that I was anxious to assume the crown which at present rests upon his head. Historicus, if I may so call the right hon. Gentleman for the moment, on that occasion confused Hotspur with Prince Hal. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not wish to pose in the character of either of these distinguished historical personages. I have been too long in this House not to know how uneasy lies the head that wears the crown; and I expect it would be the younger or more ambitious Members of the House who would think that the one great object to be striven for would be the Chancellor-ship of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has known some of the drawbacks of having to impose taxation. I can assure him and the House there is another anxiety which is almost greater and involves greater cares, and that is the disposal of a surplus. The right hon. Gentleman has given himself, and any successor who may come after him, an indication of the first step which ought to be taken—the abolition of the Land Tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not say abolition.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The transfer of the Land Tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, no; "recasting'' was my expression.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am afraid I congratulated my hon. Friends too early on the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. But I will leave the point. I must say I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is entitled, when this question turns up, to say that the issue is between an immense income-tax or some form of direct taxation and the relief of local taxation. But I wish to come to the point touched upon by my hon.
  1418
  Friends behind me with reference to the loss which local taxation has experienced during this year through the smaller amount which the old probate duty would realise. The relief given to local taxation through the Death Duties is less than it would have been, because the amount of personalty on which duty has been paid has been less than in previous years. I do not agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out the hope that, because there would be a large increase in the Death Duties aggregated, therefore the share of local taxation would be greater. My impression is, that he said they would receive precisely the amount they would have received before on the personalty which was brought under taxation, and on which the old probate duty would have been paid. That amount has been less by £18,000,000, and the amount received has been £250,000 less than it would otherwise have been. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
  "It is not my Finance Act which has diminished the amount; it is the fact that less personalty has been brought under taxation."
  But then I ask: "Why has less personalty been brought under taxation?" And there I am afraid I must agree with my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn, that less property has been brought under taxation in consequence of the changes which have been made in the law—that personalty has found means to a greater extent than was to be expected of escaping from these taxes which would formerly have been imposed. I am certainly of opinion myself that that has happened which we expected would happen—that the amount of personalty which had been brought under tax has diminished for the first time for a considerable number of years. As to the Death Duties altogether, I will not go into detail as to whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has or has not been disappointed in his calculations, and as to what compensating causes there may be. But we have not yet

  1419
  arrived within the year when evasions, if they are to take place, could be very operative. The donatio mortis causû would appear later, if at all. Public comments have been made on the way in which the Death Duties were coming in. It has been said, "Everything is as the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected." But we could not expect to see any considerable change only a year afterwards, although we have this astonishing fact of the diminution of £18,000,000 in personalty. Then as to the Stamp Duties, and the increase there has been in the receipts from deeds and instruments. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to carry out the suggestion that in future the amounts received from Death Duties and Stamps should be kept separate in the published accounts. The increase was attributed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to greater activity on the Stock Exchange. No doubt that has been the chief reason, and has accounted for half the increase. But was there not a considerable increase in those deeds and instruments which are compiled by lawyers, and which may have occupied them very much during the last three months of last year? We know they have been very active, and that evasion—or, perhaps avoidance, is the more complimentary phrase—has been going on to an extraordinary extent. Estates are being given away and money is being divided during lifetime to an extent which is quite unprecedented. Of course, I know that the right hon. Gentleman has most vigilant watch-dogs, and that the Inland Revenue will do their best. I return to the point of the sources of Revenue, with regard to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken in a somewhat hopeless manner. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that we have reached the limits of tolerable taxation, if not of possible taxation, and that no fresh imposts can ever be devised or can tolerably be borne. That is a very delicate matter to discuss If there be this possibility, it is largely due to that which I should wish to see avoided—the difficulty of both Parties uniting with regard to any point of financial policy. The difficulty is political rather than economic. There certainly are new taxes
  1420
  which might be imposed, and which would not in the slightest degree weigh with any hardship on any particular class in the community. There are means by which the revenue could be recruited, but which become impossible on account of the political question—the misrepresentations which would ensue, and the political use to which any such suggestion would be put. If we look at the remissions of taxation which have taken place, it will be seen that it is untrue to say that any changes in the present fiscal system would be in tolerable. It is undesirable that the country should think that there are no new sources of revenue whatever except increase of the Income Tax or further duties on realised property. With respect to those duties the limit has almost been reached—that is, the limit where still further avoidance would take place. I protest against the idea that we are entirely at the end of our financial resources, and that no recasting of our fiscal arrangements is possible at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman made use of words in connection with expenditure with which I cordially concur, on the whole. But he spoke of the increased expenditure as if he were almost the only economist in the House. He and I have been a long time now in Parliament, and we shall be agreed on one point, I think—namely, that the attitude of the Radical Party has changed extremely with regard to economy and the general expenditure of the country. The Conservatives have sometimes been taxed with being extravagant, and certainly retrenchment was for many years the cry of the Radical Party. The Radicals, it seems, would still be glad to retrench with regard to the Army and the Navy. They do not in that view share the convictions of Lord Spencer, Lord Rosebery, and those who have insisted, most properly, upon the expenditure which is now taking place. They believe, to judge by their cheers and their speeches in the country, that therein retrenchment can take place; but otherwise in what direction do we see that the Radicals now wish to economise? We see no trace of it whatever. There is a sum of £800,000 which must be added to the expenditure—£300,000 for Payment of Members and £500,000 to start Ireland,

