Sitting of 16 April 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BELFAST CORPORATION AND LONDONDERRY IMPROVEMENT BILLS.
  SIR WILLIAM WALROND SIR WILLIAM WALROND (Devon, Tiverton) moved:—
  "That Mr. Dillon, Sir James Haslett, Mr. Knox, and Mr. Tomlinson be Members of the Select Committee, with five Members to be added by the Committee of Selection."
  *MR. VESEY KNOXsaid, he had to bring before the House a matter he was very sorry to have to trouble the House with, but in the interests of his constituents, and in the interests of the Catholics of Derry and Belfast, he felt bound to state to the House the facts which concerned that Motion. The Belfast and Derry Corporation Bills, as the House would remember, were of a semi-political character. The Catholics of Derry and Belfast opposed these Bills on grounds which he did not, in any way, wish to repeat now. It was thought a hardship by the House that the Catholics of Derry and Belfast, in addition to the costs of promotion, of which they would have to bear their share as ratepayers, should also have to pay counsel to fight their case, which was really a semi-public case; and the Chief Secretary consented that the Committee should be made a hybrid Committee in order that two Irish Members familiar with the legal aspects of this question should be placed upon the Committee, who would be able to express the views of the Belfast and Derry Catholics without their having to go to the large expense of fighting this matter by counsel. It would then have been theoretically possible for the Liberal Party to insist on having one of the four Members nominated by the House to the hybrid Committee. He went, therefore, to the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), and he thought the hon. Member for Louth also spoke with the hon.
  998
  Member. It was represented to him that if the Catholics' case was to be properly put forward, he (Mr. Knox) should not be left to fight the case as the only legal Member, that it was necessary to have on that Committee also a member of the Irish Bar, who should be familiar with the details of this question, and have practical experience of municipal law. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth having consented, somewhat unwillingly, to go on the Committee, the hon. Member for Merionethshire said that he would have no objection to waive the right of the Liberal Party to be represented on that Committee. He (Mr. Knox) imagined the thing was settled. Already the people of the two places were fully informed about the facts. In both Belfast and Derry there was a Committee elected by public meeting, presided over by the Bishop of the diocese, and fully representing the Catholics of Belfast and Derry respectively. These Committees had previously adopted resolutions asking that he, as the Member for Derry, and either the Member for Louth or the Member for Cork, who were perfectly familiar with the technical details of the question, should be placed on the Committee with him. Those resolutions, he was told, were communicated to the Whips of his own Party. He heard nothing more about what was going on until Tuesday last, when, to his great confusion, he saw upon the Notice Paper the Motion in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Walrond), which proposed that the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo should be placed on this Committee. The hon. Member for East Mayo, he had no doubt, would wish to serve on this Committee as a politician and an Irish Member from motives which they could quite understand. He did not wish to say anything which he could avoid. All he had to say about the hon. Member for East Mayo was that he was not a lawyer, that he was not familiar with these legal questions, and that he had no knowledge of Irish municipal law. For these reasons the hon. Member could not be expected, on that Committee, to express in the same way as one who had that knowledge the views of the Catholics of Derry and Belfast. It appeared that some information reached the people of Belfast on the

  999
  Monday that the hon. Member for East Mayo was to be put upon this Committee. The people of Belfast immediately met, and they passed unanimously, as he was informed, a resolution praying that the hon. Member for Louth and himself should serve on this Committee on their behalf, and they did so for the express and very natural reason that they did not want to have to go to the great expense of raising money to appear before the Committee by counsel. The Catholics of Derry, when they had the information, immediately met under the presidency of the Administrator at a public meeting in St. Columb's Hall, Derry, and passed a resolution which he thought it his duty to bring before the House:—
  "That, having regard to the complications and legal difficulties likely to arise in the discussion and amendment of the Derry Bill, it is impossible to dispense with an Irish lawyer acquainted with such matters either on the Committee or as counsel. That, as there are competent Irish lawyers in the Irish Party, it seems hard that we should he put to the expense of employing counsel in opposition to the Bill. That the local solicitor wire at once to Mr. Dillon and Mr. Ellis, and to his Parliamentary agents, representing these views. That the solicitor communicate to Mr. Knox these resolutions and urge upon him the importance of having us saved the expense of counsel."
  He did not desire to blame the hon. Baronet for putting the Motion upon the Paper; but he thought it his duty to his constituents to bring the matter before the House. He had communicated with the hon. Member for East Mayo to try by every means in his power to induce him to withdraw his name, but he had absolutely refused to do so, and he had deliberately chosen to put this additional burden upon the Catholics of Derry and Belfast. In the case of the people of Derry this was particularly cruel, for they had every year to subscribe for political purposes more than the whole of Connaught. It was quite impossible for him to fight their case on the Committee single-handed against the leading lawyers of the Parliamentary Bar. He had mentioned to the hon. Member the name of Mr. T. Harrington, as well as that of Mr. T. M. Healy, as one who seemed to him (Mr. Knox) to meet all the requirements; but the hon. Member for East Mayo refused to allow his name to be added. He (Mr. Knox) admitted his powerlessness, but he felt it his duty to
  1000
  make his protest against this proposal. He felt it his duty to do so publicly, and to say that he would take no responsibility upon himself, under these circumstances, for the conduct of the case of the Catholics of Belfast. He would do his best, but he did not profess to be able alone to obtain the just rights of the Catholics and to save them from a very heavy expense. He begged to oppose the Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JOHN DILLONsaid, that so far as he was aware, the course pursued by the hon. Member for Derry City was a departure from the practice of the House. For his part, he did not believe the hon. Member had served the interests of the Catholics of Belfast or of Derry by the speech which he had just made. The hon. Member had adopted a very peculiar course. He belonged, or professed to belong, to a Party in that House, and so long as he belonged to any Party in the House, he was bound to observe the customs and traditions of that Party—[Nationalist cheers]—and so long as he professed before his constituents to support that Party, he ought to confine a discussion of the character which he had initiated there that day to the councils of that Party. What had been the course that had been adopted by the hon. Member? He did not communicate, as it was his duty to communicate, to him (Mr. Dillon) or to his colleagues in the Party any particular desire that he entertained as to the composition of this Committee. The hon. Member communicated with him on the morning he saw the notice placed in accordance with the usual custom on the Notice Paper. Yes, but the hon. Member had forgotten to say that his communication was of a threatening and extremely offensive character. The hon. Member announced that he intended to publish it in the newspapers. He (Mr. Dillon) did not think the House of Commons had any desire, more than was absolutely necessary, to go into this matter. What he complained of was that such a subject should have been inflicted on the House at all. The action of the hon. Member for Derry compelled him to do what he did with the greatest possible reluctance, and that was to state the facts connected with this matter, and also bring under the notice of the House a communication, he had received in connection with the

  1001
  appointment of this Committee, and which he thought constituted a breach of the privileges of the House. After reading the communication which he had received on the previous day he would state, for the information of the House, all the facts, so far as he was concerned, connected with the selection of the names on this Committee. The letter he had received was from a firm of solicitors in the city, who, as he understood, had charge of the opposition to the Bill, and who, as it appeared to him, had sought to manipulate a Committee of the House in the interests of their clients. The letter was as follows:—
  "We have been instructed by our clients, the solicitors to the Derry Catholic Ratepayers' Association, to inform you that in order to avoid the expense of counsel, they consider that the presence of a competent Irish lawyer, such as Mr. T. M. Healy, on the Committee of the Derry and Belfast Bill is absolutely necessary. These instructions were telegraphed to us by our clients as soon as they heard that you had been nominated by Sir William Walrond to serve with Mr. Knox."
  He submitted that it was a breach of the privileges of the House, for here they had a firm of solicitors seeking to manipulate a Committee, and to nominate Members on that Committee. It appeared to him to be an extraordinary proceeding. He did not, however, think he would be acting justly towards the firm if he were not to state that he received that day from them a letter, which he would describe as between an apology and an explanation, which he he would read:—
  "We are sorry to learn that exception has been taken to our letter of yesterday's date. We certainly thought there could be no impropriety in our conveying to you the views of our clients, who represent the Catholics of Derry. We do not see that, acting on the instructions of our clients we have committed any impropriety. If we did so we sincerely regret it and hope you will pardon us."
  He did not think that that letter removed the offence that had been committed by this firm of solicitors. He wished now to explain what occurred, so far as he was aware of it, in connection with the appointment of this Committee. It was agreed that the Bills should be referred to a hybrid Committee and four of the Members were to be nominated by the House. He could not
  1002
  accept the version given by the hon. Member for Derry City as to what had passed between him and the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party when this Committee was to be constructed. But he knew what had passed between himself and the Trish Party in reference to the matter. He was told, as one of the Whips of the Irish Party, to communicate with one of the Whips of the Opposition as to whether the latter would be willing to waive their right to a seat on the Committee and thereby allow the Irish Party to be represented by two of its Members, inasmuch as the matters to be dealt in were purely Irish. The Whip of the Opposition sent him a message to say that he was quite willing to do so, and it then remained in his hands, or in the hands of his Party, to nominate two names, and not in the hands of the hon. Member for North Derry. If the Member for Derry City had any particular views to bring forward it was his duty to bring those views to his knowledge, or to the knowledge of his colleagues. He abstained from doing so.
  *MR. KNOXsaid he was informed and believed that the local people had brought their views, which were also his, before the Whip of the Party.
  MR. DILLONreplied that no such information was brought before him. Acting, therefore, according to his best judgment, he suggested the names of the hon. Member for Derry City and himself, as chairman of the Party, because he thought the Bills were of extreme importance. The invariable practice was followed, any departure from which would involve the House in personal wrangles of the most disagreeable character. He had no notice of any objection to these nominations until the morning of last Tuesday, when he received from the hon. Member a threatening notice warning him that he would institute a personal wrangle in the House unless he withdrew his name. He had not the slightest objection to withdraw his name, but not either at the request of the hon. Member for Derry City nor at the invitation of the firm of solicitors who had charge of the opposition to the Bill. In the interests of decency and order, and for the sake of his Party, he extremely regretted that this discussion

  1003
  had been inaugurated on the floor of the House of Commons instead of in the ranks of the Party, where such a matter ought to be settled. He hoped this was the last time such a thing would occur. The hon. Member said that he was opposing the wishes of the Catholics of Belfast. Well, he was going to hold a public meeting in Belfast the week after next, and he invited the hon. Member to come down to Belfast—[cheers]—
  *MR. KNOX: I accept the invitation.
  MR. DILLON: Upon that occasion, because the platform was a much more suitable place than this House to introduce these personal wrangles between Irishmen.
  *MR. THOMAS ELLISthought he ought to explain the part he had taken in this matter. He was invited in the usual way by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to nominate two Members on behalf of the Opposition. Very soon after receiving that intimation, he received from the hon. Member for Cork a request that, if possible, the Liberal Party should waive its right to nominate one Member upon the Committee on this Bill. Considering, first of all, that this Bill was of a purely Irish character, and, secondly, that, looking to the precedents, there was no probability of an Irish Member being put upon it by the Committee of Selection, he acquiesced in the request Subsequently to that, he had a conversation with the hon. Member for Derry and the hon. and learned Member for Louth upon the two points referred to. He intimated to them that it was not his duty at all to nominate any Irish Member, but simply and solely that of the hon. Member for Cork, who was the Whip of the Irish Party. After considerable delay, the two names of the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. and learned Member for Derry City were submitted to him. It was then his duty to hand those two names to his hon. Friend the Ministerial Whip. He handed them over on the day before the Recess; and he believed, in deference to the Irish Members themselves, he was willing to place the Motion on the Paper on a day on which it could be discussed. That was the only part he had in the matter.
  CAPTAIN DONELANsaid that, as the Whip of the Irish Party to whom the hon. Member for Merionethshire had just alluded, he desired to say that the hon. Gentleman had stated with absolute accuracy the part he (Captain Donelan) took in the matter. He might also state that no suggestion of any kind was received by him or any Whip of the Irish Party, either from Belfast or from any other part of Ireland, with reference to any objection there might be to any names in connection with this Committee.
  Amendment to strike out the name of Mr. Dillon negatived; Motion agreed to.

  GRIFFIN'S DIVORCE BILL.— [H.L.]
  Ordered, that a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House copies of the Minutes of Evidence and Proceedings, together with the Documents deposited in the case of Griffin's Divorce Bill [H.L.].
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Divorce Bills that they do hear Counsel and examine witnesses for Griffin's Divorce Bill [H.L.], and also that they do hear Counsel and examine witnesses against the Bill, if the parties concerned think fit to be heard by Counsel and produce witnesses.—(Sir John Mowbray.)

  FINANCIAL STATEMENT, 1896–7.
  Copy ordered,
  "Of Statement of Revenue and Expenditure as laid before the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when opening the Budget."— (Mr. Hanbury.)
  Copy presented accordingly: to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.— [No. 143.]

QUESTIONS.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON FINANCIAL RELATIONS WITH IRELAND.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noticed, with regard to the completed evidence which has now been published by the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations with Ireland, that the only statement which the Commission has been able to furnish of the amount of the annual payments of taxation by Ireland, so far as derived from Customs and Excise Duties, is based on figures provided by carrying companies for a period of four months ending on the 31st March 1891, and that the estimate of Irish payments during the last 77 years, since the abolition of the Customs cordon, rests solely on this basis; and that, as regards; one important item (tobacco), the Treasury has, since that date, found reason to question the result of the four months inquiry; whether some 76 per cent. of the total Irish revenue is raised by such duties, while only some 53 per cent. of the British revenue is so raised; and whether, as it is most important that this House should have actual figures when it comes to deal with the grave questions raised by the Royal Commission, he is willing, by the re-establishment of the Customs cordon, or by some other equally effective Measure, to take such steps as may be necessary to ascertain more exactly what the annual amount of taxation raised from Ireland really is?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): The Royal Commission has of course given full consideration to this subject, and it is open to them to make any recommendation upon it which they may think fit. In the absence of such a recommendation, I do not think I should be justified in taking such a step as is suggested by the hon. Member.

  INLAND REVENUE OFFICES (GLASGOW).
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: I beg to ask the
  1006
  Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the great inconvenience arising from the want of adequate facilities for the stamping of documents at the Inland Revenue Offices at Glasgow, as set forth in the memorials sent to the Treasury by the Faculty of Procurators, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Stock Exchange of Glasgow; and whether he is prepared to remedy the grievances complained of?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I gave to a similar question on the 9th instant—namely, that the Memorials are being considered by the Board of Inland Revenue and that, when their Report is received, I will give the matter my careful consideration.

  CHITRAL.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, in the recent Afghan operations, an invasion has taken place of portions of the Bashgal Valley, formerly tributary to Chitral, and without the sphere of influence of the Ameer as settled by the Durand Treaty, they being also within the countries visited by Sir G. Robertson after the conclusion of that Treaty; and why the Agreement with the Amir of Afghanistan, dated 12th November 1893, published in The Standard, and in India in the Bombay Gazette of 21st March, and other papers, as laid before Parliament, has not been circulated to Members?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): In the Durand Treaty it was originally proposed that the whole of the Arnawai or Bashgal Valley should remain within the sphere of influence of the Indian Government. When the delimitation began in the field it was found that the Bashgal and Arnawai Valleys ran in different directions, the Arnawai draining into the Kunar from the east, and the Bashgal river from the west. The frontier was, therefore, revised, and the revision placed within the sphere of influence of the Amir of the Bashgal Valley, which is west of the Kunar river, and over which the Mehtars of Chitral have

  1007
  claimed rights. This included part of the country visited by Sir G. Robertson in 1890 and 1891. The delay in circulating the papers which I laid on the Table on March 27 has been partly due to a misunderstanding, which I regret, and partly to the, Easter holiday. The final order to circulate was issued to the printers on Monday last, and the book will be in the hands of Members tomorrow, I believe.

  ST. STEPHEN'S CHURCH, DEVONPORT.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Salford, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on what grounds they have delayed, since November 1894, giving their sanction to the extension of the Church of St. Stephen, at Devon-port, considering that the Lord of the Manor had provided the site, and that the funds were in hand?
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: The delay referred to in this Question has not been caused by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. When application was made to them to accept a conveyance of the site, they instructed their solicitors at once to take the necessary steps for completion The draft was prepared and forwarded to Lord St. Levan's solicitors, who, after keeping it for a considerable time, have now returned it for engrossment, which will probably be completed in the course of a few days.

  POLICE PENSION (COUNTY CORK).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, on 19th June 1893, in reply to a Question put by Mr. Bodkin, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland promised to have the case of Thomas Butler, formerly a policeman of County Cork, but who was discharged in consequence of gunshot injuries inflicted on him by a fellow constable, inquired into, with a view to increasing the pension of £10 18s. 4d. to £21; whether Dr. Gordon was sent to inquire into this man's case, and what was his report; and whether, in view of the fact that he suffers a good deal as a consequence of his injuries and has to be frequently
  1008
  medically treated, the Government will consent to the sum of £21 being allowed to him?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Inquiry was made into this case as promised by my predecessor, and the Surgeon of the Force visited and medically examined the man. The Surgeon's report is a confidential document, and its contents cannot be disclosed. Butler's case was brought by my predecessor under the consideration of the Treasury, who stated that the pension awarded to him was the highest they could properly sanction to a constable of his pay and service, and that they were unable to sanction any increase in the amount.

  GLYN VALLEY TRAMWAY.
  MR. GORELL BARNES: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the light railway entered in the Annual Railway Returns of the Board of Trade as the Glyn Valley Tramway, is assessed to the railway passenger duty; and, if not, why not?
  THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Tramway in question is regarded for Revenue purposes as an ordinary road Tramway, and not as a Railway, and has not therefore been assessed to the Railway Passenger Duty. Carriage Licences are taken for the Cars which are used for the conveyance of passengers.

  EDUCATION ACT (IRELAND), 1892.
  MR. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed Bill to amend the Irish Education Act of 1892 will make provisions for extending the Act to the whole of Ireland, for enabling justices, as in England, to punish refractory children or to send incorrigible ones to a reformatory, and for defraying the whole cost incurred in carrying out the compulsory clauses out of the Imperial Treasury, and not, as at present, out of the local rates; and, if he can now state when he will be in a position to introduce the Bill.
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Pressure of other business has caused delay in

  1009
  connection with the Irish Education Bill. I am unable at present to name a day on which the Bill will be introduced, but due notice will be given to hon. Members opposite.

  SCHOOL BOARD PROSECUTIONS (LONDON).
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) if any further steps can be taken to comply with the request of the London School Board for the expeditious hearing of summonses away from the existing police courts, and if he can see his way to further assistance being given by the justices of the peace; and (2) if such or similar requests have reached him from Macclesfield and other provincial boards?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): As regards the first paragraph of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave last, month to the hon. Member for West Nottingham. The present arrangement, which I mentioned then, continues, I believe, to work well. As regards the second paragraph, complaints have reached me from Macclesfield and, perhaps, a dozen other places, that it is the practice at Petty Sessional Courts to hear School Board cases last in the order of business, although the defendants may have been notified to appear at the opening of the Court, and that, in consequence, they are often unnecessarily associated with persons charged with criminal offences. To remedy this, if possible, I have issued a circular letter to the magistrates of these places and other large towns, suggesting that arrangements should be made at their courts similar to those in force in the metropolis.

  MAHARAJA OF JHALWAR.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he has yet received the final decision of the Viceroy with regard to the deposition of the Maharaja of Jhalwar; what opportunity has been afforded to His Highness to defend him-
  1010
  self from the charges which have been brought against him; and, is he now able to lay upon the Table of the House any Papers or correspondence relating to this matter?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Papers containing the decision of the Government of India have been received within the last few days at the India Office. The Maharaja Rana first gave his explanations to the Political Agent, was next invited to give them in December to the Governor General's Agent, was finally allowed to send them direct to the Viceroy, and was at every stage of the Inquiry invited to explain and defend himself. I am considering what Papers can be laid on the Table of the House in connection with this subject.

  INEBRIATES.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will supply, by Return or otherwise, complete information as to the treatment of habitual inebriates and the Curatel procedure in Austria?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZOX,): Subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, I shall be very glad to lay upon the Table the information which we have received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna upon the subject to which my hon. Friend calls attention.
  MR. KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will introduce at an early date a Bill to carry out the Report from the Departmental Committee on the treatment of inebriates?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The Bill is in draft, but I am afraid I cannot say when I shall be able to introduce it. The establishment of inebriates' reformatories, and the detention in them for long periods of persons habitually convicted of drunkenness are, as the hon. Member is aware, an entirely new departure in our methods of dealing with crime, and the details of the Measure, especially from a financial point of view, require the most careful consideration.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (IERLAND).
  *MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has received a copy of a Resolution unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Oldcastle Board of Guardians at their meeting on 3rd February 1896, asking Her Majesty's Government to institute a Board of Agriculture for Ireland, with powers to deal with the various agricultural interests from which the majority of the Irish people derive their subsistence; and, what action will the Government take?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A copy of the Resolution referred to has been received. The intention of the Government to establish a Board of Agriculture in Ireland was announced in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the present Session of Parliament. The Bill on the subject is nearly ready, but whether it will be possible to introduce it in the present Session, must depend upon the state of Public Business.

  EVICTION (COUNTY DERRY).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire whether James Henry, J.P., Draperstown, Derry, who got possession by decree, for a small debt in 1889, of the farm from which John M'Kenna and a helpless family of 11 children were evicted, redeemed the holding, as required by law, by the payment of arrears then due and demanded under a six months' notice served on him, when he got possession, by the Drapers' Company in March 1889, and which notice expired in September 1889; whether he is aware that the Drapers' Company decreed James Henry for rent due, evicted him in December 1889, and held possession of the farm themselves up to May 1890; whether he will give the names of the persons who had informed and satisfied the Land Commissioners that James Henry was a bonâ fide tenant when they gave him the public funds to purchase this land; was M'Kenna examined, or his claim inquired into, and was he given the option of purchasing by the Land Commissioners, and, if not, why; and whether, under all the circumstances, he will cause the Land Commission to re-open
  1012
  this case with the view of allowing the widow and orphans of M'Kenna to get back their farm?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners have no information as to the dealings between the Drapers' Company and James Henry between the year 1889, when James Henry obtained possession under a decree as a mortgagee, and the 20th January 1891, the date of the Agreement for Sale by the Company to Mr. Henry. The affidavit to this Agreement stated that Mr. Henry had been in occupation since 1889. The Inspector, in his Report, dated 9th May 1891, stated that the tenant was in occupation and had acquired the holding as above stated in 1889. The basis of the proceedings under the Land Purchase Act is an agreement between landlord and tenant, and the Commissioners have no jurisdiction to give any other person the option to purchase a holding. No claim was made by John M'Kenna when the holding was inspected, and no proceedings were taken by him to have the Agreement for Sale set aside and, therefore, there were no proceedings in which he could have been examined. As already stated, the title of the purchaser has been registered under the local Registration of Title Act, and the Commissioners can take no steps to re-open the sale.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY CLOSING) ACT, IRELAND.
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Constabulary authorities can state the number of licensed houses in Kanturk visited by Sergeant Sullivan, R.I.C., on Sunday 29th March and 5th April respectively, as also the number of visits paid to the houses; and were these visits made with the knowledge and sanction of the District Inspector and in connection with the Sunday Closing Act; and, if so, how many prosecutions were instituted and how many convictions obtained for breaches of the Act?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Eleven licensed houses were visited by the Sergeant named on the 29th March, and seventeen on the 5th April. The visits were not specially made by the directions

  1013
  of the District Inspector. It is part of the ordinary duty of the Sergeant to make such visits for the purpose of seeing that the Sunday Closing Act is enforced. There were no prosecutions arising out of his visits on the dates mentioned, but two prosecutions are pending for breaches of the Licensing Act on the 3rd instant.

  PARISH MEETINGS.
  MR. A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the great amount of trouble and expense to which many parishes have recently been put by the fact that one man may demand a poll at parish meetings for the election to parish councils; and whether the Government will take steps to amend the Local Government Act 1893, so that no poll can be held unless at least five electors demand it?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): I am quite alive to the inconvenience of the existing arrangement, whereby one man may demand a poll at parish meetings for the election to parish councils, and, without pledging myself to the precise number, I propose to alter the existing practice before the polls occur again in the direction suggested.

  POOR LAW SCHOOLS.
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, what are the duties of the Educational Inspector of Poor Law Schools, and to what extent he can communicate his views to the managers of the schools?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am afraid my reply must be rather long. It is the duty of the school inspectors to examine the teachers and children in Poor Law Schools for the purpose of ascertaining the efficiency of the teachers, and of advising the Board what certificates should be granted to them, and what sums should be paid to the guardians in respect of their services, and of determining in what standards the children can be passed, and in what cases certificates of efficiency can be given. They
  1014
  have to report to the Board on the Schools as regards desks and furniture, books and apparatus, order and organisation, and the state of the school generally. They have to inquire and report as to industrial training of the children, the nature of the instruction, whether it is of a bonâ fide character, whether the children exhibit sufficient skill in. the subjects of instruction, the number of children, and whether any award is recommended to be paid to the guardians in respect of the instruction. The Inspector is also, in his Report, to make any observations or remarks he considers desirable on any of the matters which have come under his attention. The Board, in a letter addressed to School Inspectors in 1878, stated that it was of great importance that any recommendations by the Inspectors which might be brought under the notice of Boards of Guardians should be such as could be supported by the Board; and that all matters of importance which the Inspector considered required the attention of the guardians should, in the first instance, be communicated to the Board, and not directly to the guardians, by the Inspector.
  MR. H. H. BEMROSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether considerable numbers of children have been retained of late in several of the London workhouses for want of school accommodation and for other reasons; whether the arrangements made for the accommodation of those children are in many cases unsatisfactory; whether reports to that effect have been made by the Inspector and confirmed by the Inspector-General; and, why no change has been made?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Local Government Board are aware that considerable numbers of children have been retained of late in London workhouses, and that the arrangements where they are so retained are not in all cases satisfactory. Questions as regards school accommodation for Poor Law children have necessarily been much in abeyance pending the inquiry of the Poor Law Schools Committee.
  MR. GEOFFREY DRAGE, on behalf of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Lord WARKWORTH): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether it is a fact that owing to the system prevailing at

  1015
  the Local Government Board the Chief Inspector General of Poor Law Schools was not aware that children of nine years were being worked as half-timers, though Mr. Holgate, the Educational Inspector, had reported that he found children of nine working as much as ten hours a day?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The Assistant Secretary of the Board, who is also Chief General Inspector, would not be aware of cases where children were improperly dealt with as half-timers or working an unduly long number of hours, unless the facts were reported by the School Inspector. When the Board are informed of irregularities in this matter they would communicate with the guardians. I am not aware that Mr. Holgate, the Educational Inspector, has stated that he found children of nine years working the number of hours mentioned.
  MR. GEOFFREY DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether any explanation can be given for the complaint made by Inspector Holgate before the Poor Law School Committee, that he had been for six years trying to get the Local Government Board to issue a new general order, defining what should be the limit of hours during which the children should be put to labour; and, whether the matter is still under consideration?
  MR. CHAPLIN: Mr. Holgate recommended the issue of an order which, among other matters, would have denned the hours of labour of children, and the question having been considered, an order was drafted. The draft was the subject of communication with the general inspectors and school inspectors of the Board. There were differences of opinion among the inspectors, and, subsequently, after some personal conferences, a new order was prepared, and was under consideration at the time of the appointment of the Poor Law Schools Committee. Subsequently, as it was probable that such matters as those with which it was intended that the order should deal would be considered by the Committee, the question of the issue of the order was deferred. Since the Report of the Committee has been made, directions have been given for the
  1016
  preparation of an order in connection with which regard will be had to the recommendation of the Committee.

  CYCLING ACCIDENTS.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the recent remarks of London coroners with respect to the reckless riding of cyclists, and especially lady cyclists, in the crowded thoroughfares; whether he can state the number of authenticated fatal and of serious accidents to cyclists that have occurred in the streets of London during the first quarter of the present year; and, whether, for the protection of the cyclists themselves as well as to minimise as much as possible a growing public danger, he will consider the advisability either of limiting cyclists to the less crowded thorough fares, or subjecting them to more stringent regulations in the main arteries of traffic?
  *MR. J. W. LOGANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a large number of clerks, artisans, and others now used cycles to enable them to get home, and by the aid of which they were enabled to house their families in healthy neighbourhoods, away from the slums and crowded areas of large towns; and whether cyclists had not an equal right to the use of the streets with the more fortunate owners of carriages and pairs and of men who run coaches as a hobby? [Laughter.]
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have obtained a Return which has been prepared by the police after careful inquiry, showing the number of fatal and serious accidents which have occurred to cyclists in the police district during the first quarter of the year. The number of fatal accidents was three; of serious accidents, such as fracture of limb, concussion, internal injuries, 12; in two cases only were the persons injured women. There have been, besides, numerous cases of slight accidents in which persons have either gone to their homes or, if taken to the hospital, have not been detained there. Considering the great number of those who ride in the streets, I cannot say that these figures are high or call for any exceptional measures.

  1017
  At the same time, there can be no doubt there is a great deal of reckless riding; during the first quarter of the year 318 persons were summoned by the police for this and similar offences. I have no power, however, to limit cyclists to certain thoroughfares or to subject them to regulations not applicable to traffic generally; but the police do everything in their power to minimise risk. I think that possibly is an answer to the hon. Member who has put the supplementary Question. In only one case, so far as T have been able to ascertain, has a coroner recently made any remark on the subject of these accidents in the London streets.

  EDUCATION SCHEMES.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether1 an index will in future be appended to each scheme published by the Education Department under the Intermediate Education (Wales) Act and the Endowed Schools Acts?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: This Question is correctly addressed to the Charity Commission, as schemes under the Endowed School Acts, including the Welsh Act, are originally prepared in the Charity Commission Offices. As regards such of those schemes as have not yet been submitted to the Education Department, the Commissioners will undertake that they shall contain a table of contents, and, in; the case of schemes already submitted I to, but not yet published by, that Department will supply such a table of contents if requested to do so by the Department.

  HOUSE OF LORDS (COMMONS' ACCOMMODATION).
  SIR HENRY HOWORTH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the utterly inadequate accommodation for Members of the House of Commons in the Peers' Chamber; whether he is aware that the space thus allotted to Members of Parliament, on occasions when an interesting Debate is in progress, is very largely encroached
  1018
  upon by others who are not Members of Parliament; whether he will state what persons have access to this space as a matter of right in addition to Members of Parliament; and, whether it would be possible to find room for them elsewhere?
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked whether, if any redistribution of the places available for visitors were effected in the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman would take care that members of the general public were given an opportunity of viewing the Chamber?
  MR. HERBERT LEWISasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in Colonial Legislatures the members of one Chamber were provided with seats when they were summoned to attend the other House, and whether he would consider the advisability of making similar provision for the accommodation in the House of Lords of Members of the House of Commons?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The matter is not one which comes under my jurisdiction, but by the courtesy of the Lord Great Chamberlain, I am permitted to state that the space at the disposal of Members of the House of Commons is limited to some 50 seats in the galleries, and to the space inside, and behind the Bar. The seats in the gallery, known as the Commons Gallery, are exclusively reserved for Members—while to the space at the Bar, younger sons of Peers as well as M.P.'s are admitted. I am informed that on the occasions alluded to more stringent regulations will be taken to keep the space at the Bar for the exclusive use of M.P.'s. I do not see where further accommodation can be found. I have no jurisdiction in this matter, but I will repeat what hon. Members have asked to the Lord Great Chamberlain.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON EXHIBITION BUILDINGS.
  SIR HENRY HOWORTH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government propose on an early date to continue and complete the Exhibition Buildings at South Kensington, and thus furnish suitable accommodation for the most valuable collections of their kind in Europe; and, if so, if he

  1019
  can see his way to proposing a Supplementary Estimate this year to commence this much needed work?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: The question of continuing the Exhibition Buildings at South Kensington is receiving the attention of the Government. The existing plans having been prepared on the assumption that the buildings were required partly for the purposes of the secretariat may have to be reconsidered in connection with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education. Under these circumstances, I do not see my way to proposing a Supplementary Estimate this year.

  AMERICAN MAILS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the action of the postal authorities of the United States of America in ordering that all newspaper matter for Great Britain, Ireland, and the Continent must be dispatched by the American line of steamers plying between New York and Southampton, except directed for transmission by a particular ship of the British lines, a condition requiring that every person posting in America should know the names and dates of sailings of every British vessel carrying mails to Great Britain and Ireland; whether he is also aware of the great delay and inconvenience that this arrangement will cause to the general public, and especially to all interested in newspaper enterprise in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Continent, by reason of the delay in delivery of newspapers; and whether he will make representations on these matters to the United States postal authorities with the view of cancelling this arrangement, or will he take any other action in the matter?
  MR. W. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the delay in the delivery of American newspapers generally, but in particular to the residents of Ireland and North Britain; whether he is aware that all newspaper matter mailed in the United States will have to wait the weekly departure of the American Line
  1020
  steamer; whether the route viâ Queens-town, having been proved to be more expeditious for Ireland and North Britain, will this route in future be preferred to Southampton for those mails; and whether he can arrange that the American Post Office will allow the designation viâ Queenstown to suffice instead of naming the steamer as well?
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Government of the United States have ordered that all newspaper matter posted in or through the United States is to be carried to Europe by one particular line of steamers which provides fast steamers only once a week; and whether Her Majesty's Government will indicate to the Government of the United States that such action causes great delay and inconvenience to the intercourse between the two countries?
  MR. HANBURY: I will answer the Questions of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, the St. Patrick's Division, Dublin, and the Kirkdale Division, Liverpool, together. The Postmaster General has already caused a communication to be addressed to the Postmaster General of the United States on the subject referred to, and he is now awaiting a reply. It should be borne in mind, however, that in common with all other postal Administrations of the Postal Union, the Post Office of the United States is at liberty to make its own arrangements for the transmission of correspondence from that country?
  MR. FIELDasked whether they were to understand that it was in the power of the American postal authorities to act according to their own views in this matter, and delay the correspondence coming to this country?
  MR. HANBURY: They have, I understand, done nothing which they have not power to do.

  IRISH MAILS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Department propose to remove more of the work from the Holy-head and Kingstown packet, at present performed by sorting clerks attached to

  1021
  the Dublin General Post Office; and, if! it can he stated why the provincial (Ireland) mails on Monday mornings, and the Sunday morning day mail to England, which is equally as heavy as on; ordinary week days, are now sorted on the London and Holyhead Travelling Post Office?
  MR. HANBURY: The Department does contemplate providing for a transfer of some slight additional sorting duty from the Holyhead and Kingstown Packet to the London and Holyhead Travelling Post Office, where it can be more conveniently performed, but details have not yet been settled. At present only a portion of the provincial correspondence for the Northern Division of Ireland, in addition to the Sunday morning mail to England, is sorted in the London and Holyhead Travelling Post Office on Sunday. The arrangement is adopted with the view of utilising the services of some officers of the Travelling Post Office who would otherwise not be fully employed.
  MR. A. D. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, before the contract was made by the late Government for the mail packet service between Holyhead and Kingstown, the usual notices were given inviting tenders; and, if so, will he state the date on which the notices were given, and the date on which the tenders were to be sent in; or what, if any, steps were taken to secure an open competition for the contract; and, for how many years the contract was made, and what is the total amount that will be payable to the company under this contract?
  MR. HANBURY: A public notice inviting tenders for the conveyance of mails between Holyhead and Kingstown was extensively advertised in the principal London and provincial newspapers, as well as in Scotch and Irish newspapers, on the 7th and 9th of July 1894. The same advertisement also appeared in the Contract Journal of July 11, 1894. The last date for receiving tenders was August 31, 1894. The new contract with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company is for 20 years from April 1, 1897, and the total payment is £98,000 a year.

  MONEY LENDING.
  COLONEL DENNY: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he will consider the desirability, in view of the revelations of money-lending transactions made recently in the Courts of Law, of introducing some legislation whereby the creditors of people engaged in small businesses may be protected from the actions of such lenders, by throwing the onus upon all lenders of sums above a specified rate of interest of proving the solvency of the borrower at the time of lending, their claim otherwise not to rank; and, whether he is aware that one Isaac Gordon, having lent the sum of £45, was repaid £108, and still claimed £41 from the borrower?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): The particular case referred to has not been brought under my notice, but I am aware similar cases have recently occurred. I shall be glad to consider carefully the suggestion made in my hon. Friend's Question; but I would point out that it involves a partial re-introduction of the laws against usury, and would require very ample public discussion before any action could be taken upon it.

  SCIENCE AND ART STUDENTS.
  MR. ROBERT WARD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if he is aware that it is the practice of the Science and Art Department to refuse to consider the examination papers of science and art students on the ground of trivial irregularities in the conduct of the examinations by the local committee; whether, with a view to obviate the hardship to the examinees, he will consider the advisability of modifying the stringency of the regulations, to make them more in accord with the regulations which govern the Oxford and Cambridge and other local examinations; and, whether, in the case of the Alsager (Cheshire) Technical Education Classes, the Department is acting within its powers in refusing to allow an examination to proceed because of the strained relationship existing between the Department and the Secretary of the local committee?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GOEST,): The Science and Art Department refuse to recognise examinations at which irregularities have occurred, which make it doubtful if the examinations have been fairly conducted. The Committee of Council could not modify the stringency of their regulations as long as the examinations involve the grant of public money. The Alsager examination is proceeding.
  MR. WARDasked whether the examinees, who took part in the examination referred to in his Question, were to suffer for what had occurred?
  SIR J. GORSTreplied that the examinees would meet with no difficulty.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SCHOOL.
  The following Question appeared on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. DRAGE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether it has been reported to the Board that part of the buildings of the South Metropolitan District School, which are used as an infirmary, are quite unfit to be inhabited by any class of children; and, whether any steps have been taken or are contemplated in the matter?
  The HON. MEMBEE said: I beg to withdraw this Question, because the grievance to which it refers has been redressed.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will make provision in the Clauses of the proposed Land Bill, having reference to the evicted tenants, that in all cases where it has been shown to the satisfaction of the Land Court that the houses of the evicted tenants had been wilfully burned down or thrown down by the landlord or his agents, that provision be made for their rebuilding from advances to be made out of the Irish Church funds.
  *MR. J. L. CAREW: As this Question obviously relates to the Clongorey Estate, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether
  1024
  his promised intervention in the interest of a settlement of the dispute between the landlord and tenants on this estate has taken place, and if so, with what result?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My answer to the Question on the Paper is that I cannot undertake to make an exception to the general principle which I laid down in connection with this matter in my speech on the introduction of the Land Bill. With regard to the supplementary Question, the position is this: I stated in this House that I should be glad to co-operate in bringing about a settlement between landlord and tenants when I received an invitation from the parties to do so. I have not yet received any direct invitation to intervene, and, as I have said, I shall not take action in the matter until I have. But there may be some difficulty now in consequence of the fact that the six months for which the 13th Clause or Act of 1891 was re-enacted have now elapsed. Until the Land Bill is passed, with the provisions for re-enacting the clause for a further period, it is doubtful whether anything can be done in this matter at all.
  MR. ENGLEDOWasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that many of the demolished houses had been built by the tenants themselves, and that their erection had involved great toil and expense?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That may be so, but it cannot affect my answer.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: In reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to his willingness to act in the character of a mediator in this matter, and with reference to the difficulty that has arisen owing to the lapse of the 13th Clause of the Act of 1891, I desire to ask him whether, in view of the introduction of his Land Bill containing provisions for the re-enactment of the Clause, and the probability of those provisions becoming law, he would take advantage of an opportunity of conducting negotiations for a settlement if such an opportunity should present itself, and not neglect it merely because the 13th Clause of the Act of 1891 has lapsed for the moment?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Of course I shall be glad to consider the

  1025
  advisability of doing as the hon. and learned Member desires, but my conduct must depend ultimately upon the passing of the Land Act.

  LABOURERS' ACTS (IRELAND).
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the letter of the Local Government Board, dated the 20th March 1896, on the subject of Loans Labourers Acts, in which it is stated for the information of the several sanitary authorities that the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have decided that loans for the purposes of the Labourers' Acts shall, in future, be granted on the same terms as those pre-scribed for loans under the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890; and, whether that circular letter authorises the several sanitary authorities throughout Ireland borrowing money at this new and reduced scale of interest to pay off loans contracted for the same purpose under the old and higher scale, and thus very materially relieve the taxpayers of Ireland; and, if not, whether he would consider the advisability of taking steps to facilitate such an arrangements?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Circular in question notifies to Rural Sanitary Authorities the terms on which future loans are granted for the purposes of the Labourers' Acts, but it does not authorise the borrowing of money at the reduced rate to pay off loans previously obtained.

  CARLOW GRAND JURY.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether the recommendations contained in the Report by the Local Government Auditor, having reference to the accounts of the Carlow Grand Jury, which was read to the Grand Jury at its last meeting, have been carried out; and, if so, will he ascertain, what resolutions were adopted by the Grand Jury, carrying out those suggestions; and, if not, will he state what steps he intends taking in order to support or enforce that official's recommendations; and (2), whether it is a fact, as stated by the Auditor in his Report, that there were two or three instances of
  1026
  arrears being represented on the baronies at the summer assizes, when no arrears actually existed; and, if so, will he ascertain from the Auditor how much of those erroneous arrears had been illegally collected, and what he proposed doing with that amount?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Secretary to the Grand Jury has been asked to state whether any action has been taken on the recommendations made by the Auditor, who it appears drew attention to the fact that arrears for two baronies had been incorrectly represented at summer assizes, and that in some baronies such arrears did not exist. I may add, in reference to the concluding sentence of the first paragraph, that the Local Government Board have no jurisdiction over Grand Juries, and that the Board have no power to take any steps to support or enforce the Auditor's recommendations.