  1421
  if Home Rule should be passed. Those are two items which are in the background, for which provision would have to be made if hon. Gentlemen opposite remained in power. With regard to expenditure otherwise, however, is not this the situation? There are two reasons why the Radical Party cease to be economical. One is the great and increasing functions which are assigned to the State—the idea that the Nation itself must do more to raise the comforts, and the amusements even, of the people, that more public money should be spent for the social advancement of the Nation at large. That is the idea which has arisen during later years, which is making enormous inroads, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will admit, on the finances of the country. Much good may be done by this means, but it will have to be paid for. There is another reason which must increase the expenditure of the country. That is the growing view that while—to use a phrase which I detest—the "classes" should pay, the "masses" should have the power to alter the expenditure—the view which insists that payment should mainly be made by those who have the means, and the more pressure necessary for expenditure on which the rate will not fall on the people at large. In the discussions on the County Councils and Parish Councils Bills, hon. Members strained every nerve to secure that the men who were not rated or interested in the expenditure should be on the councils to determine the expenditure of those who paid the rates. So long as that feeling exists, so long as it is recognised that the expenditure should fall mostly, almost exclusively now, on the wealthier classes, no doubt expenditure will increase by leaps and bounds. I view, therefore, with very considerable alarm this increase of every form of expenditure in every Department of the State from year to year. With regard to the actual proposals in the Budget, there is really only one proposal which initiates any change in taxation—that is the question of the spirit duties. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman made use of a somewhat dangerous argument when he justified the choice he made. He dilated upon the heavier burden placed on spirits as compared with the burden placed on beer.
  1422
  Yes; but the right hon. Gentleman should have remembered that that has been considered in the taxation of the various countries; and if Ireland pays this heavier duty on spirits, Ireland is free from a number of taxes paid by the English people. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was on stronger ground when he spoke of the tax not yielding the necessary amount. That was a sound financial argument, provided that that falling-off in the tax is not due in the main to spirits having been kept back because the duty was a temporary one. On that point I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give us some further information. It appears that during April of this year there was an enormous falling-off in the spirit duty, which seems to show that there has been a holding back in the hope of a reduction in the duty. If that be the main reason I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no ground for the choice which he has made. But that is a matter which we can further consider when we come to discuss the spirit duties. I enter my protest at present against the assumption that, because spirits are more heavily taxed than beer, this would justify the choice which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must begin by acknowledging the extremely fair and candid tone in which the right hon. Gentleman has criticised the proposals which it has been my duty to lay before the House. There is so much in what has been said, especially on expenditure and revenue, with which I agree that there is very little with which I have to express dissent in connection with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am glad that he is able to be more sanguine than I am as to the facility of imposing new taxes. I am not young enough to entertain the hope of the disappearance of political difficulties. I do not expect to live to see any great revenue from new taxes; and if you cannot have new taxes, we come to the other point, cannot you have a little more economy? I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I are pretty well agreed upon that, because, in old days, the great expenditure was upon the naval and military services. But that has ceased to be the only demand, and I think we may foresee that, in the future,