  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the varied system of tabulating the arrests for drunkenness, by which the usual annual Return is prejudiced in value as an index of intemperance; whether his Department would consider whether by some general instructions from it the local authorities could be persuaded to adopt some common basis of tabulation; and, whether, failing any adequate results there from, he could suggest the issue of any other Return likely to be more accurate as an index of intemperance, such as the coroners' verdicts on persons found to have died of intemperance?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: My attention has not been called to this matter, but I know that in the case of all Returns of this description there is great difficulty in securing their preparation on a uniform rule. If the hon. Member will inform the Home Office as to the points on which the preparation of the Return differs in different forces, instructions will be issued with a view to securing uniformity. The hon. Member will find that the number of verdicts of deaths from excessive drinking is given in the Coroners' Returns in the Judicial Statistics, but there is reason to think

  1027
  that coroners' juries vary much in giving this verdict, and that it cannot be regarded as an index to the amount of intemperance.

  SHIRT TRADE (DERRY).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that his refusal to exempt the Derry shirt trade from the provisions of the Factory Act 1895, requiring no work to be given out to girls employed in a factory, has caused grave discontent in Derry, which threatens to dislocate the industry; and, whether, having regard to these facts, he will reconsider his decision?
  MR. W. JOHNSTONasked whether the right hon. Member was aware that similar dissatisfaction was felt in the shirt and collar trade in Belfast?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I believe that certain representatives of the trade in Belfast desire that there should be some exemption. No, Sir, I am not aware that any discontent has been caused by my decision not to grant an exemption to the shirt and collar industry under Section 16 of the Act of 1895. No communications or complaints to that effect have reached me, nor have I seen any reason for reconsidering my decision?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Derry Trades' Council have passed a unanimous resolution asking that no exemption shall be given?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Since I made my decision I have not received any representation whatever on the subject.

  IRISH BOARD OF WORKS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether Mr. Robertson has yet taken up his duties as Chairman of the Irish Board of Works; and, whether he has applied to be allowed to give evidence in favour of his former employers, the Great Northern Railway Company, against the Donegal Railway Bill, which is designed to extend the light railways built under Board of Works control when the First
  1028
  Lord of the Treasury was Chief Secretary; if so, whether such application will be granted?
  MR. HANBURY: Mr. Robertson's warrant of appointment was dated the 1st instant, and he has taken up his duties at the Board of Works. He has not applied to be allowed to give evidence for or against any Bill. I personally informed. Mr. Robertson that his appointment was deferred until he was able to give an assurance that he was under no obligation to the Great Northern Railway Company to give evidence. That assurance was accordingly given before the 1st instant, the date of his appointment.

  SWINE FEVER.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the importation of swine from Derry to the port of Morecambe is prohibited; and, whether he will endeavour to have the prohibition removed now that there is no longer any swine fever in Derry or district.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): With a view to guard against the introduction of swine fever into Lancashire, the local authority have made a regulation prohibiting the movement of swine into the administrative county, except for slaughter and under licence, but the regulation does not affect the through transit of swine to the districts of other local authorities under certain specified conditions. I should not feel justified in asking the local authority to remove restrictions which they consider necessary, and I think rightly, for the protection of their district, and which it is quite competent for them to impose.

  PLATE LICENCE.
  MR. T. G. ASHTON: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any reason exists for the retention of the plate licence other than that of its being a source of Revenue.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There exists a considerable difference of opinion on the subject of the plate licence amongst the various branches of the trade, and many of those

  1029
  who pay the licence are opposed to its removal, and that seems to me a reason against its removal. But in the course of the last few days I have received a large number of memorials in favour of the removal of this licence, many of them forwarded by Members of this House. I think there is some misapprehension on the subject, because those who have got up these memorials, which are drawn up on a printed form, evidently suppose that it has something to do with the Budget, whereas it has nothing whatever to do with the Budget. The proceeds of the licence are paid into the Local Taxation Account and distributed to the various local authorities, and I very much doubt whether the local authorities would like to see it abolished.

  NAVAL COLLEGE.
  SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, if, before coming to a final decision with regard to the site for the proposed Naval College, he will order and consider a Report on the suitability of the shores of Southampton Water and the Solent for such an institution?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The Admiralty have given consideration to the claims of the various sites, and they have decided upon Dartmouth.

  PRISON CLERKS.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legal rights, if any, of the clerks serving in Her Majesty's prisons, who paid an examination fee of £3 to be placed on such a scale of pay as will, with reasonable probability, insure their succeeding to a maximum salary of £400 to £450 per annum, in accordance with the terms of the Order in Council of 22nd March 1879, and The London Gazette Notice of 9th September 1879; whether it is obligatory upon the Treasury to approve or to allot such a number of positions in the Prison Department, with reasonable annual increments and without undue classifica-
  1030
  tion, as will give to every clerk who paid such examination fee a reasonable prospect of reaching a maximum salary of £400 to £450 before being compulsorily retired at 60 to 65 years of age; whether, in view of the number of such clerks now waiting for promotion at a salary of £150 after 15 years' service, any special claim for consideration or compensation existed in equity, annual increments of £10 for the next 25 years being necessary to enable them to reach £400 before retirement, even if immediately promoted; and, whether, in view of the great importance of the question, and in the event of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown being considered unsatisfactory, the Treasury would sanction and bear the cost of a test action being brought in the High Courts on a point of law or the amount of compensation.
  *MR. HANBURY: The Treasury do not consider that any point of law is involved, and they are not prepared to consult the Law Officers or to bear the cost of a test action in the High Court. T must repeat what was stated by my predecessor, on the 9th April 1895, namely:
  "Candidates before 1891 paid a fee of £3 because there were posts in the Department of the maximum value of £400 and upwards to which they could be promoted without further certificate. This rule still holds good for such clerks. There has been no loss of prospects, and there can be no question of compensation. In 1891 the fee was reduced to £1, because clerks since appointed cannot be promoted to the higher posts without the issue of a fresh certificate and the payment of a fresh fee."
  It is not obligatory on the Treasury to maintain or create posts with unnecessarily high pay for the benefit of any class of civil servant, and no prisons clerk enters the Service with a claim to rise to a salary of £450 a year before retirement, or to compensation if he fails to do so.

  BISHOP MONKTON PARISH CHURCHYARD.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has received a statement from Mr. Walter Renton, of Bishop Monkton, near Ripon, to the effect that

  1031
  the Home Secretary has been wrongly informed as to what occurred at the recent burial of Mr. William Simpson in the churchyard of that parish, and stating that on the occasion in question, the gates which are usually opened for funerals were locked, and the funeral party had to enter at a gate which has not been used for any purpose since the last Nonconformist funeral eight years ago, and by steps which are old, dangerous, and overgrown with weeds and moss; and, whether he will make further inquiry into the facts?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have received the statement, and see no reason to question the accuracy of the allegation that the gate through which the funeral had to enter, though formerly the principal entrance to the churchyard had not been used for some time. Under these circumstances, whether it can properly be described as the main entrance, is perhaps open to question. As I stated before, the matter is one in which I have no authority, and I cannot undertake to make further inquiry.

  RAILWAY BILLS (PARLIAMENTARY DEPOSIT).
  MR. W. O. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in the interests of the public and with a view to assist in the promotion of new railways, especially suburban lines, he would consider the advisability of proposing a material reduction in the amount of Parliamentary deposit on Railway Bills, especially as existing railway companies, if they paid a dividend at their last half-yearly meeting, are exempt from making any deposit when proposing any extension or a new line; and, whether he is aware that the promoters of an important suburban railway in 1894 were compelled, in accordance with Standing Orders, to deposit the large sum of about £100,000; and that the directors of the said railway were, in the Session of 1895, placed in the position of having two Bills before the House at the same time, one for abandonment, in order to satisfy the requirements of the bankers who advanced the money for the deposit, the other for additional powers?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The matter referred to in the hon. Member's Question, could only be dealt with by legislation, which should only be introduced after most careful inquiry. I cannot hold out any hopes that such legislation will be introduced. It is scarcely possible for me to deal within the limits of an answer to a Question with the last paragraph.

  ACCIDENT ON BOARD THE STEAMSHIP WESTBURY.
  MR. M. AUSTIN: On behalf of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the accident which happened on board the steamship Westbury, in the North Sea, on the 5th March last, whereby the second engineer of the vessel lost his life; whether he is aware that the accident was caused in consequence of the vessel having a deck load of bale goods, which at the time of the accident was covered with tarpaulins, thus making it very dangerous for the crew getting from one end of the vessel to the other; and that after the second engineer fell overboard considerable delay took place in getting out the boat, in consequence of the bales of goods being stowed around and about the tackle of the boat; whether any Inquiry has been held into the cause of the loss of life of the engineer in question; and what powers, if any, have Board of Trade officers to prevent officers taking vessels to sea loaded with deck cargoes, and thus rendering it dangerous to the lives of those on board?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been called to the case of the Westbury, and a formal investigation has been held into the circumstances referred to in the Question. The Court of Inquiry found the master in default for not having fixed life lines or taken other precautions for the safety of his crew. He was severely censured, but, owing to what were regarded as extenuating circumstances, his certificate was not dealt with. The Court also found that the slight delay that occurred in getting the boat into the water did not contribute to the loss of the life of the second engineer.

  1033
  The Board of Trade have power, under Section 459, to order the detention of a ship unfit to proceed to sea without serious danger to human life by reason of overloading or improper loading.

  ALLEGED TRESPASS (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland how long has Patrick M'Quaide, of Gola, county Monaghan, been confined in Dundalk Gaol for contempt of court by trespassing on his evicted farm; is he aware that the prisoner was committed to gaol for trespass without being heard, through having no means to pay his train fare from Monaghan to Dublin, and that he cannot make any application for his release, as he is entirely destitute of money to pay a solicitor; and will the Government convey him from Dundalk to Dublin to enable him to ask for his discharge; and, if not, will he state how this man can be released from custody?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,): M'Quaide was committed to gaol on the 30th of January last. I am aware that he did not appear in obedience to the summons served upon him to answer for his contempt of court, but am not aware of his reasons for not appearing or whether he is destitute. His proper course would appear to me to be to forward a memorial, in which he should endeavour to purge his contempt, either to the Receiver, or Chief Receiver, or the Judge who committed him. Should M'Quaide's presence in Dublin then become necessary the Government will convey him there.
  MR. T. J. CONDON: May I ask whether under the present law a Judge of the High Court can keep a person in gaol for contempt of court for the term of his natural life?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Ordinarily speaking, when a person is committed for contempt of court, he remains in gaol until he has purged his contempt.

  CARRYING GUN WITHOUT LICENCE.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  1034
  of Ireland whether the Crown has yet decided to institute proceedings against Patrick Keating, of Kylnoracy, Carrick-on-Suir, for carrying arms without a Magistrate's licence; whether the Excise Authorities have had their attention called by the police to the evidence given in the prosecution against him for shooting at a girl named Hannah Hickey on the 9th March last; and, whether it is the duty of the Inland Revenue to take steps to recover the penalty to which a person who carries a gun on the public road without an Excise licence is liable?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It has been decided not to institute proceedings against Keating for carrying a gun without having previously obtained a licence under the Peace Preservation Act, as he had been duly licensed to carry a revolver, and the Crown, moreover, were advised he kept the gun in ignorance of the requirements of the law. The matter has been brought under the notice of the Inland Revenue Authorities, but it is not known whether they will take proceedings against the man under the Gun Licence Act. The question of instituting proceedings under this latter Act rests entirely with the Inland Revenue.

  RIVER SUIR FISHERIES.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the bye-laws published by the Inspectors of Irish fisheries which respectively prohibit fishing with nets of any kind in the non-tidal waters of the River Suir and prohibit fishing in its tidal waters with nets exceeding 40 yards in length, at present await the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant in Council; (2) whether he is aware that their enactment will deprive more than 100 families of their means of livelihood, and that the nets, the use of which is sought to be now prohibited, have been used from time immemorial in the non-tidal and tidal waters respectively, and without restriction as to length in the latter; and (3) whether steps will be taken to provide a less expensive appeal than that to the Lord Lieutenant in Council from the decision of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries in cases such as this?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The bye-law referred to will not, I am informed, be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant in Council for about a month, so as to afford all persons an opportunity of appeal. I have no information as to the second paragraph, but any representations in regard to the matter should be made to the Committee of the Privy Council on the hearing of the appeal. As regards the third paragraph, any alteration of the existing procedure would require legislation, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the suggestion, I cannot hold out any hope of taking the matter up at present.

  EJECTION FROM A BURIAL GROUND.
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has received from Mrs. J. C. Reynolds, of Paxford, an assurance, sustained by evidence, that on her being ejected from the churchyard of Blockley, Worcestershire, on the occasion of the burial of Mrs. Dark, she was told by the Vicar that he was acting in accordance with a rule which had been in force for some years, which rule, he has informed the Home Secretary does not exist, and, whether he has inquired, or will inquire more particularly into the circumstances of the case?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have received further communications on this matter, both from Mrs. Reynolds and from the Vicar. These do not necessitate any modification of the answer I have already given, and I do not purpose making further inquiry in the case, which is one in which I have no authority whatever.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has not received a communication to the effect stated in the question?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have received a communication from both sides, from Mrs. Reynolds, and from the Vicar, and they contradict each other.

  ARDMORE FISHING INDUSTRY (COUNTY WATERFORD).
  MR. N. K. SHEE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether
  1036
  he has yet taken into consideration the petitions presented by the fishermen and other residents of the district of And-more, county Waterford; (2) whether he is aware that the late Mr. Villiers Stuart, of Dromana, as published in the Appendix to the second Report of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works in 1888, mentions Ardmore as an admirable site for a breakwater, and points out the advantage it would confer on the fishing industry there, and the probable development of it; and that the evidence of Sir Robert Sandeman also emphasises the necessity of a small slip or breakwater at Ardmore; and (3) whether, in view of the evidence referred to, the Lord Lieutenant will make a favourable reply to the prayer of the petitioners.
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are as stated in the second paragraph, though it is to be observed that the Royal Commission in their Report did not accept the view of the late Mr. Stuart; at all events, they made no recommendation in favour of the scheme suggested. The Memorial in question has been received, but I must repeat what I have already stated, that there is no evidence before me to indicate that the work referred to has any special claim to Government assistance.

  ARMY PENSIONS.
  MR. R. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that a considerable number of Army Reserve men and Army pensioners residing in the borough of Oldham have been recently deprived of a large portion of their quarterly pensions for borrowing small sums of money on the security of their pension certificates of identity; and, whether, seeing that by the Army Regulations, whilst the Army Reserve man forfeits £1 10s. for pledging his certificate, the Army pensioner if in receipt of £5 6s. 6d. a quarter forfeits the whole of such sum, although the offences are similar, he will reconsider the cases on being furnished with particulars, and consider the advisability of taking steps by which it may be made illegal to lend money on such certificates?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL WILLIAMS,): In the case referred to in the Question, a moneylender was found by the police to be in illegal possession of a number of certificates, and he was fined for the offence by the magistrates; 57 Reservists were each mulcted in a month's pay, viz., 15s. 6d., and 11 pensioners each lost a month's pension, averaging £1 7s. 9d.

  "COSTA RICA" PACKET ARBITRATION.
  MR. J. F. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can state the progress that has been made in the Costa Rica Packet Arbitration Case, and when he expects a final decision in the matter will be arrived at?
  MR. CURZON: The British case was presented to the Arbitrator in November last. The Netherlands counter-case was presented last month, and is now being studied by the Governments and parties concerned with a view to such rejoinder as is contemplated by the Convention. The case is following its regular course, but it is impossible at present to say when a final decision will be reached.

  TRAVELLING CONCESSIONS FOR MEMBERS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, whether he will consider the advisability of enabling Members of this House to obtain travelling concessions to attend to their legislative duties; whether he is aware that in many constitutionally governed countries the Members of the Legislature have free passes or lower fares upon the railways; and, whether this point will be considered in connection with the Budget, so as to give Members of this House equal facilities to those afforded in other nations?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am aware that in some countries passes over railways are given to Members of the, Legislature, but I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Member that the system is likely to be introduced in this country.

  TRAINING SHIP (BELFAST LOUGH).
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1038
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(l)whether, considering the number of seamen coming from the coasts of counties Down and Antrim, he will use his influence with the Admiralty to have a training ship placed in Belfast Lough; and, (2) whether he will state if it is the intention to continue to keep the Grampian industrial school ship in Belfast Lough?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As regards the first paragraph, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the First Lord of the Admiralty to his previous question of Tuesday last. As to the second paragraph, I understand the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools has from time to time suggested the abolition of the Grampian training ship, and the transfer of the boys to a suitable house on shore, and that the Committee in October 1894, passed a resolution to the same effect. I am making inquiry as to how the matter stands precisely at present.
  MR. MCCARTAN: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman declines to use his influence with the Admiralty in regard to the matter mentioned in the first paragraph?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think the hon. Member will see, if he reflects upon it, that he can hardly ask me to use influence with the Admiralty with regard to a matter in which their decision has been more than once stated in this House.
  MR. MCCARTAN: You are responsible for the government of Ireland.
  SIR JAMES HASLETT: Is the right hon. gentleman aware that a home for the inmates of this ship has actually been provided?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I was not aware of the fact, but I will make inquiry.

  MAIL PACKET CONTRACTS.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will agree to appoint a Select Committee of the House to consider the question of mail packet contracts for India, China, and Australia, and refer to it the tenders received in reply to the recent notices sent out calling for the same?
  *MR. HANBURY: There are many objections to referring to a Select Committee of the House of Commons tenders received for a mail packet service, and the House has already a very large control over these contracts before they are concluded. An Inter-Departmental Committee, representing the Treasury, India and the Colonies and the Post Office, of which the right hon. Member for North Leeds is Chairman, has been appointed to make arrangements for the new contracts for the India, China and Australia Mail Services, and the tenders for these services, which have been recently invited, will be considered by that Committee when sent in. The hon. Member is of course aware that no mail packet contract is binding until it has been approved by a Resolution of the House, as I stated in the Debate on the Packet Service Vote in answer to the hon. Member himself on the 10th instant.

  BITES FROM RABID DOGS.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the great advantages derived by many persons suffering from bites of rabid dogs from the cures possessed by the McGowan family of county Cavan, he will direct the Auditor of the Local Government Board to pass as items of necessary public expenditure the fees paid for sending persons to these men to be treated and in every case cured?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not sure that the Local Government Board have any power to interfere with the discretion of their Auditor in reference to the course which should be taken by him in dealing with payments of this kind.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLasked, whether it was the fact that 'many Conservative Boards of Guardians were in favour of giving this family payment for their work?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It may be so. The facts have not come before me.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman himself had power to interfere in the manner suggested?
  *Mr. GERALD BALFOUR: No, I have not.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGHasked whether any other Member of the Government had such power?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOURreplied in the negative.

  REVERSIONERS (IRELAND).
  MR. S. MORRIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has yet been able to inquire into the case of Jones v. Aylward as promised, and what is the result of such inquiry; whether he is aware that the tenant is to be evicted by the reversioner, who refuses to be bound by the act of his predecessor, and whether the forces of the Crown will be used on that occasion and, whether he will see that the provision in the Land Bill making tenancies created by limited owners binding against reversioners is made applicable to this and other cases where ejectment proceedings have already been taken?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Further inquiries have been made in reference to this case, and I am informed that the reversioner obtained a decree for possession, but that execution was stayed to enable the tenant to appeal. The hearing of the appeal was fixed for to-day in the Court of Appeal. The Government has no discretionary power in the matter of giving the forces of the Crown in the execution of legal process.
  MR. MORRISasked whether the Government had power to stay proceedings in the matter?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, I believe not.

  BELGIAN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the Belgian Government is having swift steamships built to carry Belgian agricultural produce to the British market at nominal freights: And, in such case, what steps he proposes to take to prevent such foreign agricultural produce being conveyed to London at preferential rates over home produce?
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand that the Belgian Government are making arrangements with the Société Cockerill for a service of cargo steamers between Ostend and the Thames. They are not to be large vessels, but of 600 to 700 tons, with a speed of 10 or 12 knots. There will be no subsidy.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked whether he was right in thinking that, whilst there might be no actual subsidy given, the agreement included preferential rates over the Belgian State lines, which practically constituted a subsidy?
  MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Sir; I believe that is true, and that very easy terms are afforded for through rates on the Belgian lines.
  MR. FIELDasked whether it was the case that these charges were practically subsidies which were granted by the Belgian Government in consequence of the fact that these vessels were built in Belgium and gained the shipping bounty?
  MR. RITCHIE: We have no information of that kind, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question upon the Paper I will endeavour to answer it.

  ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what opportunities are afforded to the men of the Royal Naval Reserve of loading and firing modern breech-loading guns; and, in the case that no such opportunities are afforded to those engaged at drill on board H.M.S. President, would it be possible to allow a fast gun vessel to embark Officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve attached to the President at Blackwall occasionally in summer for practice at the mouth of the Thames?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY: Instruction in all the operations of loading modern breech-loading guns is given to Officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve on board all the drill ships, and at 19 out of the 34 drill batteries, and modern breech-loading guns are being supplied to the remaining 15 batteries. It is not possible to fire the breech-loading guns from the drill ships, except in the case of the Medea and Medusa, which, being sea-going ships, have replaced the old
  1042
  drill ships at Southampton and North Shields. The extension of this system of training the Royal Naval Reserve in sea-going vessels, as in the case of the Medea and Medusta, is under consideration. ["Hear, hear!"]

  KAFIRISTAN.
  MR. A. BIRRELLI beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, (1) whether the version of the Durand Agreement with the Amir of Afghanistan, published in The Standard of 1st April 1896, and in other papers, is correct; if so, whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been (tailed to the violation of the third article of that Agreement last November and December, when the Bashgal Valley was entered and taken possession of by Afghan troops, notwithstanding the stipulation that the Amir should not exercise interference therein: (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to secure the restitution of the territory thus improperly acquired, and such reparation as is now possible for the slaughter and enslavement of the many thousands of Kafirs in a district which was specially included within the British dominions; and (3) whether he will inform the House as to any action that has been taken by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the people in those portions of Kafiristan which, by the Durand Agreement, have been assigned to the rule of the Amir?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: My reply to the Question put by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean answers all the questions put by the hon. Member except the last. As regards the last, I stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Darlington, on the 23rd of March, that the Viceroy would use any favourable opportunity of exercising his good offices on behalf of the Amir's Kafir subjects, and he is prepared to do so; but, so far as I know, no such opportunity has yet occurred.

  COLONIAL MILITARY CONTRIBUTIONS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the amount to be paid by Mauritius towards the maintenance of a military force in

  1043
  that island has been settled; what is the amount; whether the amounts to be paid by Singapore and Hong Kong as their military contributions have been settled; and if he can state the amounts so to be paid annually by each of the colonies concerned?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The amount to be paid by the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong this year will be 685,000dls. and 388,000dls. respectively; the amount to be paid by Mauritius is not yet definitely settled. ["Hear, hear!"]

  FLOATING DERELICT.
  MR. J. CUMMING MACDONA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that a telegram was received in Liverpool on Saturday last, 11th instant, to the effect that a large derelict scarcely showing itself is this evening reported 15 miles south-west Fastnet, in the direct line of route of Atlantic liners between Liverpool and the United States; and, whether, seeing that there are now three of Her Majesty's ships lying in Queenstown Harbour and Her Majesty's Flying Squadron at present in Berehaven, the Admiralty will telegraph instructions to have immediate search made for this dangerous derelict, whose exact position can be easily ascertained, and have it destroyed, thus affording Her Majesty's Navy a practical opportunity of gaining experience in the use of explosives and naval artillery, and at the same time rendering service to the mercantile marine?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): The only intimation received by the Admiralty of a floating object in this locality is a report in the Shipping Gazette that "some wreckage" was seen on the 7th instant near the position named. It is impossible to say where it may be now, but it is very likely ashore on the southwest coast of Ireland. The Admiralty have only sent vessels to search when from several definite reports it is apparent that a derelict vessel of considerable size is remaining in the track of trade, but in this case these conditions are not present.

  STEAMING IN WEAVING SHEDS.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any objection to the employers and workpeople interested in the question of steaming in weaving sheds being represented at the Inquiry that has been ordered to be made by a committee of experts; and, whether the conduct of such Inquiry will be left entirely in the hands of the Committee making the same?
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Assuming that representation by counsel, any suggestion for which would have to be carefully considered, is not what is intended by the Question, I see no objection to those interested in the Inquiry being represented at it. It is a matter, however, which, subject to what I have said, will be left entirely in the discretion of the Committee.

  STREET PREACHING (SLIGO).
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I have to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not having given longer notice of this Question, but it is a matter of urgency that this scandalous transaction should at once be brought under the notice of the House. I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two Protestant missionaries have been sent to prison for a week in Sligo for street preaching, two Protestant magistrates on the Bench dissenting to the decision of the six Roman Catholics, who formed the majority; and, whether the Government will take any action to secure the release of these prisoners?
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGHsaid, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered that Question, he wished to ask him a Question of which he had given him private notice—namely, whether he was aware that on Friday last two of the preachers referred to arrived in Sligo from Dublin, and in company with about 50 police commenced to preach in front of the Town Hall in Sligo, thereby interfering with the free passage of persons desiring to enter and leave the Town Hall; whether he was aware that the librarian of the Free Public Library in the Town Hall and the caretaker of the Town Hall both swore at the trial that the action of

  1045
  the preachers occasioned obstruction to persons entering and leaving the Town Hall; whether the evidence was taken down in writing at the trial on Monday last; whether the right hon. Gentleman had read a copy of the evidence; whether he was aware that the District Inspector—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond the limits of a Question. He is practically making a speech by simply prefacing each sentence with the words "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware."
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGHsaid, that he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, why it was that the police on the occasion referred to did not carry out the provisions of the 14 and 15 Vict. c. 92 sect. 14 sub-sections 1 and 2?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The decision of the magistrates was that the defendants should pay a fine of ten shillings each, or in default to be imprisoned for seven days. They refused to pay the fine, and went to gaol. I have been informed that proceedings are about to be instituted by the defendants in the Superior Court to have the decision of the magistrates reviewed. The only way in which the Executive could interfere would be through the exercise of the prerogative of Mercy. At the present stage, and on the facts before me, that course would not appear to be desirable.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGHasked why it was that the police did not enforce the law upon that occasion?
  MR. J. C. FLYNNasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware, in connection with the cases of obstruction in Ireland, that the constabulary—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, has given an answer that the matter is under judicial inquiry, and that therefore the subject is not a proper one for discussion. That is a conclusive answer.
  MR. PATRICK M'HUGHsaid, that he begged to give notice that he should call attention to the matter on the Irish Estimates to-morrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ROOMS).
  THE MARQUESS OF LORNE: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, if he will have electric lights placed in the Committee Rooms, as any fog may stop the proceedings of Committees at present?
  MR. AKERS - DOUGLAS: Five Committee Rooms out of 23 are already furnished with electrical fittings. Preparations are now being made for providing the electric light in 10 others, eight of which will be completely fitted up at Whitsuntide. I may explain that, the darkness having come on so suddenly on Tuesday, the attendants, who had the usual oil lamps in readiness, were unable to place them at once in the considerable number of Committee Rooms which happened to be in use at the time.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  MR. T. R. LEUTY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if it is intended that the Education Committee of a County Council, proposed to be established under the Education Bill, shall bring up its proceedings in full meeting of the County Council for the approval or otherwise of the latter?
  SIR J. GORST: The reports of the Education Committee to the County Council will be governed by the provisions of Section 82 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1888.
  MR. LEUTYsaid, that the question that he asked was not based upon the wording of the Bill, but was as to the intentions of the Government which they desired to embody in the Bill. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether, on a subject of such extreme importance, he was not entitled to an answer.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid, that the intention of the Government was that the reports of the Committees should be regulated by the general law.

  VILLAGE SERVICE ACT (MADRAS PRESIDENCY).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask he Secretary of State for India, whether the district collectors of the Madras Presidency were

  1047
  opposed to the extension of the Village Service Act (which formerly applied only to Ryotwari villages) to Zemindari and Devastanam villages; and, if so, on what grounds; whether this extension of the Act was based on the assumption that certain abuses of power by village watchmen complained of by villagers in Tinnevelly were prevalent in Zemindari and Devastanam villages; whether, on the Madras Landholders' Association pointing out that no such abuses prevailed in Zemindari and Devastanam villages, the Madras Government withdrew from the statement of objects and reasons the allegation on which the extension was founded, and yet proceeded to make that extension; and, whether, in view of the extreme unpopularity of this extension amongst the Madras landholders, he will request the Madras Government to reconsider the matter?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The Madras Government report that the "district officers of Madras almost, if not quite, unanimously feel the absolute necessity of bringing the village servants in Zemindaris under control" in the way provided by the Act. They conjecture that the statement to the contrary refers to opinions recorded in 1871 –5 upon another proposal. Since 1882 the necessity of bringing village servants in Zemindaris under control has been under discussion; the necessity was held to be general and by no means confined to Tinnevelly villages. I do not find that the differences in wording between the "statement of objects and reasons" as first framed in February 1892, and the statement finally published with the Act, give support to the suggestion in the third clause of the Question. As at present advised I am not prepared to act upon the suggestion in the fourth clause of the Question.

  MEMBERS AND THE TELEPHONE SERVICE.
  MR. CHARLES SHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the telephone service attached to the House was free to all the Members of the House from the year 1883 until Friday last, when the Post Office, having taken over the trunk lines, deprived Members of
  1048
  their privileges in connection therewith, he will explain on what grounds the London and suburban service of telephonic communication is still free, as it is at present?
  *MR. HANBURY: There is no charge, as I understand, to Members of Parliament for the use of the London local lines, because they remain in the hands of the National Telephone Company, who, no doubt for good reasons, allow such messages to be sent free of charge by Members. The trunk wires are now in the hands of the Government; and, as I stated on the 14th instant, it is not in the power of the Post Office to allow Members of this House to use the telephone trunk wires free of charge; and, if it were, I see no reason why Members should have the privilege of using the telephone free of charge any more than they should use free of charge the Post Office or the Telegraph service.
  MR. SHAWasked whether the Post Office could not take over the trunk lines subject to existing arrangement, and whether the right hon. Gentleman did not consider that an arrangement drafted for 13 years, which would be greatly to the convenience of the Members of the House, came under that category?
  *MR. HANBURY: No, Sir, I do not.

  MARYBOROUGH PRISON (JAMES MOREY).
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the boy James Morey is still in hospital at Maryborough Prison; and, if so, how long he has been there, and what is the present condition of his health?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The convict James Morey is still in hospital at Maryborough Prison. He has been in hospital since the 7th August 1894, except for a period of four weeks. A telegram was received from the Governor of the prison last night stating there has been no appreciable change for the worse in Morey's condition, and that his life is not at present in danger.

  CARRICKMACROSS UNION.
  MR. J. DALY,: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is

  1049
  aware that the Relieving Officer of Carrickmacross Union reported to the guardians of that union, that a case in which he represented the guardians under the Public Health Act was dismissed by the Magistrates at Petty Sessions Carrickmacross, on 20th March 1896, on the ground that the guardians should be represented by a solicitor; will he state who was the Chairman on this occasion; and, if a solicitor is needed in such cases; and, if not, will he call the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the matter?
  * MR. GERALD BALFOUR: This Question was only placed on the Paper to-day and there has not been sufficient time to obtain a Report. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat it to-morrow.

  OLD AGE PENSIONS COMMITTEE.
  MR. L. R. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is now able to state what will be the constitution of and terms of reference to the Committee to be appointed on Old Age Pensions; and, whether the proceedings of and evidence taken before the Committee, as well as its Report, will be, laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)was understood to say, that until some further progress was made it would be undesirable to make any statement.

  COMMITTEE ON MEMBERS' VOTES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether when selecting a Committee of the House to inquire into and report upon the undesirability of Members introducing, supporting, or voting upon Bills of companies of which they are directors, or in which they have a financial interest, he will take care that no Member selected to serve on such Committee is a director or shareholder in any public company?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I could not follow the suggestion of the hon. Member, because, in the first place, there is no means of inquiring
  1050
  as to the shares which the hon. Members have in public companies; and, in the second place, if it is the hon. Gentleman's intention to exclude from the Committee any Member of this House who may have a pecuniary interest in the Debates of the House, it is evident that we cannot stop at the shareholders in public companies, but we must exclude landowners and occupiers of land, publicans [ironical Opposition, cheers]——
  Mr. PATRICK O'BRIEN: And sinners. [Laughter.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Certainly; and we must also exclude not only shareholders in railway companies, but those customers of the railways who desire by the action of this House to get their freights reduced.

  ELECTION PETITION TRIALS.
  MR. ASCROFT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, with a view to prevent the great waste of time and money arising from the abuse of the law relating to the trial of Election Petitions, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the question, or take such other steps, as he may deem necessary, for dealing with the same by early legislation?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I agree with my hon. Friend that the present condition of this matter is not satisfactory—["Hear, hear!"]—but it is too large a question for me to answer without much further consideration than I have been able to give it.

  INTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENCES.
  MR. ERNEST TRITTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole licensing question, the Government would be disposed to introduce a Bill to suspend, pending the Report of the Royal Commission, the granting of new licences for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, similar to the Bill introduced by Mr. Bruce, which received the Royal Assent on the 17th of August 1871?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that until the Royal Commission to inquire into the licensing question had reported it would not be politic on the part of the Government to introduce any legislation with regard to the liquor traffic.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury which of the Irish Votes would be taken on Friday, and in what order they would be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid they would begin with the Irish Votes to-day in Class 2, and proceed in that order.
  MR. FLYNNasked when the Irish Votes would be continued if they were not got through to-day?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I could not say as yet.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked if the right hon. Gentleman would say anything as to other business?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: On Monday my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will move the introduction of his Bill with regard to rating, which could not be moved until after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his statement. On Tuesday my present intention is to proceed with the Manœuvres Bill. In all probability Thursday will be devoted to the Budget.

  EXECUTION OF MR. STOKES.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONasked whether the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs could give the House any information as to the accuracy of statements which appeared in the papers to the effect that Major Lothaire, the murderer of the Irishman Mr. Stokes, had been acquitted at Boma?
  [MR. CURZON was not at the moment in the House, and no answer was given.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  FINANCIAL STATEMENT, 1896–7.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)who, on rising, was received with cheers, said: Mr. Lowther, there are two very different occasions on which the country awaits with especial interest the statement of the Budget—the first when it is known that there will be a surplus and nobody has the least idea to what purposes the surplus will be devoted, the second when it is known that there will be a deficit and every kind of taxpayer is fearing that his own interests may be affected by increased taxation. I do not know whether disappointed expectants of relief or disgusted bearers of fresh burdens are the most dangerous critics of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but on this occasion I hope to be reasonably free from the attacks of both. I fear that I shall have nothing that is very novel to state to the Committee; it is known that there will be a surplus, and any one who has followed the statements of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government must have a pretty good idea of the purposes to which, in our opinion, the bulk of that surplus should be devoted. ["Hear, hear!"] Those purposes may, no doubt, in the future be matter of keen controversy; to-night I shall not dwell upon them.

    A MOST REMARKABLE YEAR.
    My duty is to lay before the Committee with as little controversial statement as I can the financial position of the country. Sir, the year that has just concluded has, financially speaking, been a most remarkable year. The amount that has flowed into the Exchequer has been greater, I believe, than in any previous 12 months, and, in spite of an

    1053
    expenditure which has been larger than any since the great war, the surplus has been one of the largest ever known. The credit of the country never stood so high; Treasury bills for 12 months have been floated in the course of the year at as low a rate as 13s. 9d. per cent., and the yield of Consols to a purchaser at the present time is, if you make allowance for the difference in the denomination of the stock, just about half what it was 100 years ago. A larger sum has been specifically devoted to the reduction of the National Debt than has ever been known. The deposits in our savings banks and the deposit and current accounts in our ordinary banks have exceeded all previous records. The production of gold in the world has been the highest ever known. The amount of bullion at the Bank of England has reached 49 millions; the reserve of the Bank of England in proportion to its liabilities was never so high. The condition of the working classes, judged by the consumption of tea, tobacco, and sugar—those articles which are, perhaps, the best guides, I think, in estimating the consuming power of the working classes—must have materially improved, and although I am afraid the condition of agriculture has, perhaps, even changed somewhat for the worse, yet the produce of general stamps, which is the best gauge of the business transactions of the capitalist classes, was never so high. Altogether, Sir, we have had a wonderful year, but, perhaps, in nothing has that year been more remarkable than in the falsification of the Estimates of my predecessor by the actual Exchequer Receipts. Some persons appear to consider that it is a feather in the cap of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Exchequer Receipts of the year should materially exceed his Budget Estimate. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not take any view of the kind. If, instead of under estimating our Revenue by £5,812,000, he had over estimated it by that amount, I wonder what would have been said of him. The triumph of a Chancellor of the Exchequer is when the Exchequer Receipts agree with his Estimate. ["Hear, hear!"] That has not occurred in the present case, but, Sir,
    1054
    I am the last person to throw any blame upon my predecessor on that account. [Opposition cheers.] I have very largely profited by his miscalculation, and I am very deeply grateful to him for it, and I will go further and say that no one has any right to blame either him or his skilled advisers for it. They for once, and I hope only for once, have proved fallible guides. But no one, looking to the then existing condition of things, could possibly have expected the financial results of the past year. In the first quarter of the calendar year of 1895, the January quarter, the value of our exports and our imports and our railway earnings showed a decrease; in the second quarter, the quarter ending June, there was a very slight recovery; and it was not until June was well over—["hear, hear!" and laughter]—and by a curious coincidence—[renewedlaughter]—certain important political events had occurred which I am sure did not enter into the calculations of the financial experts, and possibly not of my predecessor—that everything seemed to tend upwards; and through the latter half of 1895—I am speaking of the calendar year—the increase in the value of our exports and our imports, of our railway earnings, and of the returns of the Bankers' Clearing-house, and all other indications of the kind, showed a most remarkable and continued expansion of the trade and commerce of this country. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the period at which this occurred. I suppose you may go back for very many years without finding a time in which the volume of our exports had increased so much as they did in the latter half of 1895. In the first half of 1895—I am speaking now of the calendar year—there was an actual decrease in the value of our exports and imports of no less than £7,531,000 when compared with the same period of the previous year; in the second half of the year there was an increase of no less than £28,228,000. ["Hear, hear!"] I call the attention of the Committee to this because it bears upon what I shall afterwards have to say with respect to the period of the year at which the increases in our Revenue have mainly taken place.

    EXCHEQUER RECEIPTS 1895–6.
    I now come to the details of the Revenue of the past year. If hon. Members have supplied themselves with the printed paper, they will find the items classed under the several heads, to which I will briefly refer. The total Exchequer receipts of the past year amounted to £101,974,000. The Exchequer receipts of 1894–5 amounted to £94,684,000. The Exchequer receipts of the past year were, therefore, £7,290,000 in excess of the Exchequer receipts of the previous year, and £5,812,000 in excess of the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the Committee will observe with satisfaction that that increase is to be noticed under every single head of the items of Revenue, with the exception of Land Tax, which remains as it was, and miscellaneous receipts, which show a decrease, because in the year just concluded there was no windfall, as there was in the previous year from the Naval Defence Account. But I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the period of the year at which this increase principally accrued. I take the first two quarters of the last financial year together, because, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows very well, the receipts from Customs and Excise in those two quarters were confused by the delay in the payment of the duty on spirits owing to the anticipated reduction and the subsequent abolition of the sixpence extra duty. In the first and second quarters of last year there was an increase of £3,917,000 when compared with the corresponding quarters of the previous year. In the third quarter of the past year there was an increase of £2,153,000; that was the best quarter of all. But in the last quarter of the year there was an increase of only £1,220,000 over the corresponding quarter of the previous year. I do not know whether any one will be irreverent enough to say that the vast increase in the earlier part of the financial year was due to expectations from the present Government which have now been disappointed. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] I think I am rightly interpreting that cheer from the right hon. Gentleman; but in my belief these variations have very little to do with Governments or with politics.
    1056
    [Cheers.] I will just note in passing that the Post Office and telegraphs show a large and satisfactory increase over 1894–95, that the House Duty shows an increase of £60,000, and Income Tax an increase of £500,000—largely, I think, due to the great prosperity of the country, and to the fact of a larger proportion of these taxes having been paid within the financial year than would have been the case if the country had been less prosperous. But the heads of Revenue of the past year to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee, are those in which the increase has mainly accrued and in which the variation is greatest, namely, Customs, Excise, Death Duties, and Stamps. I may just observe in passing that the Death Duties have been now, for the first time, separated from Stamps, at the suggestion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles); and I am sure the Committee will feel that that suggestion has been a valuable one.