  1423
  it will not be the largest item of increased expenditure. I foresee demands in every direction—demands that the State shall undertake duties and expenditure which it has not been in the habit of undertaking in the past. That is the future danger of finance. That is the enormous difficulty that will press upon the generation that is to come with reference to the expenditure of the country. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the feelings and opinions of the Liberal Party in former days. I see no distinction between one Party and another in the rivalry of increased demand for every possible object; and, unless there is some disposition from some quarter—and I see none—to economise, I foresee grave danger in the future. But, Sir, I have been asked to deal with several points. First, with reference to the diminished contribution to local taxation, it is a very great subject of regret to me that in this particular year the sum should be smaller than in some former years.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In all.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Not all. The hon. Gentleman has said that I have a great advantage over him in stating facts, but the advantage lies in no merit of mine, but in the fact that I possess more accurate information than he has. He gives information without facts, and though he has taken enormous pains to prove that he ought to have been right, in fact he is wrong, and he has demonstrated that I ought to have been wrong, while in fact I am right; and the real solution of these two circumstances is that I have the means of knowledge and he has not. He predicted that the revenue would not derive any advantage from the new Death Duties, whereas, in fact, I have derived within a few pounds of what I expected. The reason of that difference in calculation is that I had good advisers and full knowledge, whereas the knowledge of the hon. Member was the creation of his own brain. He evolves his figures and predictions from his own consciousness, and the man who predicts on that ground, though he may be an acute person, is sure to turn out to be wrong in the end. The hon. Member for King's Lynn referred to the falling off in the contribution to local taxation. That is easily accounted for. It has been
  1424
  said that people have been giving away their property in their lifetime and are thus seeking to evade the duties. Even were that so, the time when evasion could operate has not arrived, and perhaps the hon. Member will be surprised to learn that nearly twice the amount has been received in this quarter over that received in the corresponding quarter last year. The real history of the falling off in the contribution to local taxation, in our opinion, is that fewer people have died. The number of people who have sent in probates have been much less than in the year before. That accounts for a considerable falling off. I willingly accept from the hon. Member for Islington the statement with reference to the value of securities. No doubt I was mistaken in using that as one of the elements of the case, but if fewer people die, there will be less probates, and if there are less probates there will be less probate duty. I am convinced, on trustworthy information, derived from the Inland Revenue, that the contribution to the local funds out of the probate duty will be as great this year as it was the year before last, and that any loss from the exceptional circumstances of last year will be covered. We believe that these circumstances will not recur next year, and that it is likely that the contribution, as we estimate it, will next year be an average one. The only other point upon which I need touch is in regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said on the subject of the Spirit Duties. I have no means of knowing the extent to which the falling off in the Spirit Duties is due to holding back; I fully admit that it is an element in the diminution of the yield of the tax. but how much it is I am unable to say. I believe that a main element in this failure is the height to which the tax had risen. There is no doubt that a tax of 700 per cent. upon the cost of an article is a very heavy tax indeed. I believe there are spirits imported from Germany at less than 1s. a gallon, and a tax of 10s. 6d. upon that is a very high tax. There is a point which taxation may reach at which it will cease to yield an increased amount of revenue, as was shown in the case of the tobacco tax of Sir Stafford North-cote. We put this increased amount upon spirits and upon beer, but in the case of beer only did it produce the whole of what we expected from it, and

  1425
  but for exceptional circumstances it would have produced more in the case of beer. There is one refreshing feature in this discussion; at all events, we have not the opposition or the hostility of the brewers. Sixpence extra has been put on the beer and the brewers are content, and they have every reason to be content with the condition of things. They have made a very handsome contribution to the service of the country and to the defence of the country in this 6d., and I am very glad to know that they have not suffered by the operation. I hope, therefore, I shall not be thought to have been wrong in the selection of the tax I am obliged to make in order to meet the deficit which was found in the revenue. I have good reason to thank hon. Members for the very great courtesy and indulgence with which I have been treated in the discussion of the Budget. I am strongly sensible of it, and I hope that, though this is not a Budget which professes any great performances, the House will see that it is founded on reason and common sense, and will now allow the Bill to be read a Second time.
  CAPTAIN BETHELLsaid, that last year, on the Finance Bill, they were told that the English farmer in regard to the Income Tax should be placed on the same footing as the Irish and Scotch farmers. The formula sent out by the Inland Revenue Department charged the English farmer Income Tax upon half his rental, whereas the Irish and Scotch farmers paid on only one-third of their rentals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would readily see the inequality of this. It was also proved in the higher incomes where they got a partial abatement. He had had some correspondence with the Board of Inland Revenue about the matter, and they evidently recognised it as being an oversight in the Finance Bill of last year, but informed him that it was the formula sent out by the Board for declaring the amount of the tax in accordance with the law, and could not be altered by the Department. It was obviously not carrying out the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, and this was unfair to the English farmers. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make such a change in the law as would admit of the Paper sent
  1426
  out by the Inland Revenue Department being altered in regard to this point.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that this was a very complicated question. There were some particulars in which the English farmer had the advantage, and others in which he had the disadvantage. It was difficult to make arrangements which were suitable to all, but when they reached the Committee stage he would endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman full information on the subject.
  Bill read 2°.

  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES (No. 2) BILL.
  Order read for Second Reading.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FRANK LOCKWOOD,)hoped the House would allow the Second Reading of this Bill to be taken. It had, he said, already been printed and circulated. The object of the proposed measure was to enable husband and wife to give evidence in criminal cases when the husband or wife was the subject of a criminal charge. There were certain provisions in the Bill as regarded the limitation of cross-examination, and there was also a provision to the effect that the husband or wife could not be called without the consent of the person who was accused. He thought the Bill, which had already passed the Lords, might very well be read a second time now.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSdid not think the explanation given by the Solicitor General, of this Bill was sufficient. The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the object of the measure was to provide that husband and wife might be competent to be called as witnesses in criminal cases. That might or might not be a right principle to adopt, but the Bill was certainly one which required a great deal more discussion than could be given to it at that hour of the night. It introduced to the general law of the land a new principle in reference to criminal offences. The law, as it at present existed, said that a prisoner was not, excepting in certain cases, a competent witness on his own behalf. Without expressing any opinion

  1427
  one way or the other as to whether it was right to give a prisoner an opportunity of going in the witness-box and submitting himself to cross-examination as to his whole career, and thus laying himself open to prejudice which might in consequence be excited against him, he did think that a Bill of this kind, which went to the very root of the criminal procedure of this country, ought not to be given a Second Reading without a fuller discussion on an occasion of this sort. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the Bill had already passed the House of Lords, but that was no reason why it should be passed by the House of Commons
  without further discussion. At any rate, for his own part, he should desire that a much fuller exposition should be given of it by those in charge of the Bill than had been given by the Solicitor General. The instances in which, at the present moment, a prisoner was allowed to give evidence on his own behalf were very few.
  It being midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1894) (STOCK TRANSFER) (No. 2) BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed for this day, at Two of the clock.

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LICENSING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  FIRES (FALSE ALARMS) BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  A clause (Evidence on behalf of accused)—(Mr. Greene)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
  An Amendment made.
  Bill read the Third Time and passed.