    CUSTOMS REVENUE.
    Customs produced last year £20,756,000, Exchequer receipts £516,000 over the Estimate and £641,000 over the Exchequer receipts of 1894–95. The Customs authorities are usually wonderfully accurate in their Estimates. In this Estimate they made a mistake of 2–57 per cent., and that does not seem much on an Estimate of over £20,000,000. I only mention it because it is the largest mistake but one they have made within the last 16 years, and it is an extraordinary testimony to the wonderful foresight with which they calculate their Estimates. The chief feature of the Customs has been the increase in the revenue from tobacco, tea and wine, and the receipts under those three heads show an increase of £603,000 over the net receipts of 1894–95, and of £364,000 over the Estimate of my predecessor. It is curious to observe that in the first quarter those three items showed a decrease of £64,000, which by Michaelmas had turned into an increase of £142,000. The coffee and chicory group produced a net receipt of about £328,000, an increase of £2,000 over 1894–95; the receipts from cocoa increased by £5,000, and those from coffee have, as usual,

    1057
    declined. It will probably be interesting to the Committee to know that, whereas in the year 1875 the consumption of cocoa was 5 oz. per head, double that amount was consumed last year. The consumption of coffee, which 40 years ago was 21 oz. per head of the population, is now only 11 oz. per head. I believe the fact is that tea is driving coffee out of the market because it is cheaper, because it requires less milk, and because it is easier for people to make. I come to the head of dried fruits, from which the net receipts were £395,000, a decrease of about £1,500. as compared with the previous year. In this group raisins produced £5,000 more than they did in the preceding year. I hope I may gather from the increasing yield from cocoa, out of which a good deal of chocolate is made, and from raisins, that there are an increasing number of households in which the children are acquainted with the delights of chocolate and plum pudding. Now I come to a more important head, that of foreign spirits. The net receipts from foreign spirits were £4,217,000, or £20,000 more than the net receipts of 1894–95, and £137,000 more than the Estimate. I do not know whether it would be agreeable to the patriotism of hon. Members to know that British and Irish spirits are entirely displacing foreign spirits in the market. [Cheers.] Since the year 1870 foreign spirits have declined by 23 per cent., while the consumption of British spirits has increased by five per cent. ["Hear, hear!"] I hear the cheers of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Sir H. Vincent), but I may remind him that there is another view of the matter, for the stories of our old Naval triumphs always connect them with libations of grog. [Laughter.] Among foreign spirits is, of course, included rum. Well, Sir, the taste for rum, except in the most extraordinarily cold weather, appears to be absolutely declining in England. People prefer, as they do in wine, what I may call a lighter and cleaner spirit—[laughter] and the receipts from the produce of rum during the last Year have materially declined. Brandy, also, has been scarce and dear. The same quality of brandy which could have been purchased in 1870 for 5s. 6d. a gallon now costs 9s. 2d. The importation of it declined by 19 per
    1058
    cent. last year as compared with the previous year. On the whole, the revenue from foreign spirits is a decreasing revenue, due to the cause I have indicated to the Committee. Now I come to the head of tea. Tea shows a net receipt of £3,745,000—£158,000 over 1894–95 and £120,000 over the Estimates. I think it will be satisfactory to the Committee to know that this means an increase of consumption of 10,000,000 lbs. of tea. Here, again, I have to say something to those who desire to promote trade within the limits of the Empire. Our trade in tea is being rapidly transferred from China to India and Ceylon. [Cheers.] In 1875 more than 122,000,000 lbs. came from China; in 1895 about 31,500,000 lbs. came from China; in 1875 23,220,000 lbs. came from India and Ceylon: in 1895 nearly 190,500,000 lbs. came from the same places. The Exchequer may complain a little, because it is well known that a pound of Indian tea is stronger than a pound of Chinese tea; so a cup of tea made out of it pays less duty than a cup of China tea. The next head is tobacco. The net receipt was £10,748,000 £108,000 over the Estimates, and £333,000 over the net receipts of 1894–95. The growth of the revenue from tobacco is very remarkable; and this, I may say, has principally accrued in the last half of the financial year. I believe it is mainly due to the great increase in the consumption of cigarettes, which are specially attractive to our youthful population. [Laughter.] I am told of one manufacturer who makes two millions of cigarettes a day now who hardly made any a few years ago. But cigarettes lead to a great deal of waste. I happen to be a non-smoker. [Laughter and "Oh, oh!"] In my humble opinion, everything spent on tobacco by those who have enough to eat is waste. ["Oh, oh!" and cheers.] I am quite aware that that may be a matter of ignorance or prejudice, and I would only appeal to smokers whether this is not waste. It is calculated by the Customs authorities that no less a value than £1,000,000 a year is literally tin-own into the gutter in the shape of the ends of cigarettes and cigars. [Laughter.] It is all the better for the Revenue, but I think it may be a subject of consideration to smokers. I now come to the last

    1059
    head of Customs, that of wine. Wine shows a remarkable increase on past years. The net receipts from wine were £1,256,000 — £113,000 over the net receipts of 1894–95 and £136,000 over the Budget Estimate. For 20 years past there has been a falling-off in the receipts from wine. I am not quite sure that the tide in wine has turned yet. So far as I can ascertain—though I hope it is partly due to an increase of prosperity on the part of the wine-drinking classes generally—a great part of this increased consumption of wine was due to the fit of gambling speculation on the Stock Exchange last year. Speculators, whether successful or unsuccessful, consoled or congratulated themselves in the same way, and the almost innumerable new companies floated were, I may say, christened by the consumption of 1,200,000 extra bottles of champagne. Now I hope the revenue from wine may still increase. But we must not be over-sanguine on that matter, because of the fact that the consumption of strong wines, which pay a duty of 2s. 6d., is distinctly decreasing in the country, whereas the consumption of light wines, which only pay a duty of 1s., is increasing. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1886 we imported 6,226,000 gallons of strong wine, in 1895 4,470,000 gallons—a decrease of 30 per cent. In 1886 we imported 7,000,000 gallons of light wine, and in 1895 we imported 10,200,000 gallons—an increase of 45 per cent.

    EXCISE.
    I have now completed the review of the Customs Revenue, and I turn to the Excise. The Exchequer receipts from the Excise were £26,800,000 last year, against an estimate of £25,950,000, and Exchequer receipts in 1894–95 of £26,050,000. The two main heads of Excise are, of course, beer and spirits. The net receipts from beer last year were £10,719,000—an increase of £617,000 over the net receipts of 1894–5; 32,973,000 barrels of beer were brewed —an increase of 1,591,300 over the previous year. I think every one who has considered the question at all is aware of the remarkable cheapness of the materials for brewing in the past year. The barley-malt and hops—so dear to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk—
    1060
    and the other materials which go to the manufacture of beer have been wonderfully cheap, and the mild winter has largely stimulated the consumption of beer. In my belief, brewers have never had a better year, and I hope the Committee will bear that in mind when I come to a later part of my statement. [Laughter and cheers.] The net receipt from British spirits was £15,603,000, an increase of £334,000 over that of 1894–5. A considerable part of the increase does not really belong to the year, for it is due to the delay in the payment of the duty on spirits, owing to the anticipation of the removal of the extra duty. But since the second quarter of the year— the receipts of which were augmented by that fact—the receipts from spirits have proved stationary, and I cannot say that I think this really an increasing Revenue.

    DEATH DUTIES.
    Now I have done with Excise, and I come to the Death Duties. The Exchequer receipts from the Death Duties in the past year were £11,600,000, besides £2,452,000 paid to the local taxation account, which, of course, does not really enter into the Budget statement. That is an increase of £1,460,000 over the Estimate, which was £10,140,000, and a very large increase over the receipts of 1894–95, which were £8,719,000, but which cannot fairly be compared with the past year, because, as the Committee are aware, the Finance Act, 1894, was only in operation for eight months of the year. Now I should like to compare the increase in the third quarter of last year with the corresponding quarter of 1894–95. I cannot take an earlier comparison for the reason I have stated. The quarter ending December produced an increase of £800,000 over the corresponding quarter of 1894–95. But the last quarter ending March produced an increase of only £434,000 over the corresponding quarter of the previous year. I mention that because, together with other facts which I have stated to the Committee, I think it shows the necessity for caution in our Estimates for the current year. Of course, this increase in the Death Duties was due to the operation of the Estate Duty. The Estate Duty has

    1061
    practically killed the old Probate Duty and Estate Duty, and it has materially interfered with the receipts from Legacy and Succession Duty. At any rate, the receipts from Legacy Duty have fallen off. The net receipts from the Legacy Duty during the last year were £2,731,000, a, decrease of £78,000 over the net receipts of the previous year. The net receipts from Succession Duty were £1,051,000, a decrease of £299,000 from the net receipts for the previous year. It is quite a new thing that there should be so large a difference between the estimate of the receipts from Death Duties and the actual Exchequer receipts. Six years ago my right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty said:—
    "Looking to the uncertainty of life itself, it is a remarkable fact that there is no estimate more certain of being proved correct at the end of the year than the estimate framed on the Death Duties.
    But the right hon. Gentleman opposite has changed all that, By his system of aggregation he has created millionnaires who previously, if they did not blush unseen, at any rate, were unknown to the tax gatherer [Laughter], and the cold spring of 1895 brought prematurely a good many very large estates into the net of the Exchequer. The receipts from Death Duties in the month of May last, arising from deaths which took place in February and March, were simply phenomenal, and my advisers at the Inland Revenue assure me that in their belief, after making every fair allowance for the effect of aggregation, the number and value of large estates that paid Death Duties within the past year is considerably above what is likely to be the average number and value in fixture years. That, Sir, is one reason for the great difference between the estimate and the actual receipts. But there are two other important reasons. In the first place, and it is a very remarkable fact, realty has not, as a rule, availed; itself of its privilege of paying Estate Duty by instalments. Up to the end of December last, a period of nine months, £25,000,000 of realty had paid the Estate; Duty in whole or in part. Of this amount no less than £22,000,000 paid the Estate Duty in a lump sum. Estate Duty has been paid on £29,000,000
    1062
    of realty in the whole course of the year and, assuming that the same proportion exists in the whole, it will be perfectly obvious to the Committee that the last year has profited by several hundreds of thousands of pounds by the fact of the whole duty having been paid in place of one-eighth. That is very satisfactory from one point of view. Many of us thought—I confess I thought that this Estate Duty would be an extremely heavy burden upon realty, and that owners of realty would have considerable difficulty in raising money to pay it, even under the system of payment by instalments. It is remarkable that they should have been able to pay the duty to so large an extent in the lump sum. (Cheers; and an HON. MEMBER: "Remarkable and satisfactory.") But I would just make this observation, that, of course, the extra receipts of the past year have deprived future years of the anticipated receipts in them, and that unless a similar process continues we may look forward to a very considerable decrease on this head in future years. The other cause which has falsified the Estimates of the receipts from Death Duties has been the fact that settled personalty and other personalty not formerly subject to Probate Duty has turned out to be exceptionally large within the year, amounting to as much as £26,000,000. That has brought larger receipts into the year than had been anticipated; but there again I think the Committee will see that as a large portion of this amount is settled personalty, and the Estate Duty is paid only once in the course of a settlement, the receipts may probably be less in future years. ["Hear, hear!"] I think it will be interesting to the Committee if I say something as to the proportions in which the Estate Duty has been levied on different kinds of property. During the year £8,705,000 Estate Duty has been paid on £188,974,000 value of personalty, while £1,232,000 Estate Duty has been paid on £29,805,000 of realty. I have analysed the £25,000,000 of realty which have paid Estate Duty up to the end of December. I find this; consisted of £14,750,000, value of houses and business premises; £6,850,000 agricultural property, which, I may say, has been valued at an average value of 16½ years' purchase of the rental and 20

    1063
    years' purchase of the net annual value; £1,825,000 ground rents, and £1,680,000 miscellaneous property. Under all kinds of Death Duties in the year, including the payments to the Local Taxation Account, personalty has paid £11,754,000 and realty £2,218,000, of which it is a rough estimate that about £850,000 may have been paid by agricultural land. I should like, before I quit this painful, though interesting, subject of the Death Duties to do an act of justice to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. When he introduced the Finance Act of 1894, he stated then, that in his opinion, when the Death Duties under the new system came into full working order the produce would be about £13,500,000. The actual produce has been about £14,000,000. [Cheers.] At the time, I confess, I did not believe him. There were many of us who said we did not anticipate so large a yield from the Duty. What the future may have in store for us is another matter on which I will not venture now to express an opinion, but, so far as the last year is concerned, the estimate of the right hon. Gentleman has been more than realised, and I think he is entitled to the credit. [Cheers.] But those advisers who advised him then, and to whom I am sure he will be the first to acknowledge his indebtedness, advise me now that in their opinion, of course other things being equal, we have reached the maximum from the Death Duties, and that future years are much more likely to see a reduction than an increase.

    GENERAL STAMPS.
    The last head of the Revenue to which I need refer is the head of General Stamps. The Exchequer receipts from General Stamps have been £7,350,000, an increase over the Estimate of £1,690,000 and £1,629,000 more than the Receipts of 1894–95. The first quarter, as compared with the corresponding quarter in the previous year, produced an increase of £421,000; the second quarter an increase of £630,000; the third quarter an increase of £440,000; while the last quarter only produced an increase of £138,000. I think it will be obvious to the Committee that we have seen, I may say, the best for a time of the Revenue from General Stamps. The increase in that Revenue was, I hope, to some extent
    1064
    due to increased prosperity in the country, but it was mainly due to that wonderful fit of gambling on the Stock Exchange which will be fresh in the recollection of all of us. In the first three quarters of the financial year 1894–95 the sales of stamps on the London Stock Exchange amounted to £491,000; in the first three quarters of the year that has just closed they amounted to £1,253,000, or an increase of £762,000. I think, as I shall tell the Committee later on, it will be well to' be moderate in our estimate under this head for the coming year. ["Hear, hear?"]

    EXPENDITURE.
    I now turn from the Revenue to the Expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman opposite estimated the Expenditure at £95,981,000. Since then there have been very large Supplementary Estimates, amounting in all to £2,517,000, to some extent of an abnormal character. There was a Supplementary Estimate, the Committee will remember, of £1,100,000 to the Navy for increased work in the construction of ships; there were Supplementary Estimates of £496,000 for the Army, in order to bring the payments to the Volunteers on account of the Capitation Grant up to date; and of £92,000 in the Civil Service Estimates, in order also to bring up to date the payments to local authorities in lieu of rates on Government property, neither of which, of course, will have to be repeated; and there was a Supplementary Estimate of £120,000 for the Ashanti Expedition. On the other hand, there were savings of £734,000. The total Exchequer issues of the year were £97,764,000 — an increase of £1,783,000 over the right hon. Gentleman's estimate. Deducting that from the Exchequer receipts, there was a surplus realised of £4,210,000, the largest surplus but two that has been realised in the last 50 years. [Cheers.] That, as the Committee will recollect, has been devoted by the Naval Works Act to capital expenditure in connection with our dockyards and our naval ports. £867,000 of this sum has been required for the year that has just closed; £2,750,000 has been allotted to the current year; and £593,000 remains to be expended beyond that date. This, of

    1065
    course, bears upon the Exchequer balances. The Exchequer balances on 1st April 1895, were £6,300,000, rather more than a normal balance; at the corresponding date this year they had risen to £8,975,000. In the ordinary course this surplus of £4,210,000 would have been retained in the Exchequer for nearly 12 months, and then paid over to the National Debt Commissioners, to be in- vested by them in the reduction of the National Debt. Under the Naval Works Act, as I have shown, it will be appropriated in another way. It will be paid out from time to time for the naval works to which it is to be devoted, and I have no doubt that in that way the Exchequer balances will be reduced by this time next year to something like their normal amount. I have now to state, in concluding this review of the past year, that there will be due to the Local Taxation Fund, £7,367,000—more than has been paid in any one of the last three years, and £353,000 more than was paid in the previous year. I hope the Committee will be of the opinion that this is not an unsatisfactory review of the finances of the past year. [Cheers.]

    COINAGE.
    I now turn to the general financial condition of the country. In the first place I should like to say a word upon the question of our coinage. Whether we bimetallists, or whether we be bimetallists, I should think that we are all agreed that our standard coin ought to be of the proper fineness and weight. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1888 my right hon. Friend the present First Lord of Admiralty set apart a considerable fund for the restoration of the gold coinage to its proper weight, which had then fallen, as the Committee are aware, into a very bad state. In April of that year an inspection was made of all gold coins which were received upon a certain day in, I think, some 300 post offices in the country. A similar inspection was made in May last, and I think it will be interesting to the Committee if I inform them of the comparative results of the two inspections. In 1888 it was discovered, out of the gold coins that were tested, that the percentage of light sovereigns—excluding in each case decimal
    1066
    fractions—was 15 per cent. In 1895 that percentage had been reduced to 11 per cent. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1888 the percentage of light half-sovereigns was 70 per cent.; in 1895 that percentage had been reduced to 17 per cent. ["Hear, hear!"] The proportion of full weight sovereigns in the first year was 54, in the second 88; and of the full-weight half-sovereigns 29½ in the first year, and 82½in the second year. The mean weight of the sovereign and the half-sovereign had been increased by an amount which could only be conveyed in decimal fractions, but I will say that it is calculated by the authorities that we have added a penny to the mean value of the sovereign, and l½d. to the mean value of the half-sovereign. The deficiency in value on an estimated coinage of £90,000,000 was calculated in 1888 at £817,675; in 1895 it was calculated at £303,791. Parliament provided about £700,000 for the work of restoring the coinage, on an estimate that all the pre-Victorian coins and £43,000,000 of Victorian coinage would require to be withdrawn, and I believe we have nearly reached a point at which the regular elimination of light gold coins at the present rate will fully compensate for the deterioration which must be always taking place. This year the cost is calculated to be about £31,000, and that will be provided for out of an unexpended balance, on March 31, of £43,675, and there is still the sum of £250,000, authorised by the Coinage Act of 1893, which has not yet been appropriated. I hope the Committee will consider that this is a satisfactory account of the progress that has been made for the restoration of our coinage. ["Hear, hear!"]

    NATIONAL DEBT.
    I turn now to the National Debt. Our total gross liabilities on the 1st of April 1895 were £660,160,000, made up of £586,016,000 Funded Debt, £53,583,000 estimated capital value of terminable annuities, £17,400,000 Unfunded Debt (of which £10,272,000 was in the hands of the public), and £3,161,000 loans raised under the Naval Defence Act, the Barracks Acts, and other Acts. Our total gross liabilities

    1067
    on March 31, 1896, stood at £652,026,000—a reduction of £8,134,000 on the year—composed of Funded Debt, £589,147,000; estimated capital value of terminable annuities, £49,218,000; Unfunded Debt, £9,976,000 (all except £51,000 in the hands of the public); and £3,685,000 raised under special Acts. The reduction of £8,134,000 is the largest reduction ever made in any year except the year 1894–5. I hope my right hon. Friends—the Members for the University of London and for Liskeard, who objected to the financial proposals of the Naval Works Act—will be reasonably satisfied with what has actually been done. ["Hear, hear!"] Now I will explain how this has been effected. Of course, there has, in the first place, been the normal reduction in the capital value of the terminable annuities, but the amount of the Unfunded Debt has been reduced by £7,424,000, while the Funded Debt has been increased by £3,131,000. This is due to the funding, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, of a sum of £4,974,000, which was borrowed on short loan by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty in order to provide for paying off those holders of Consols who refused to convert. It was borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners at Consols rates of interest, and it has been funded by the creation of £4,630,000 of stock. On the other hand, however, through the operation of the life annuities, Land Tax redemption, and similar ways, the Funded Debt has been reduced by £1,499,000, leaving a net increase in the Funded Debt of £3,131,000. As I have said, the Unfunded Debt has been reduced by £7,424,000 by the operation I have named, and by the remainder of the sums borrowed on bills and bonds for the purposes of the Imperial Defence Act of 1888, amounting to £2,450,000, having been paid off by the appropriation of the Sinking Fund under the Finance Act of 1894. The Unfunded Debt, I think the Committee will be glad to hear, now stands at a lower point than it has reached for 21 years. ["Hear, hear!"] The operation of funding which I have alluded to has materially simplified the debt. I hope still further to simplify it by issuing, so Ear as may be necessary, Treasury Bills
    1068
    in lieu of Exchequer Bills, as the Exchequer Bills fall due. ["Hear, hear!"] I hope the Committee will agree that that is not an unsatisfactory account of the position of the National Debt as compared with last year. [''Hear, hear!"] But let us consider for a moment what we have done with regard to the National Debt in the course of the last 40 years. The National Debt—the Funded Debt—has not been materially increased since the Crimean war. On April 1st 1857, the Debt stood at £842,000,000. This year it stands at £652,000,000. [Cheers.] We have paid off in 39 years £190,000,000 of debt—[cheers]—and £100,000,000 of that has been paid off in the last 13 years. [Cheers.] Some may think that our efforts have been wasted—[An hon. Member: "Hear, hear!"]—and that we should have done better if we had allowed the money to fructify, as it is said, in the pocket of the taxpayer. That is not my view. [Cheers.] By this self-denying course the Parliament and the people of this country have raised up a reserve fund of incalculable importance—["hear, hear!"]—a reserve fund which, if the time of need should come when this country should again have to fight for its life, would enable us, without imposing a single extra penny of taxation, to raise a couple of hundred millions for the defence of the country, and without imposing, either, an atom more debt upon the people of that day than our predecessors bore without a murmur in 1857. [Cheers.] That is a thing which, I think, this country may be proud of. [Cheers.] It is a source of incalculable strength to this country, and, although it may sometimes be necessary, even in time of peace, as it was necessary in 1885, when I was last responsible for the finances of the country, to postpone temporarily the operation of the Sinking Fund, yet I trust that Parliament will never permanently depart from the wise and prudent policy in this matter which it has hitherto pursued. [Cheers.] I have drawn a picture—I hope in not too bright colours— of the present financial condition of the country. I have pointed to increasing receipts from productive taxes; I have dwelt upon the high condition of the credit of the country; and the steady, I, may say the rapid, diminution

    1069
    of the Public Debt. I might go on, as my predecessors have often gone on, to call the attention of the Committee to the improvement in the condition of the great masses of our population, testified by the increased consumption of dutiable and non-dutiable articles, the comforts and the necessaries of life, and by the increased deposits in the Savings Banks. But I will not detain the Committee on that point, because it is unnecessary to dwell upon it. We know it already.