MOTION.
  COMMONS AND OPEN SPACES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Herbert Gardner, Bill to amend the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, and the Law relating to Commons and Open Spaces, presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 251.]

  TRAMWAYS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.
  Order (24th April) that the Tramways (Local Authorities) Bill be committed to a Select Committee, read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Wednesday next.—(Mr Schwann.)

  TIED HOUSES (TENANTS' CONTRACTS) BILL.
  MR. W. ALLEN MR. W. ALLEN (Newcastle-under-Lyme) moved that the Order for the Third Reading of this Bill be read and discharged.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENasked Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Member was in order in making that Motion, seeing that the House had ordered the Bill to be put down for May 23.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member was in order.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: Then I object.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I understand that my predecessor always ruled that such a Motion, made by an hon. Member whose name is on the Bill, could not be objected to.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: Was not that, Sir, when the Motion was made on the day in which the Order was down on the Paper?
  *MR. SPEAKER: That does not make any difference.
  Order read and discharged.
  House adjourned at Fifteen Minutes after Twelve o'clock.

DRAFTING OF BILLS.
Message from the Commons that they have appointed a Select Committee of Five Members to join with the Select Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in the Message of this House of the 5th day of April last, to consider in what manner such inconvenience as arises from legislation by reference in Acts of Parliament to prior enactments can best be avoided.
JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
Report from, that the one hundred and twenty-sixth volume of the Journals (57th and 58th Vict. 1894), with an Index, was ready for delivery: read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding volumes of the Journals have been delivered.
WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889.
Report of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, presented.
ORDNANCE SUREY.
Report of the progress of the Ordnance Survey to the 31st December, 1894, presented.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The following Bills were considered in Committee (according to Order). Amendments were made, and in each case the Standing Committee negatived; the Report of Amendments to be received to-morrow.
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (ACTON) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRISTOL) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HORNSEY) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LEEDS) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LIVERPOOL) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LOWESTOFT) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MANCHESTER) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (PWLLHELI) BILL.—[H.L.]
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WESTON-SUPER-MARE) BILL.—[H.L.]
LOCAL ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.—[H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1850) AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading, read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord TWEEDMOUTH)said, the Bill he asked their Lordships to read a second time was one which had passed through the House of Commons by general consent. The High Court of Justiciary in Scotland had recently decided that cock-fighting did not come within the provisions of the Cruelty to Animals (Scotland) Act, 1850, and therefore in Scotland there was no power to deal with cock-fighting when it took place. Recently there had been a number of very flagrant cases of cock-fighting in Renfrewshire, where cocks had been armed with steel spurs and where the gatherings had been attended by large numbers of roughs. The object of the Bill was to bring cock-fighting within the operation of the Act of 1850, and he hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a Second Reading.
Bill read 2a.

SOLICITORS (IRELAND) BILL.— [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
SAVINGS BANKS BILL.— [H.L.]
Order for Second Reading to-morrow, discharged.