    SAVINGS HANKS DEPOSITS.
    But there is one aspect of one part of this question to which I should wish to devote a few minutes, and that is the question of the increased deposits in our Savings Banks. ["Hear, hear!"] The deposits in our Savings Banks—in which I include both the Trustee Savings Banks and the Post Office Savings Banks —amounted in 1875 to £68,000,000. In 1885 they hadincreasedto£94,500,000, and in 1895 they had nearly reached £144,000,000. ["Hear, hear!"] The deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks have more than doubled in the last 10 years. In so far as this is due to the increased thrift and prosperity of our working classes, it will be a source of hearty congratulation to all of us ["Hear, hear!"]—but I am afraid that, if we investigate the matter, we shall find another cause, not quite so satisfactory, to which part of this increase has greatly been due. ["Hear, hear!"] I find that the annual percentage of increase in the deposits in the Savings Banks between 1875 and 1893 was 3·4 per cent., but between 1893 and 1895 it had more than doubled. The increase was 7·9 per cent., and, of this increase, it is estimated that about half—or, in other words, more than £10,000,000—is due to the operation of the Savings Banks Act of 1893. That Act raised the maximum limit of annual deposit from £30 to £50, and made other changes in a similar direction. In 1894, 35,874 persons deposited in one single sum the maximum annual amount of £50 to a total amount of £1,793,000. In 1895, that number of persons so depositing increased by 35 per cent. to 48,500, and deposited in one single sum the maximum amount, to a total of £2,425,000. I cannot think that any
    1070
    large number of those persons belong to the wage-earning classes — ["hear, hear!"]—for whom, surely, the benefits of the Savings Banks were intended. ["Hear, hear!"] Now I do not see why the State should undertake, the business of banking for persons who are perfectly well able to take care of their own deposits and to invest them to the best possible advantage—["hear, hear!"]—-and particularly I do not see why that should be done when, as happens under the present law, the State is compelled to pay 2½ per cent. for deposits at short notice at the Savings Banks—a higher rate of interest than would be given by most ordinary banks—and thus, at the present price of those Government securities in which such deposits must by law be invested, actually to incur a loss by receiving them. I do not want now to argue whether we should lose a little in order to encourage thrift among the working classes, but I do not see why the Government should lose in order to enable depositors who belong to quite another class to obtain a larger interest for their money than they can obtain from the ordinary banks. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not desire to dwell on the point, but I have thought it right to call the attention of the Committee to the present situation, because I think that before long it may become necessary for me—if I have the honour to remain in this office—to propose some alterations in the existing law which may have the effect of preventing the abuse of the Savings Banks system without discouraging thrift, and among these alterations may probably be included a reduction of the present rate of interest on deposits above a certain amount in our banks. ["Hear, hear!"]

    INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE.
    This, Sir, is an important matter, but I turn to one which is of very much greater importance to the country. We may nowadays be proud in a measure of the enormous revenue which we raise. But what of our expenditure? ["Hear, hear!"] I remember, many years ago, when Mr. Lowe held my present office that he said his great difficulty was to know what to do with the millions of money that kept pouring in upon him.

    1071
    Sir, millions of money keep pouring in upon me, but the demands keep pouring in upon me far faster than the money; and if we are right to be proud of our revenue, we ought also to think of our increased expenditure. ["Hear, hear!"] I know perfectly well that increase in our expenditure is a necessity. The expenditure of this country must be increased correspondingly with the increasing wants of civilisation, with the natural expansion of our Empire, and—I am bound to add—in consequence of the enormous armaments of foreign countries. But the grave question that I think this House and this country ought to consider is this—whether our expenditure is not now increasing faster than our capacity to bear it. ["Hear, hear!"] In 1881, Mr. Gladstone called the attention of Parliament to this matter. He instituted a comparison, going as far back as the year 1842. He took the annual percentage of increase of population, of revenue, and of expenditure in certain periods. The first period was from 1842 to 1858. He calculated that the population had increased in that time by one-third per cent. per annum; that the revenue had increased by 1¾ per cent. per annum; and that the expenditure had increased by 2½ per cent. per annum. Then Mr. Gladstone took the years from 1859 to 1873, and calculated that in that period the population increased 1 per cent. per annum, the revenue by 3 per cent., and the expenditure by 1⅓ per cent. per annum. He next took the period from 1874 to 1877, in which he calculated the increase of population at 1 per cent. per annum, the revenue at 1½ per cent. per annum, and the expenditure at 3¼ per cent. per annum. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Harcourt) will remember that he entered into a similar calculation in 1886 in regard to the 10 previous years. I have extended my survey to the last 20 years, ending with the year just concluded—that is to say, for each of the three financial years 1875–76, 1885–86, and 1895–96. I have taken the normal expenditure excluding anything like a War Vote or Vote of Credit, under the six following heads—Army, Navy, Civil Service, Education, Grants in Aid of Local Taxation, and Cost of Collecting
    1072
    the Taxes; and I have taken the actual revenue derived from Customs, Excise, Stamps, and House Duty, and also from Income Tax, treating that separately on account of the variations according to the rate in the pound. In order to allow for changes in taxation, I have taken the actual produce of the four heads of taxation I have named in the first of the selected years. I have analysed the amount of taxation imposed and remitted between that year and the next selected year, and then I have either added to the produce of the first year the net amounts imposed in the interval or deducted from it the net amounts remitted in the interval. This should give the revenue which would have been received in the second of the selected years had the produce of the taxes remained stationary, and, therefore, the comparison of that sum with the actual produce will show whether there has been progression or retrogression—in other words, elasticity or contraction of the revenue. I will not trouble the Committee with any more than the broad results of the comparison drawn on the basis I have described, though I shall be glad to lay a memorandum on the subject on the Table of the House with detailed figures. ["Hear, hear!"] The broad results, then, are these. The second decennial period compares favourably, from a revenue point of view, with the first decennial period. The four heads of taxation which I have named showed in the period between 1875–85 a decline to the extent of 3·93 per cent., while the produce per penny of the Income Tax showed an increase of only 3·23 per cent. In the second decennial period, 1885 to 1895, the produce of the four taxes showed an increase of 21·26 per cent.; and the produce of the Income Tax an increase of 11·46 per cent. That would seem to be a rather favourable result with regard to the elasticity of taxation in the last decennial period, but I would remind the Committee that it is largely due to the results of the year that has just closed. If, however, we turn to the expenditure under the heads I have named—Army, Navy, Civil Service, Education, Grants in Aid, and Collection—we shall find that, while in the first decennial period the expenditure (omitting the debt charge and Votes

    1073
    of Credit) increased by 21·92 percent.; in the second period it increased by no less than 38 per cent. Taking the whole 20 years together, our population has increased in the whole period by 19 per cent.; the four heads of taxation have increased by 16¾ per cent., and the Income Tax by l5½ percent.; but the expenditure has increased by 68 per cent. ["Hear, hear!"] And how has that increase taken place? The Army Estimates have increased by.£4,066,000, the Navy Estimates £8,866,000, to which we have to add more than £2,000,000 in the year in which we now stand. The Navy expenditure of last year was larger than in any year known since the close of the great war; but the Navy Estimates of the present year are more than double those of the year 1875–6, and yet there are some persons who are not satisfied. [Cheers and laughter.] Well, the Civil Service Estimates have increased in the period to which I have referred by, £1,266,000, the education charges are increased by £6,673,000—nearly quadrupled since 1875–76; the amount in aid of local taxation has increased by £6,634,000, though I must add that it would be hardly fair to put down all that to increased expenditure, because part of it, at any rate, was merely a transfer from one pocket to another. ["Hear, hear!"] Lastly, the cost of collection of the taxes has increased by £113,000. Now, I think the Committee will see that if our expenditure goes on increasing at the rate it has done during the last 20 years, and the revenue shows no greater elasticity, we shall be within measurable distance of a time when we shall have to choose between diminishing or putting an end to the reduction of our National Debt and an increase of taxation. I do not envy the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he may be, who has to impose increased taxation to any large extent on our present financial system. He will have no easy task. ["Hear, hear!"] I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the way in which the increased expenditure of the last 20 years has almost entirely been borne. Customs, Excise, Stamps, and House Duty produced in 1875 £59,412,000. In 1895 they produced £75,367,000.

    DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION.
    But where did that increase come from? It did not come from Customs and Excise. It came from stamps, which, in 1875, stood at £10,232,000 and had risen in 1895 to £21,403,000, and it came from Income Tax also, which had risen from 2d in the pound, producing £4,032,000 in 1875, to 8d. in 1895, producing £16,100,000. The fact is that the direct taxpayers of this country have borne the bulk of our new burdens. That has been the continuous direction of our financial policy for 50 years. I take the usual classification of all duties on consumable articles as indirect taxation, and all other taxes as direct taxation. I go back to 1841, the year before Sir Robert Peel imposed the Income Tax, and T find that of every £1 that was raised by taxation, 14s. 7¼4d. was paid by the consuming classes, and 5s. 4¾d. was paid by the propertied classes; but now, of every £1 raised by taxation, 10s. 5d. is paid by the consuming classes and 9s. 7d. by the propertied classes. Let me carry it a little further. The tax revenue in 1841–42 stood at a little under £50,000,000. Seventy-three per cent. of that was paid by indirect taxation, and 27 per cent. by direct taxation. In 1861–62 it was a little under £64,000,000. Sixty-two percent, of that came from indirect taxation, and 38 per cent. from direct taxation. In 1891–92 it was £83,200,000. Fifty-six per cent. of that came from indirect taxation and 44 per cent. from direct taxation. In 1895–96, this last year, it was £92,482,000. Fifty-two per cent. of that has been paid by indirect taxation, and 48 per cent. by direct taxation. There has been a gradual transfer of burden from the indirect to the direct taxpayer of this country. [Sir W. HARCOURT: "An equalisation."] I said a transfer of the burden. The result is that whereas in 1841, £1 7s. 3½d. per head of the population was produced by indirect taxation, and 10s. Id. by direct taxation, now £1 4s. 9d. comes from indirect taxation and £1 2s. 6d. from direct taxation. That, I think the Committee will see has been a progressive and remarkable change. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not say the policy is wrong. [Opposition cheers.] There is no doubt that under

    1075
    it the industry and enterprise of this country, our commerce and trade, and our wealth, have been enormously developed—["hear, hear!"]—and, therefore, I suppose we may say it is justified by its results. But I must point out that our system as it now stands does not add to the popular support which any Chancellor of the Exchequer can enlist in aid of economy. I do not know why it is, but in spite of his increasing burdens the direct taxpayer is too patient, or too comfortable, or too much immersed in business or in pleasure, or too idle to do more than grumble and pay. The indirect taxpayer of this country is very moderately burdened, indeed very lightly burdened if he neither drinks nor smokes. [Laughter.] We have arrived now at this position, that in time of peace we have an Income Tax of 8d. in the pound, we have Death Duties at a point which I suppose hardly anybody will wish to increase, and we have indirect taxation levied only on a very few articles of great consumption, the list of which has not been added to for very many years, and the taxation on which, with the exception of the taxation on beer and wine and spirits, has not been increased at all since the year 1878. I wish to put before the Committee the present condition of our financial system. I wish to ask them to consider at their leisure what the position may be of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who in some future year may have to meet a continuing enormous increase of expenditure under this system of taxation, and I wish to ask them whether they are quite sure that in such circumstances our present financial policy can be maintained. I do not answer that question to-night, but I think I should have failed in my duty if, on a matter of this vast importance to the country, I had not done my best, in view of the increased expenditure of the present year, even in this time of prosperity, to place before the Committee what I think to be a cause of great anxiety. ["Hear, hear!"] Sir, I hope the Committee will not be of opinion that I have detained them unnecessarily—[cheers]—on these matters.

    ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE FOR 1896–7.
    I now turn to what will be of more immediate interest, the expenditure and
    1076
    revenue of the coming year. The Committee will see from the papers in their hands that the expenditure of the coming year is estimated at £100,047,000, £4,066,000 over the estimate of last year. If we add the Estimate of £7,310,000 for the Local Taxation Account, we have a total of £107,357,000. Now, that is an enormous amount; nobody can deny it. It is £29,310,000 more than Sir Stafford North cote had to provide for 20 years ago, and it is more than double the sum of £51,709,000 which was the modest Budget Estimate of Mr. Goulburn in 1846–50 years ago. The increase over last year's Budget Estimate is due mainly, of course, to the vast increase of £3,122,000 in the Navy Estimates. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last 10 years has been burdened with the ever-increasing burden of this "old man of the sea."[Laughter and cheers.] I do not complain of it, because, in the first place, I believe the expenditure to be necessary—[cheers]—and, in the second place, if it be necessary, I know that it is far more economical that we should incur it at a time when we have leisure to think out a systematised plan on which it can be made, than to defer works which we ought to do ourselves to be attempted some day by our successors, and then to be provided for by Votes of Credit amounting to enormous sums, much of which would certainly be wasted, and all of which might be too late for the object for which it would be required. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, Sir, I do not grudge this increase in the Navy Estimates of the current year. I am sanguine that next year may show a decrease. I need not explain the other heads of the expenditure, because they have been explained by the memoranda which have been circulated with the Estimates, but there is one point to which I ought to call the attention of the Committee. The Consolidated Fund Services would naturally show a decrease of £30,000. Instead of that they show an increase of £35,000, and I have this year, unfortunately for me, to pay for the failures of my predecessors some time ago. I have to ask Parliament to start an annuity of £65,000 in order to make up the deficiency in an old annuity of £150,000, created under the Indian Army Pension

    1077
    Deficiency Act of 1885. Under the system which prevailed between 1870 and 1884, India discharged her liability for that part of our soldiers' pensions which was earned by service there, by making a capital payment to us when the pension began, calculated on the probability of the pensioners' lives. But owing to delay in the calculations, to their omission to calculate the pensions granted before 1870, to the calculations being based on too high a rate of interest, and to the fund thus formed not having been properly invested, it was discovered in 1884 that a heavy liability had been imposed on the Consolidated Fund. A new system was therefore introduced in 1884, and an annuity of £ 150,000 for 60 years was set up to discharge the liability incurred under the old system. It has been found that in 1884 the liability was so much underestimated that it is now necessary to increase the annuity as I propose. Sir, the total sum I have to provide for is, as I have said, £100,047,000, and now Income to the revenue.

    ESTIMATED REVENUE FOR 1896–7.
    Hon. Members have in their hands a paper showing the Exchequer receipts in the past year. I estimate that this year the Customs will produce £21,020,000, an increase of £264,000 on the receipts of last year; that Excise will produce £27,000,000—I take throughout the basis of the existing taxation, an increase of £200,000 over the Exchequer receipts of last year; Death Duties I put at £10,950,000, a decrease, for the reasons I have already explained to the Committee of £650,000; General Stamps I put at £6,700,000, a decrease of £650,000; Land Tax at £1,000,000, a decrease of £15,000, owing to ordinary causes; House Duty at £1,475,000, a decrease of £20,000; Property and Income Tax at £16,200,000, an increase of £100,000; makingatotaltaxrevenueof£84,345,000. I estimate the Post Office to produce £11,660,000—an increase of £280,000. I estimate the income from telegraphs at £2,940,000, an increase of £100,000; from Crown Lands, £415,000; Interest on the Suez Canal Shares £695,000, an increase of £5,000 — [loud cheers]— from miscellaneous, £1,700,000—an increase of £167,000, or a total of non-tax
    1078
    Revenue of £17,410,000; making the total revenue £101,755,000.

    SURPLUS.
    If you deduct from this the expenditure of £100,047,000, you will find a surplus of £1,708,000. We have now to consider how that surplus can be dealt with. In the first place I should like to refer to one of the sources to which that surplus is mainly due. I have to consider from many points of view the working of the Finance Act of 1894. [Cheers.] I do not think that I should be justified in making any proposal to the Committee for the repeal of that Act, or for the alteration of any of the main principles on which it was based. [Opposition cheers.] That Act was a great alteration in the financial system of this country, and it is well that there should be as far as possible a general continuity in our financial system. At any rate, when so vast a change as this has been made, proper time should be afforded to test it by its working; but I have received from various quarters, from the officials of the Inland Revenue and others, information as to various points in the working of the Finance Act which inflict hardships on the subject and disclose defects. ["Hear, hear!"] I believe that many of them were unforeseen and not intended by those responsible for that Act. Some of those defects and some of those hardships have already been corrected, of course, under legal advice, by the ordinary course of administration. There are others, however, which cannot be dealt with, because the law must be subject to the interpretation of the Courts before it would be safe to touch them. I may say that I think we must approach any Amendment of such a complicated system as this with the greatest caution, lest in attempting to remedy one hardship we may only succeed in inflicting another. But the points on which I propose to ask the Committee to make some alteration in the law, for the benefit of the taxpayer, relate to hardships, which, as I understand, were really unforeseen.

    ESTATE DUTY CHANGES.
    The first point is this. I propose that where any legacy, succession, or temporary

    1079
    Estate Duty which tinder the Finance Act of 1894 is merged in the new Estate Duty has prior to that Act, been paid on the principal value of any property, and such property subsequently becomes liable to the new Estate Duty under the same disposition, an allowance shall be made for the Legacy, Succession, or temporary Estate Duty already paid. ["Hear, hear!"] As the law stands the unfortunate subject has to pay these duties twice over. The second and third proposals are to prevent the duty being claimed either where a person has created a life interest in his own property and the property reverts to himself on the termination of that interest, or where he has, in settling his property, created a life interest subsequent to his own, and, through the lapse of such interest in his own lifetime, his life interest becomes enlarged into absolute ownership. There have been cases of considerable hardship under both these heads. Then I propose to adopt the Legacy Duty rule in two points —first, to enable an annuitant to pay the Estate Duty by installments, instead of having now to pay by a lump sum. The second point is with regard to the mode in which the Estate Duty is charged on works of art or other objects or collections of national or historic interest not yielding income. [Cheers.] That rule is not to charge the duty on such articles until they are sold or come into the possession of a person competent to dispose of them. Of course, in such a case these articles could not be aggregated with the rest of the estate for the purpose of the duty, but will pay according to their value. I make this proposal not by any means only in the interest of the families which happen to possess such objects, though I think it a hardship that they should be compelled, as they would be often under the existing law, to part with things which would lose half their interest if severed from the families, or even the houses, to which they belong and have belonged for generations. I think it a hardship that they should be compelled to part with heirlooms which to families might be of incalculable importance. I think it is hard that our system of taxation should run the risk of enforcing sales in any such cases, but, more than that, I think it is contrary to public policy. ["Hear, hear!"] We ought to encourage the retention of such
    1080
    articles by those who have inherited them instead of discouraging them by extraordinary taxation of this kind.[Cheers.] If sold, they are liable to be taken away to foreign countries instead of being kept at home where they would be of interest not only to the possessors, but also to the great masses of the population in the large towns who constantly derive benefit and pleasure, either by way of loan or otherwise, from these collections. [Cheers.] There are some minor points with which I need not trouble the Committee, as they will not affect the Revenue. In all I estimate a loss of revenue from the changes I propose of about £200,000 a year. This leaves me still with £1,508,000.