THE RICHMOND LUNATIC ASYLUM, DUBLIN.
THE EARL OF BELMORErose to ask—
"What is the total sum that it is contemplated to spend on the re-modelling of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, Dublin; whether it does not exceed £110,000; and whether it would not be better to build a new asylum in a more healthy locality, rather than to spend a large sum of money in repairing and altering an old building on a bad site?"
He said he made no apology for putting the question, although he was aware that when he was absent earlier in the Session, a question something like his was put by Lord Erne. Upon that occasion the noble Lord opposite made a short statement to which he would refer. Although he was intimately acquainted with many parts of Dublin, he did not happen to know very much about the particular part of Dublin in which the Richmond Lunatic Asylum was situated, but for his purposes he gathered enough as to the facts from the noble Lord's answer when he was last interrogated. With regard to the very peculiar and mysterious disease which broke out some years ago, the noble Lord said the Chief Public Health Officer of Dublin admitted there was a certain kind of contamination of the soil in the neighbourhood of some of the drains. Such contamination of the soil in Dublin was, he was afraid, by no means an uncommon thing. Fifteen or sixteen years ago, when the Intermediate Education Beard was seeking for an office, he, on behalf of the Board of which he was at that time a member, made inquiries into the state of some of the houses in Dublin, and he found that very good houses indeed were to be bought for small sums of money compared with what was to be paid in London. But when they were buying a house the first thing to do was to examine the state of the soil below the house, because most of the houses in Dublin
1300
were built in a time when modern sanitation was not at all understood, and when there was the cesspool system, the consequence being that the soil had been much contaminated. If they wanted to be quite safe when they bought a house it was necessary very often to remove the soil below the house entirely, and in many instances to take out the foundations and rebuild them. That was a very expensive job, and if it were to be done in the case of a large asylum like the Richmond Asylum it would cost a great deal of money. He understood that as the Richmond Asylum was too small at present to accommodate properly the inmates, it was proposed to build a new asylum for some of the lunatics at a place called Portrane, and also to patch up and alter the present asylum. What he wanted to know was whether it would not be better and cheaper either to build a sufficiently large asylum at Portrane for all the pauper lunatics of Dublin and the counties associated with Dublin—Louth and, he believed, Wicklow—or, if it was thought advisable, to build a second asylum somewhere else instead of patching up the asylum at Richmond for the accommodation of a portion of the lunatic poor? The noble Lord, when questioned by Lord Erne, said that the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland advised that with certain alterations the Richmond Asylum might be continued for use by the pauper lunatics of the City of Dublin; but, on the other hand, the Resident Medical Superintendent advised that the site was not a favourable one, and that it would be better to build a new asylum altogether. £65,000 was mentioned by a noble Lord as the probable cost of altering the present asylum, but he (Lord Belmore) had since been informed that so far from that being the case, the probability was that £110,000 would have to be spent. As was often the case with Irish estimates, the sum was nearly doubled. It seemed to some people who had looked into the matter that it would certainly be better to either enlarge the Portrane Asylum or to build a second one, and, of course, to get whatever was possible for the old site, which, he supposed, would be sold. With reference to building in the country he might make one remark. He was for more than a quarter of a

1301
century one of the governors of an asylum which was built out in the country; and he was sure that it would be greatly for the benefit of the lunatic poor of Dublin if they also could be provided with an asylum outside the city. Lord Ribblesdale had pointed out on a previous occasion that there were houses only on one side of the Richmond Asylum; but even in that case, it could not enjoy the favourable conditions of a country site. As to how far this was a question for the Irish Government, he would only remark that it was a question on which the Government could, at any rate, exercise a strong moral pressure and potential voice; and it should not be left to the discretion of the governors alone.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, that the cost of remodelling the Richmond Asylum was estimated at £60,000, and not at £110,000. For that sum it was calculated that suitable buildings and accommodation would be provided for the 800 lunatics of the district, who could not be accommodated in the new buildings at Portrane. The new buildings were estimated to cost £240,000, and to accommodate 1,200 lunatics. He took no exception as to the way in which the noble Earl had explained the whole matter, and reminded the House of what the Government had said before. On a previous occasion he had explained the facts of the case on behalf of the Government, and he had nothing to explain away. As to the moral pressure which the Irish Government could bring to bear on the Board of Control, at an earlier stage the Government took very much the view now stated by the noble Earl. They thought that it might be better to abandon the existing Asylum, and to erect new buildings on a better site, getting rid of the disagreeable associations which seemed to hang about the old site. After reading all the correspondence, he was bound to say that that was still his personal opinion. The Irish Government approached the Board of Control on the subject, and they pointed out an economic objection. The whole site of buildings, they said, if put into the open market could not possibly produce more than £20,000, whereas, while used for the accommodation of lunatics, for which purpose they were adapted, they were worth at least £100,000. In view
1302
of the circumstances of the case, the Board of Control did not feel justified in recommending this course, by which a large additional burden would be thrown upon the taxpayers. This view was also adopted by the Governors of the Asylum themselves, and as he had pointed out when this question was last raised by Lord Erne, the Irish Government were not the supreme authority. If the Board of Control and the Governors were satisfied, the Government could do little more.
VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, that as one of the Governors of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum, he knew that they had had long discussions on this subject. Ultimately the decision was that the present Asylum should be maintained, and that certain buildings should be put up as additions to the old buildings, which were adapted for the purposes of any asylum. The increase of lunacy in Ireland, as well as in other countries, was so great that the Governors had thought it necessary to build another Asylum, and the Board of Control's assent having been obtained, plans were prepared for the auxiliary Asylum at Portrane. The land had been purchased, and the buildings would be in progress very soon. The Medical Superintendent of the Asylum, who was appointed in the time of Lord Aberdeen's Government, had been pressing for these improvements for a long time, and it was entirely by his action that matters had been carried so far. The Governors deprecated the moving of the Asylum, because they thought that it would involve a great waste of money. The small additional structures to the old buildings were partly brick and partly wood, but they answered their purpose very well.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid that this question had attracted very keen attention from all those who took any interest in lunatic administration. That consideration was wider than any narrow local considerations, or any question of small or even large additions to the rates. There had been a very large increase in the lunatic population of Ireland and other countries, and there had been an earnest and benevolent desire to find what was the best curative process to be applied in the treatment of lunatics. The universal opinion was—that

1303
the wisest and best course was to place asylums in healthy country surroundings where the inmates could have the opportunity of gardening and moderate occupation in agriculture, to relieve the mind. This principle would be found in full operation in England, Scotland, and everywhere else in Ireland. It had been applied in Belfast and Londonderry. In the case of the latter city, the asylum was moved to the open country, for a site far more healthy than that of the Richmond Asylum, in the suburbs of Londonderry. He doubted whether there was an asylum in Ireland with a larger number of inmates than the Richmond Asylum. At present it was enormously overcrowded, there being about 400 in excess of the number for whom there was legitimate space. When, under the pressure of their own feelings, assisted by enlightened criticism from outside, the Governors tried to cope with this state of things, they found that the difficulty could largely be met by erecting a new and healthily situated asylum at Portrane. He had no doubt that this new institution would work well, but what was to happen to the lunatics heretofore housed at the Richmond Asylum, who could not be accommodated at Portrane? They would be between 600 and 700 in number. If a large number of the present inmates of Richmond Asylum were to be accommodated at Portrane, a parity of reasoning would suggest that the remainder would get similar advantages by the enlargement of the plans. That would be the obvious consideration unless there were some overmastering convenience or question of money that compelled the question to be adjourned. Of course prudence had always to be borne in mind; but from all he heard on this question he was disposed to think that the noble Lord had not been put in possession of the actual figures with reference to this case. Unquestionably they differed entirely from the facts supplied to him. It was true, he believed, that the local superintendent of the asylum, a very able medical officer, was not at all satisfied with the feasibility of ever making the old asylum a good place for the reception or treatment of the insane, and his opinion was about as valuable as could be obtained Ireland. He was entirely against this
1304
very expensive tinkering policy. What was that policy? Could any milder form of words be used, bearing in mind the correction which he proposed to give to the figures? The noble Lord representing the Government stated on information furnished to him that he believed about £60,000 or £65,000 was the correct figure.
LORD RIBBLESDALE: £60,000.
LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, that at the last meeting of the Governors it appeared that the gentleman whose plans were to be adopted for the alteration, Mr. Naher Roberts, a very able man, stated that in addition to £10,000 already spent in alterations, it was contemplated to spend £49,000 more, that was to say £59,000. He went on to add, however, what was a very important circumstance, namely, that the subsequent cost of completing the arrangements at the North House would amount to about £50,000. This came to exactly the £110,000 stated in the question of his noble Friend. This was stated by the right hon. Mr. Mead, formerly Lord Mayor, in the presence of Mr. Naher Roberts. At the last meeting it was also stated that the present building at Richmond if sold in the market would realise £20,000; so that there was a sum of £130,000 available. Surely the proposition suggested by his noble Friend was a better one—namely, to seek for a new site, with healthy surroundings, in accordance with all the requirements and suggestions of modern science for the treatment of the insane, than to spend this immense sum on a bad and condemned site, in trying to alter an asylum which was situated in a place that would not be tolerated according to the opinions of those who were the best judges of these questions. He believed it had been stated on a former occasion that it was contemplated to buy some further land in the neighbourhood in order to meet the requirements of modern lunacy treatment; and if this were the case, then here was a further element of expense. They therefore had £110,000, plus £20,000 for the old buildings, and the saving in the cost of buying new land in the neighbourhood. But Lord Powerscourt, who knew the locality better than he did, though he personally had some knowledge of it, would be able to say whether or not