    LAND TAX AMENDMENTS.
    I think the Committee will agree with me when I say that this must mainly go to the relief of agriculture. [Cheers.] I believe that even those who are, disappointed will agree with me that agriculture has a fair claim to this relief. I know that agriculture is not the only distressed interest in this country. [Opposition cheers. ] There may be manufactures and trades which are also suffering, but there is no interest of anything like the importance of agriculture which has suffered so much or so continuously or to which the general improvement of the condition of the country, to which I have already referred, has given so little relief. I hope that in this matter I may claim the support of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for a year ago, in response to an application for relief of this kind, he stated in this House:—
    "If I had any money to give away the landed interest would be among the first persons who would deserve the consideration of the House."
    [Cheers.] The method by which this relief should be given is, of course, a matter of difficulty, and requires serious consideration. It has been suggested to me that the best way to give relief to agriculture would be to put an end to the temporary duty of 6d. upon beer. ["Oh!" and laughter.] Well, Sir, that suggestion came from a brewer.[Loud laughter.] In my belief those who are connected with agriculture would prefer more direct relief. [Cheers.] Looking to what I

    1081
    have already stated to the Committee as to the present position of the brewing interest, upon which I could say, if necessary, a good deal more—["Hear, hear!"]—I think I may make this claim upon their unselfishness on behalf of their old allies, the agriculturists, that they will consent to the continuance of the temporary duty of 6d. Therefore I loot to give relief to agriculture in another way. First T turn to the Land Tax. Now, the Royal Commission on Agriculture, who did not agree upon everything —[laughter]—have unanimously reported that in their opinion relief should be given to agriculture in the matter of the Land Tax. I need not dwell upon the anomalies, I might almost say, the ridiculous inequality, of this tax. The Royal Commission have not recommended that it should be totally abolished, and why? Because of the obvious injustice that the abolition of the Land Tax would inflict upon a large number of persons who have redeemed it; and I should be disposed to add that there is also this difficulty—the Land Tax has, since 1798, when it was made perpetual, become, not an ordinary tax, but a rent-charge which has been duly allowed for to the purchaser whenever land subject to it has been bought and sold since that time. ["Hear, hear!"] The Royal Commission point out that whereas the quota of Land Tax for each parish is a fixed amount, the value of many parishes has so largely fallen on account of agricultural depression that the fixed quota has become a largely increasing burden, and they instance 11 or 12 parishes in Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincoln, and Wilts— counties which have suffered very heavily from the agricultural depression — in which the burden of the Land Tax, having regard to the assessable value of the land liable to it in a parish, is double or treble what it was 15 years ago. What the Royal Commission have proposed is that the maximum rate of the tax, which is now 4s. in the pound, shall be substantially reduced so as to give relief in those extreme cases. I propose, therefore, in accordance with their recommendation, to reduce the maximum rate of the tax from 4s. in the pound on the value of the land liable to it to 1s. in the pound on the assessment of those lands to Schedule A of the
    1082
    Income Tax. That, I believe, will be a sensible alleviation of the burden in the places where the Land Tax is most heavily felt. ["Hear, hear!"] Then the Royal Commission also recommend that better terms should be given for the redemption of the Land Tax. Mr. Pitt linked, so to speak, the redemption of the Land Tax with the price of Consols, in the belief that the value of land and the value of Consols would rise or fall together. He required that a certain sum in Consols, or cash to that amount, producing rather more than the annual amount of the Land Tax redeemed, should be paid to the State where the Land Tax was redeemed. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone reduced those terms by 17½ per cent. In Mr. Pitt's time, when the Funds stood at practically half what they are now, the redemption terms were comparatively very easy; but at the present price of Consols the only terms upon which the Land Tax can be redeemed under this system practically amount to 36 years' purchase or more. I propose to give a similar reduction to that, which Mr. Gladstone gave in 1853—namely, to reduce the number of years' purchase to 30 years, and to separate the matter altogether from any connection with the rise or fall in Consols. ["Hear, hear!"] There is also in this matter of the Land Tax a grievance which affects the taxpayers in town parishes, where the tax is very small in proportion to the value of the property subject to it. The payers of the Land Tax have also to pay for its assessment. I will give the Committee a few instances of the result. In Birmingham the total amount of the Land Tax is only £368 a year; but it has to be levied from 20,000 separate assessments, and those who pay it have also to pay in addition £165 a year, or pretty nearly half the amount of the tax, to the assessors for their work. In Salford the tax is £79 a year, raised from about 7,800 assessments, and £27 additional have to be paid to the assessors. In Oldham the quota is £23, paid by about 1,800 assessments, for which £16 extra have to be paid. I propose, in accordance with the request that has come, naturally enough, from several of these local authorities, that power should be given to raise the assessment in any year to an amount not

    1083
    exceeding one penny in the pound, so that in a few years, by a slight additional payment, the whole tax — including this absurd payment to the assessors—will be entirely got rid of. I estimate the cost of these amendments in the Land Tax at £100,000 a year.

    AGRICULTURAL RATES.
    I have now come nearly to the end of my statement. The Committee are aware that in a few days my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board proposes to introduce a Bill dealing with the rating of agricultural land. I cannot, of course, say anything now as to the proposals of that Bill, but I estimate the cost of it—so far as the present year is concerned, and including corresponding grants to Scotland and Ireland in the proportions of 11 and 9 respectively to the 80 of England—at about £975,000, for which I make provision out of my surplus. I should say that next year that grant, as our proposals now stand, will be required to be doubled. The Final Balance Sheet for the coming year will, therefore, stand as follows: — The total Revenue is estimated at £100,480,000, made up as follows:—

    £

    Customs

    21,020,000

    Excise

    27,000,000

    Estate Duties

    9,775,000

    Stamps

    6,700,000

    Land Tax

    900,000

    House Duty

    1,475,000

    Income Tax

    16,200,000

    This gives a total Revenue from Taxes of

    £83,070,000

    To this must be added the non-tax Revenue of

    17,410,000

    Giving a total Revenue, as above-mentioned, of

    £100,480,000

    Deducting from this an estimated Expenditure of

    100,047,000

    I have left a margin of

    £433,000

    EDUCATION BILL.
    Out of this margin I have to provide for whatever increased expenditure in regard to education may fall within the present financial year on
    1084
    account of the proposals of the Education Bill of my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. As the Bill will not come into operation until January 1 next, or until the arrangements which cannot be made until after that date between the Education Department and the County Councils are completed, only a comparatively small part of the increased expenditure proposed by the Bill will fall upon the current year. I propose to provide for that, as I have said, out of the remaining £433,000, which will leave a modest surplus for contingencies. I hope that I have not taxed at too great a length the patience of the Committee. [Cheers. ] I have endeavoured to place before them fully the financial condition of the country. I think it is something to be able to say that in a year of great expenditure like the present we are able to meet the demands upon us without having to impose a single penny in additional taxation on the people of the country. [Cheers.] I think it is even more to be able—as I hope we shall be out of the abundance at our disposal—to make some provision from that ever-increasing personal wealth of the country, which until recently contributed nothing to local burdens—[Opposition cheers]—for the agricultural interest, which is at once the most important and the most distressed in the country. ["Hear, hear!"] I thank the Committee for the patience with which they have heard me. I fear I have been able to place before them not much of special novelty or interest, but I hope, in spite of that, that the proposals I have ventured to make will receive their fair and their favourable consider ation.[Loud cheers.]
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT*SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, W.), rising amid loud Opposition cheers, said: I have to congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his fortunate position and upon the signal ability with which he has made his financial statement.[Cheers.] A happier picture of the financial condition of the country it would be impossible to present to the House of Commons; and this I will say, without expressing any opinion—as it is unwise to do the first night of the Budget—as to future proposals, that as to the past in general terms and upon the financial principles which the right hon. Gentleman has stated,

    1085
    I for one am entirely in accord with him. I think the general principles that the right hon. Gentleman has stated, both in regard to the revenue and in regard to the expenditure of the country, are founded upon the basis of sound finance. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the surplus. He has entered, like the children of Israel, upon oliveyards and vineyards which he did not plant—[laughter]— and I congratulate him upon the abundance which he enjoys. It is perfectly true that it is no credit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a great surplus. It is not the Chancellor of the Exchequer but the people that makes the revenue; and, after all, his estimate can only be a guess which is dependent upon the circumstances of the time. I desire to make the amount of the surplus greater even than the right hon. Gentleman has represented it to be. The real surplus of the Budget of last year was not four millions, as the right hon. Gentleman stated it, but if the financial arrangements of last year had been carried out it would have been six millions and a half. [Opposition cheers.] That has been depleted by supplementary estimates amounting to two-and-a-half millions, for which I was not responsible, but which were introduced by the present Administration. These supplementary estimates have been introduced upon a system which the present First Lord of the Admiralty last year condemned as unsound when I brought forward a supplementary estimate of £200,000 in aid of the poor finances of the coming year. My offence may have been a great one, but the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has multiplied it by ten, for the amount that he has brought in in aid of the finances of the present year, which is not a poor year, but a rich year, is two-and-a-half millions. I do not complain of it in the present circumstances, though I agree that it has been carried to a rather extraordinary extent. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, but then the right hon. Gentleman claims credit for the accident which occurred in June, and for the surplus which it created. ["No,"] Well, he referred to it incidentally.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I said it was a curious coincidence. [Laughter.]
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am going to point out some other curious coincidences in relation to that event. No doubt the time of June was what you might call a very promising season. [Ministerial, cheers and laughter.] And the country, no doubt, was full of expectation and full of hope, and the revenue increased in that quarter by 3½ millions. But then came a period of reflection in the next quarter, and the increase instead of being 3½ millions, was 2½ millions. Then came further experience and reflection on the part of the country with respect to the new Government which they had got, and the revenue fell to 1½ million. And so it appears that the more the Government is known this remarkable coincidence occurs—the more revenue drops and the less they are trusted. [Cheers and laughter.] These are coincidences which seem also to have occurred to the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for in the later part of his speech he thought it wise to say that he did not think the revenue depended at all on one Administration or the other. That is one of the sound principles on which I am disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter and cheers.] This is not the only instance which we have had of these promises of what was to come from the change of Government. We had a similar doctrine from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who pointed out how "the accident of June" had lead to universal peace. Three-quarters of a year's experience has falsified that prediction—["hear, hear!"] — and three-quarters of a year's experience on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown him that, whereas in. year 1895–6 a surplus of 6½ millions might be obtained, when the country has discounted the existing Administration the surplus they have to deal with is 1½ million. So much for the doctrine of surpluses. I am extremely glad that, from whatever cause it has arisen, and what ever the Administration it may be, the Government of the country should have such ample resources at its disposal. The right hon. Gentleman stated that this was the largest surplus that had ever been realised in this country; and that is true. I am speaking of the surplus as it would have stood if the expenditure of the Budget

    1087
    of last year had been adhered to. I am not taking into account the supplementary estimates of 2½ millions which, it is admitted, do not belong to the natural expenditure of last year, but to an accelerated expenditure intended to be in aid of the expenditure of the succeeding year. There have been in previous years two surpluses of six millions and over. One was the surplus which Mr. Lowe had in 1870, out of which the Alabama indemnity was paid, and in respect of which Lord Derby said that we had "drunk ourselves" out of the Alabama claim. The other surplus was the surplus—and perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to call it a remarkable coincidence—which in 1874 Mr. Gladstone left to a Conservative Government. Perhaps I should be content to err, in company with Mr. Gladstone, in leaving behind a surplus of six millions to a Conservative Government—[cheers]—but I hope the parallel will not be fulfilled, for that surplus left by Mr. Gladstone ended in three years of deficits before the Conservative Administration closed. I trust that, after the serious advice offered to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of expenditure, such results will not recur. It is no doubt very satisfactory that we should have this enormous sum of money. The possibility of it shows the resources of the country; but I agree that it is much to be deplored that we should find ourselves under the necessity of raising such a sum in order to spend it. I think we may dwell on these figures of the growth of the revenue in order to satisfy ourselves as to what is the real condition of the country. There are gentlemen who go about trying to persuade everybody that the country is in a desperate condition; that every interest is suffering; that low prices have ruined everybody; and that the only remedy is that we shall destroy our commercial system, revert to Protection, and tamper with the currency. [Cheers.] And all this in order to cure that state of prosperity which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just enlarged upon. [Cheers.] Of course there will be times when you have an advance of trade and a retreat of trade. It is just as you see upon the seashore— the waves at one moment advancing and at another retiring. But what you have
    1088
    to look at is in what direction the tide is flowing, and though you may have alternative advance and retreat of the waves, you may know that on the whole the tide is flowing, and that the condition of the country is one of progress; and you may deduce from that fact that your systems of finance and commerce and currency are sound. ["Hear, hear!"] Let us look at the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given to us. I speak in the first instance of the Customs, because they are the test of the condition of the wage-earning classes. There is an increase of 10,000,000 lbs. of tea consumed in this country in the last financial year. That means an addition of £157,000 to Tea Duty returns—a larger increase than in any former year. Of the Tobacco Duty the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, in my opinion, unduly disparaging. [Laughter.] That duty is one of the sheet-anchors of the revenue and it ought to be as precious to the right hon. Gentleman as the beer, of which he appears to have a much higher opinion. [Laughter.] Again, upon the Tobacco Duty there has been an increased return of £333,000—a larger increase than in any former year, unless it be the year 1891. Then we come to the great question of beer. There has been an increase there of £616,000 in the revenue— an increase which the right hon. Gentleman has translated into 1,600,000 barrels. I suppose that increase has been principally employed in drinking the health of Her Majesty's present Administration. [Loud cheers and laughter.] When we talk of temperance we are told, "You need not trouble yourselves. The Nation is working out its own salvation. People are drinking less and less every year and becoming more and more temperate." Yes; but not when a new Administration comes in. [Laughter.] What is the ingratitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Has he forgotten 1894, when the sixpenny duty was put upon beer? Then the brewers and the agricultural interest were not dissociated, but united together in order to destroy the Administration of that day. [Cheers.] And they very nearly succeeded, the principal instrument employed by them being the Beer Tax. The sixpenny duty on beer would ruin the farmers by spoiling the market for barley. The brewers and the farmers

    1089
    acted together at that time, and they compeiled me to make it a temporary duty. Now I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite is going to continue it as a temporary duty, or is going to make it a permanent duty. I was denounced in every part of the country as a wicked person. I remember the speech of the Colonial Secretary. He said:—
    "Here is a man who is taxing the drink of the English people, while he is relieving the Irish from the tax on their whisky."
    [Cheers.] That was for a single year. But now comes a new Chancellor of the Exchequer who puts a permanent sixpenny duty on beer; and that when there is a great surplus, and not for the purposes of meeting a temporary want. Do not let the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that after these remarks—which, I think, with the recollections of 1894 in my mind, I may be pardoned—I am going to oppose his proposal. I think it a most reasonable proposal—as it was in 1894. [Cheers.] I am not going to heap coals of fire on the right hon. Gentleman's head, but I will heap beer barrels on his head. [Laughter.] I pointed out at that time that the increased profit to the brewers from the fall in the price of materials was two millions at least, according to my information, of which the tax amounted to £500,000, and the £1,500,000 the brewers put in their pockets. Now, since that time there has been this increase of 1,600,000 barrels to the brewers' account, and that has to be added to the profits on which I calculated in 1894; so that the brewers' profits have been still greater. If I had the means the Chancellor of the Exchequer has of forming an estimate of the additional profit which the brewers put in their pockets in the last 12 months from the further fall in the cost of material I should be astonished at the moderation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in only continuing the sixpence; and if he should find himself in difficulties he will not find any real obstacle in raising a great deal more than a sixpence upon beer. What has been proved is this—that the increased duty upon spirits yielded nothing, and that the additional duty upon
    1090
    beer yielded all that was expected or it, and this year has yielded a great deal more than was expected of it at the time; and the suspicion which was cast upon me was only due to the want of financial knowledge on the part of Gentlemen opposite. [Laughter.] I might also mention wine, though that belongs to a different class, and, above all, one large item of taxation of which the yield this year has been most remarkably satisfactory—the Post Office, to which, by accident, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not refer. The Revenue of the Post Office and Telegraphs for the first time has augmented to the extent of £900,000, and the estimated expenditure is less than it was. What does this prove? It proves the sound condition of the people of this country. And now let me turn to direct taxation; and here I would refer to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to the great alteration that has been made in the finance of this country in the last 50 years. Ah! Sir, a most beneficial change and a just change. Could there have been a more unjust, I might almost say a more wicked, state of taxation in relation to the classes upon which it was levied than that which Sir R. Peel found and which Sir R. Peel and Mr. Gladstone have transformed? ["Hear, hear!"] Why, at that time the great proportion of the taxation of this country was raised from indirect taxation, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown. ["Hear, hear," from Sir H. VINCENT.] Yes and who paid it? [Cheers.] Why, the working classes. I venture to say that this great increase of consumption of tea, and even of tobacco, is not due to the Member for Sheffield; it is due to the 30 millions of people in this country, and mainly the poorer classes. It has been the object of our finance since that time to diminish the indirect taxation and to increase the burden of direct taxation. There have been gradual advances. Sir R. Peel began them with the Income Tax. It has been carried on by the Stamp Tax and other taxes since that time, and it was one of the great objects of the Budget of 1894 to increase the amount that was levied from direct taxation; but even at this moment the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that an equality has not been reached. We have been tending

    1091
    to an equality, but have not yet reached it Now, when we are told that there is distress in this country and that we ought to have some alteration in our commercial system or in our currency, how do people account for the constant growth of the yield of the Income Tax? It is said that all the interests of this country are depressed? We know agriculture is distressed and the payments to the Income Tax from agricultural land have diminished, but Schedule A has not diminished. Why? The yield from houses is constantly increasing. And who are the people who build these houses and live in them? Of course, they are the people who have profited by the trade and commerce of this country. I would ask the Committee, upon the figures before us, to consider this. In 1894 great reductions and allowances were made on the Income Tax—there were allowances, for example, under Schedule A, of which the cost was estimated at £800,000, and a further diminution of about the same amount due to the abatements on small incomes—and yet to-day the Income Tax yields two millions for every 1d. in the pound. That certainly is a most remarkable circumstance. I watch very carefully the effect of those reductions, because I should have been extremely sorry to have done anything that should have injured the machinery of the Income Tax, which, after all, must be one of the great resources of the taxation of this country. I think the rate of the Income Tax is much too high for a time of peace. An 8d. Income Tax is one which is almost a war tax; it ought only to exist when there is imminent apprehension of war. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke about the dangers of increased expenditure, and it is very right that hon. Gentlemen should take to heart what he said as to the source from which increased expenditure will be paid. You are not going to conquer the Soudan with an 8d. Income Tax. You may depend upon it that if you are going into undertakings of this kind all over the world it is not upon an 8d. Income Tax, nor even upon the Death Duties as they now stand, that you will be able to defray the expenditure which will certainly be incurred. Stamps have largely exceeded the Estimate, and
    1092
    the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pointed out whence that excess has come. One is always glad when one can tax the follies of mankind. If we could only tax them a little more we should have an immense revenue. What has been called, I believe, in the slang of the City, a "Kaffir boom" has yielded to us a million or thereabouts. We have gained that benefit at least from South African speculation, but I think we shall be very fortunate if we do not lose, before we have done, a great deal more than a million out of South African speculation. I listened, of course, with great interest to the exposition which the right hon. Gentleman gave of the yield of the Death Duties. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the acknowledgment which he made of the accuracy of the calculation which was made in 1894 of the final and ultimate yield of the Death Duties. The figure I gave at that time was £3,500,000, or between that and £4,000,000, and the yield this year is £3,600,000. Now, considering the enormous difficulties of the calculation, the new elements of graduation, of aggregation, and of succession, and the infinite number of unknown quantities in the equation, that the actual yield should have come so near the calculation is what I would venture to call—I do not take the credit, of course, personally to myself—a financial miracle. The reason why the yield fell somewhat short of the calculation last year was, as I pointed out, that the mortality of the previous year had been extremely low. I said it was a bad year for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and for undertakers. And so it was. It is a remarkable fact that in 1894–95 in this country 80,000 fewer people died than in the previous year, and the mortality in the year just expired has within 3,000 returned to the mortality of the year before. Therefore that in itself would, of course, be one of the great elements why the yield was larger this year than it was in the year before. The right hon. Gentleman has given us another and very important reason why the yield was larger than the estimate, and that is that the owners of real property found it possible and convenient to pay up the Death Duties at once instead of paying them by instalments. Therefore