1305
there was any very tempting additional land to be bought outside the walls of the asylum. He thought that it would be extremely difficult to find appropriate additional land in the neighbourhood in order to improve the locality and make it more attractive to look upon than at present. This was not, however, the occasion to enter into further details. The question of his noble Friend had been presented reasonably and broadly, and he admitted that the Government had met it fairly. He was aware of the difficulties. It was right that the governors should be very careful to see that value was got for their money, and that they were safeguarding the rights of the ratepayers. It was a difficult and important duty, but the Government possessed some power. They had practically the nomination to the Board of Control of additional members, and the ultimate carrying out of the many arrangements rested with them. The Board of Control was composed of able men, and the opinion of all the Board and the Governors, as well as the Government, was that the best possible result should be attained. No one suggested that the Government, the Board of Control, and the Governors were not anxious to do what was best for these afflicted persons; but his noble Friend had drawn attention to the opinion, widely entertained by persons who considered these great questions of lunacy administration, that, on the whole, it would be wiser, cheaper, and in the interests of lunacy administration boldly to grapple with the question by seeking a site at which no one could cavil, instead of spending this immense sum of money on a site which, at all events, had been seriously impugned, and by altering buildings which up to the present time had not had a very satisfactory history.
LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, that his noble Friend was perfectly right; it would, perhaps, be better and cheaper. As to the question of figures, however, he spoke under correction, because he had not seen the specifications or the estimates; but he thought that in the sum of £110,000 his noble and learned Friend had somehow included £50,000 twice.
LORD ASHBOURNE: They do not do that even in Ireland.
LORD RIBBLESDALEcould hardly believe in any case that the authorities would inform him that these plans would only cost £60,000. If the authorities abandoned the existing buildings and provided elsewhere for the lunatics who would become homeless, the charge would add £100,000 net to the large sum of money which was being spent—£240,000. The whole point centred round the question, "What is the estimate?" The figures in his possession were £60,000, and the noble Lord's figures were £110,000. The information of the Irish Office was more likely to be accurate than an extract from a newspaper, from which the noble Lord had quoted.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested an explanation of the discrepancy. In Ireland it was the universal practice of architects to spend twice the amount of their original estimate. If the noble Lord applied that rule to the case under discussion he would find that, if the original sum was £60,000, twice that amount would approximate to the figures quoted by his noble and learned Friend.
VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, he had seen the buildings, and he did not think that they could have cost anything like £110,000. They were wooden structures, and some of them of concrete; and, generally, they were not of an ambitious character. He thought that there must be some mistake.
LORD ASHBOURNEdid not think that there was the slightest mistake in his figures. The allegation was that £10,000 had been spent already; it was contemplated to spend almost immediately £49,000, that made £59,000, while over and above this it was contemplated at a subsequent date to spend another sum of £50,000. There was a discrepancy of £50,000 between his view and the view furnished to the noble Lord on behalf of the Government. He asserted that the conversation wherein this sum of £50,000 was stated occurred in the presence of Mr. Usher Roberts, who had been superannuated in the fulness of his powers under the 65 years' rule.
House adjourned at Fifteen minutes after Five o'clock.