    1093
    I am astonished, like the right hon. Gentleman, that they should have preferred that course; but that shows that they are not ruined—[cheers]—that their position is not so disastrous as we constantly had it represented, and the very small figure that is shown to have been yielded by agricultural land to the Death Duties proved at all events that it has not been extremely oppressive in that direction. There is one other point with reference to the Death Duties I want to mention, because it was referred to by the hon. Member for King's Lynn last year. The hon. Member first of all told us that nothing at all would be gained from the Death Duties. But we got what we calculated. The hon. Member insisted on our contribution to local taxation from the Death Duties having fallen off £200,000, and that represented a falling off of £18,000,000 on the money which came under probate. That was a remarkable circumstance. I showed at the time that it was probably due to the lower mortality and some other causes in retarded collection; and I estimated that the £200,000 which we had lost would be recovered and £40,000 more. But in point of fact the contribution to local taxation from this source has been but £300,000 more than it was last year; so that the loss of £200,000 has been replaced and £100,000 in addition. That is to say, the falling off of £18,000,000 has been more than recouped; and therefore all the conclusions of the hon. Member drawn from his idea that there would be an evasion to such an extent that we would not get the same amount of property subject to probate as in former years proved to be unfounded. Evasions have not taken place; the quantity of property which has come under probate is more than it was in preceding years. There is another remark which I must make about the surplus. I said that the Government of Mr. Gladstone in 1874 left behind them a surplus of over £6,000,000; but when the Conservative Government of that day inherited a surplus of £6,000,000 they did not spend it all. They gave some relief in taxation. [Cheers.] I should like to call attention to what the Budget of Sir Stafford Northcote was in 1874. He had a surplus of about £6,000,000. He
    1094
    gave to local taxation £1,250,000; he took a penny off the Income Tax— £1,840,000; he took £2,000,000 off the Sugar Duty, and finally released sugar from any duty at, all; and he took off the Horse Tax —£500,000. That is something like the way to deal with a surplus. Relief in these circumstances was given to every class in the community, but, as far as I understand, in this Budget there is no relief to be given except to one limited class of the community. In my opinion that is not the best way in which you can deal with a surplus. I am not going to say anything with reference to the plan for the future Budget as opened by the right hon. Gentleman. I have endeavoured to make some remarks with reference to the finance of the past year, for which I had some responsibility. I desire entirely to concur in the doctrine which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down, especially with reference to the payment of the National Debt. I thought that the observations he made on that subject were extremely weighty, and deserving of the attention of the House; and I hope that his doctrine will be strictly followed by him and by his successors. [Cheers.] I am quite sure that there is no greater reserve of national strength than the maintaining permanently the provision for the reduction of the Debt. It must be remembered that in the days of Sir Robert Peel, when the Revenue of this country was about £50,000,000, half of the Revenue went in the discharge of the interest of the Debt. Now we have a Revenue of upwards of £100,000,000 and the interest on the Debt proper is not one-fifth part of the Revenue of the country. That is a most remarkable change, and, inasmuch as we have so much less burden to bear of Debt, so it would be the greater shame if we withdrew from the obligation of contributing to the liquidation of that Debt. [Cheers.] There is one other point I must refer to, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman has said on the subject of the savings banks. He made no definite proposal to the House on the subject and I shall be glad to consider the question carefully. I do not consider that the savings bank fund is now in a satisfactory condition with

    1095
    reference to the interest paid to depositors. Before I left office I appointed a Departmental Committee of the Treasury to consider that subject, and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would derive great advantage from the Report of that Committee. I trust, however, that he will not diminish the amount which is allowed at present to be deposited in the savings banks. The question of interest to be paid for it is a totally different thing. I am of opinion if the State is to undertake the business of banking and to take care of the money of the people to whatever class they belong, the taxpayers ought not to be the losers by that transaction. [Cheers.] The interest on the savings bank deposit, therefore, ought to be accommodated to the financial condition of the time. I hope that persons who may not be the weekly earners of wages, but, nevertheless, persons of small means, will not be deprived of the power they have at present to make deposits in the savings banks. Take the case of domestic servants who are not earners of weekly wages. They are in the position to make deposits in the savings banks, and they do so, I hope, to a large extent. People of that class are apt to lose their money by placing it in the most unsound investments. A man who has £50 to put away cannot go to a bank and open an account with the same advantage as he can in a savings bank, where he can draw out his money in any part of the country he happens to be in. I would therefore enter a caveat against altering the provisions with reference to the amount to be deposited, though I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his view, that you may give to the persons who have the larger deposits a lower rate of interest than to those who have smaller deposits. I think that is a sound principle. But this is not the time to enter into a discussion of the proposals of the Budget for the future financial year. That time will come when the Resolutions are brought forward, and when we have time more maturely to consider the very able statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Cheers.]
    MR. ARTHUR JEFFREYSthought that the thanks of all those interested in agriculture were
    1096
    due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the benefit he proposed to confer on the agricultural industry. It was the first time he could recall that any money had been voted for the relief of agriculture by the House. Many Chancellors of the Exchequer had expressed sympathy with the agriculturists, but no step in this direction of relief had been attempted. He thought that the money to be voted for the reduction of rates on agricultural land was the best way to afford relief, because it would affect every acre in the country. He was also grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what he proposed to do in respect of the Land Tax. Last year the Leader of the Opposition expressed great sympathy with a Motion as to the Land Tax, and said that he thought it ought to be altered because it pressed heavily on certain parishes. But, according to the present measure of relief indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not only the great landowners but the small landowners would benefit by the proposed change. No class would feel the benefit of the proposed reduction more than the clergy, who had to pay the Land Tax on the whole of their tithes. The poorer clergy would certainly be very grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He also wished to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his proposal to relieve private collections of works of art from the incidence of Death Duties. Many people had been compelled last year to sell their most valuable pictures in order to meet those duties. The nation, he believed, would be glad to know that these private collections, which were a source of so much enjoyment, not only to the owners, but to countless others, would no longer have to be broken up. The right hon. Member for Monmouthshire had not said that he objected to the application of the surplus to the relief of agriculture, and he therefore took it for granted that hon. Members opposite agreed that it was the best way to use the surplus. There were in Hampshire, the county in which the right hon. Member for Monmouthshire lived, many farmers and landowners who were reduced to great straits, and these men, when they read the newspapers to-morrow would rejoice and set about their

    1097
    work buoyed up with brighter hopes than they had known for many years.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid he had listened to a great many Budgets, and without wishing to draw comparisons between one Chancellor of the Exchequer and another, he certainly thought it right to thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for his clear and lucid statement and for the many sound doctrines which he laid down in the course of it. He hoped that the right hon. Member would print a revised edition of his speech in order to distribute it among Members of the House. That course had been taken on more than one occasion in the past, greatly to the advantage of those who wished to study a nation's accounts. But after all this Budget must be looked upon as a very melancholy Budget. It was melancholy when considered from the point of view of the general state of Europe and its tremendous armaments. We were now spending 12 millions more on the Army and Navy than we spent 20 years ago, and 15 or 16 millions more than it was usual to spend when he first had the honour to take part in the discussion of the Estimates in that House. He had read speeches made by the present Leader of the House in which he advocated earnestly and straightforwardly a system of international arbitration which would do away with the necessity of these large armaments and this enormous expenditure. He wished to urge the Government to make strenuous efforts to bring-about the general acceptance of the system of arbitration, so that an end might be put to this terrible military competition and this constant increase of costly armaments. In the course of that discussion they would probably hear many references to the distressed state of agriculture. He came from a district where there was no derelict land, and where no farms were unlet. The local Chamber of Agriculture had declared recently that any farm in a well managed estate in the district was sure to let and at perhaps more than its present value. His own belief was that what was wanted in the interests of the farmers was a general revision of taxation, not piecemeal revision. What the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do in regard to the Land Tax
    1098
    might prove to be a present to the landlords. The whole of the surplus was practically going into the hands of one section of the community. He did not say that the agricultural interest was not a very large and important one, but there were other industries that had suffered far more than the farmers had and yet no part of this surplus was to be applied for their relief. The whole question of the incidence of taxation ought to be reconsidered and dealt with by a Royal Commission or in some other authoritative manner. He would take that opportunity to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that most of the prophecies which were made by the right hon. Gentleman's supporters in the Debate on the Budget in 1894 had not come true. He remembered his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton saying—
    "that the burden of the alteration of the duties would fall most heavily upon personal property."
    That view had been borne out by the facts. The £850,000 which had fallen upon agricultural land seemed to have been paid almost at once. That might be accounted for to some extent no doubt by the low rate at which money could be procured from bankers on land security. It had been made plain, however, that the Duty had not fallen so heavily upon agricultural property as was expected by right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
    *MR. CUTHBERT QUILTERdesired to add his meed of approval to the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he thanked him for the sympathetic manner in which he had spoken of agriculture and art. As an agricultural Member and as a humble worshipper at the shrine of art, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman warmly. This was almost the first occasion on which he had heard sympathy for art expressed in high quarters in that House, coupled with something more tangible than sympathy. He believed that the possessors of art treasures who had been dispersing them during the last year to the loss of this country and the gain of others would now be induced to hold their hand, and that men who had made fortunes on the Stock Exchange and in

    1099
    other ways would be encouraged to form new collections. Art lovers who spent their money in the formation of collections which gave pleasure to so many people ought not be singled out for increased taxation. He did not now attempt to discuss the proposals made for the relief of agriculture, but would simply say with regard to the county he had the honour to represent, those proposals would give great satisfaction as an earnest of practical sympathy.
    *MR. J. W. LOGANsaid, he was also an agricultural Member, but he could not help expressing his surprise that the whole of this surplus was to be given to one class in the country. When he heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell of the continued prosperity of this country he could only regret that some portion of the surplus was not allowed to find its way to the relief of the indirect taxpayer, and that no portion was set aside for the purpose of providing old-age pensions for the deserving poor. The whole of the surplus was to go to the landlords of the country. There was no good mincing the matter. The relief was not to be given to those who were suffering from the agricultural distress, but to the landlords. He had it on the authority of the President of the Local Government Board that any relief in the rates on agricultural land must eventually find its way into the pockets of the landlords. He would remind the House and the country, and he thought it was time the country realised the figures, that to day the agricultural rentals of Great Britain were £2,000,000 sterling in excess of what they were 50 years ago. That sum capitalised at 20 years' purchase amounted to no less a sum than £40,000,000 sterling, which represented the increased selling value of agricultural land in England to-day. Taking the whole of the land of England, agricultural or otherwise, during this century, since the time his father was born, its selling value had increased by no less than £2,000,000,000 sterling. It was not fair to the rest of the community that when there was a surplus it should be used exclusively for the benefit of one of the wealthiest and best-to-do classes in the community. He was anxious to see what was known as the free breakfast table, and when the Chancellor of
    1100
    the Exchequer talked of the prosperity of the country and of the increase in the consumption of tea and other luxuries, he would like to remind him that in London at the present time 30 out of every 100 of the people were in a state of poverty. Notwithstanding the enormous wealth of this city, the entire upper and middle classes in London to-day did not number above 18 out of every 100; and in 37 districts in London, the richest capital of the richest country in the world, the proportion of those in absolute poverty was 40 in the 100, and in many cases rose to 60 in the 100. He contended that this money ought to have been used to benefit the poorer classes in the country. The working man in England paid much more taxation in proportion to his income than the rich man. Every fortnight from his place on a Board of Guardians he saw agricultural labourers who had toiled faithfully and well all their lives for a wage which never allowed them to put anything by—he saw these men come forward as mendicants for public charity. That brought a flush of shame to his cheek as an Englishman, and he only wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer had enabled his Party to carry out the pledge they gave at the last General Election that old-age pensions should form a part of their programme. He had seen the whole country placarded "Vote for So-and-So (the Conservative candidate), the toiler's true friend." Was he the toiler's true friend that evening? Whilst he must apologise to the House for having spoken at such length, he desired to refer to another class of persons who should have derived some benefit from the surplus. He would plead in favour of the old soldiers of this country. As an Englishman, he had felt ashamed the other night when he heard the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War state that the number of old soldiers in the workhouses of England and Ireland was so great that it was utterly impossible to entertain any proposal for pensioning them. He was sorry that it had not been proposed to spend some portion of this large surplus in establishing a system of old age pensions. He had no doubt that the Government, with the great majority they had at their backs, would be able to force this Budget through

    1101
    the House. The artisans and the working classes of this country had made their beds by giving the Conservatives a majority, and, therefore, they would have to lie on them. The taxpayers and the ratepayers of the country would have to find this money that was about to be handed over to the landowners. En conclusion, he thanked the House for the courtesy with which they had listened to him.
    *SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid, that the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, of course, a brilliant one, because trade was always flourishing under a Conservative Administration. He was not going to attempt to analyse the causes of such a state of affairs, but the chief reason might be found in the confidence which the present Government inspired in the country. The point to which he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the prospective increase in the burden of direct taxation in the future. He could never understand why the members of some professions and trades should be compelled to pay licences for leave to carry on their business. Again, why should people be compelled to pay a licence because they employed a male servant, a helper in the stable or the garden. If that system were to be maintained, however, he thought that, where a foreign servant was employed, the duty should be largely increased, if not-doubled. But the point to which he was most anxious to call attention was that which related to indirect taxation. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to raise £21,000,000 by the Customs Duties. No nation in the world, with the exception of the United States, raised such a Revenue from Import Duties. Those duties were raised practically upon four classes of articles, namely, tea and coffee, cocoa, dried fruits, and tobacco. With the exception of tobacco, the whole of the Revenue was raised by an ad valorem duty of from 6O to 70 per cent. Both the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth had referred to the fact that these articles were mainly consumed by the working classes of the country. He
    1102
    joined with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in expressing regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to reduce the Customs Duties upon these articles of consumption which had become of paramount necessity in every home throughout the country. These articles had not to meet with any internal competition. The Customs Duties upon these articles amounted to £4,000,000 per annum, and he agreed that no one had a right to propose to strike that amount off the Revenue of the country unless he could show how the money might be otherwise obtained. His suggestion was that the £4,000,000 should be obtained by putting on an import duty upon foreign wholly manufactured and partly manufactured goods. In 1855 the value of foreign manufactured goods was £109,000,000, and in 1893 that value had risen to £312,000,000. The value per head of the population of such imported manufactured goods had risen from £3 19s. 1d. in 1855 to £8 2s. l0d. in 1893. He did not hesitate to say that this enormous increase in the value of imported foreign manufactured goods was a great danger to the country, which the Government of the day ought to watch and guard against by every possible means.
    *The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I think the hon. and gallant Member is going outside of the subject under discussion.
    *SIR HOWARD VINCENTsaid, that of course he should bow to the ruling of the hon. Gentleman, but he was anxious to draw attention to the enormous increase that had taken place in the importation of foreign manufactured goods into this country, and to show the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that instead of the £4,000,000 which he now obtained from the import duties upon tea and similar articles he could obtain a revenue of £7,000,000 by imposing a duty upon foreign manufactured goods. Ten per cent. upon £60,000,000 worth of foreign wholly manufactured goods would produce £6,000,000, and five per cent. upon £20,000,000 worth of foreign partly manufactured goods would produce another £1,000,000, making £7,000,000 in all. This would not only give an increased Revenue, but would be in

    1103
    the interest of the British artisan. The returns of trade for the past thirty years would, he maintained, explode the theory that putting a duty even upon foreign manufactured goods would have a tendency to decrease the export of British goods to foreign countries. Year by year the disproportion between the import and export trades became greater, and while the import trade was increasing to such an enormous extent it could not be contended that imports were paid for by exports. A tax on foreign manufactured goods would not in the slightest degree, he believed, decrease the export of goods from this country, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt this course he would improve his Revenue, relieve the working classes, and further the policy of the Secretary of State for the Colonies of developing trade within the British Empire.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
    MR. J. CALDWELLsaid he would not follow in detail the hon. Member for Sheffield with regard to the taxation of foreign goods entering the country. But the answer to him was simple. It had been shown repeatedly that any taxation on foreign imported goods meant taxation, not of the foreigner, but of the users of the goods. It had also been demonstrated that if we exported manufactured goods to other countries we must on the principle of "give and take" allow their goods to come in on the same footing, otherwise they would not take so many of our manufactured goods as formerly. No doubt our export trade was increasing. But it was chiefly in machinery, and when China, Japan and other countries had obtained the best machinery they would become formidable competitors with us. [At this point the hon. Member's remarks were interrupted by an unsuccessful attempt to count out the House.] He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to the proportion of direct and indirect taxation in this country. Taxation should be borne by those best able to bear it, and it was unreasonable that the working man should pay such an enormous proportion of the taxation of the country in
    1104
    the form of indirect taxation. During the last fifty years, owing to the extension of the franchise and the increased power of the working classes, the proportion of direct and indirect taxation had almost been equalised. But the Government proposed by this Budget to go back on the policy which had been followed for the last fifty years. With regard to the Death Duties, he submitted that when a man succeeded to works of art which he could sell and convert into cash he should pay Death Duty in respect of those works of art.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My proposal is that duty shall be payable whenever works of art come into the possession of the person who sells them or is competent to dispose of them.
    MR. CALDWELL (continuing)said that with regard to the Land Tax, which was to get £100,000, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that those parties who had purchased land in recent years had purchased it with the burden upon it, which was really a rent charge, and there was a difficulty in giving relief to those parties who had purchased with a knowledge of the burdens existing on the property. For his part he could not see how they could give State money for the reduction of the Land Tax without violating the principle that they were giving the money of the State to people who had purchased property well knowing that it had this burden upon it. Then came the question of the application of money to agriculture. In Scotland the local rates were payable, one half by the landlord and one half by the tenant, and the effect of this Bill would be that whatever proportion of the subsidy went to Scotland, one half of the money would go directly into the pockets of the landlords. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "No, no!"] It would depend, then, upon the way in which it was allocated. There was this further objection: Suppose they gave it entirely to the tenant. When he made an offer for his farm the tenant made it with a knowledge of what the local taxes were at the time. Of course if the tax was to be higher the tenant would give a correspondingly lower rent, and if the rates were reduced perhaps during the existence of the lease, the tenant might, to some extent, reap the

    1105
    benefit during those years; but whenever the lease came to an end the land would be in the open market, and the rates being less the landlord would expect a higher rent for his land. Thus, at the end of the lease, the money would go into the pocket of the landlord and the landlord alone. As to the proportions that were to be allocated to England, Scotland and Ireland, he had always thought it a strange matter that a Unionist Government should be the first to establish a Separatist principle with regard to the finance of this country. Up to the last Unionist Government the country had been treated as one Imperial whole without reference to nationality. The distinction was first raised in the last Parliament by the present First Lord of the Admiralty, who separated the United Kingdom into the three nationalities of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and then gave Scotland, England and Ireland each her share of the Probate Duty. The Government were going to perpetuate that system of breaking up the United Kingdom into nationalities in their proposals with regard to agricultural taxation. How did that work out? In the case of the Probate Duty, the percentages were 80 per cent. for England, 11 per cent. for Scotland, and 9 per cent. for Ireland, these being the proportions in which each country contributed to that duty. There was some reason for that course then, but here they were not dealing with the Probate Duty at all, but with a totally different subject, namely, the relief of agricultural distress. The matter had nothing whatever to do with the Probate Duty or the proportion in which each country subscribed to it, and the relief should be governed by the necessities of each country irrespective of nationality. Look at the absurdity of the Government proposal! Everyone must admit that the agricultural interest was greater in Ireland than in Scotland; and yet, while Scotland was to receive 11 per cent. Ireland was only to receive 9 per cent. Was there ever a more insane proposal brought before the House of Commons? Instead of taking the basis of the Probate Duty, which had nothing whatever to do with the matter, the Government ought to take as their basis of distribution the relative proportions which each
    1106
    country paid to the Imperial Parliament.
    *SIR ALBERT ROLLITobserved, that no one could have listened to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer without admiring both the matter and the form of it, and he thought the Committee was greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had placed the subject before them. He desired to say a word or two on not the least important of both the Chancellor's and ex-Chancellor's observations, viz.: The matter of the Savings Banks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the question of the payment of the current rate of interest was undoubtedly arguable, and had intimated that he might possibly initiate legislation on the subject. He rose to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, which had also been made by the right hon. Member for Monmouthshire, that any such legislation should not take the form of a reduction of the limit of deposits. The extension had only recently been made, and as Chairman of the Inspection Committee of the Trustee Savings Banks he had special opportunities of knowing how valuable that had been to the saving portion of the people. It must be remembered that the people who saved saved not only for themselves, but also for the State. He did not hesitate to say that even some slight loss in interest was, in the end, for the economic benefit of the State, because these habits of thrift undoubtedly prevented many ultimately coming upon the rates and from being a burden upon local taxation who, under other circumstances, might be in that position, and he was therefore glad to hear the Chancellor's readiness to make such sacrifice as to interest, while the ex-Chancellor was quite opposed to this. He believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in the inference he drew that the savings banks, as a whole, did not benefit generally the class for which they were intended. He thought the right hon. Gentleman inferred that, because deposits had been made of large sums up to the extreme limit, the class who were depositing were not the class of very limited means for whom the banks were specially intended.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he thought his hon. Friend had misunderstood him. What he said was that unquestionably they benefited the class for whom they were intended, but also that they benefited a very large number of other persons who deposited in the banks the annual limit of,£50 in a single sum, and who did not, presumably, belong to the working classes.
    *SIR ALBERT ROLLITaccepted the qualification of the right hon. Gentleman, although he did not think he had misunderstood the general bearing of the Chancellor's remarks. He thought the inference was unfounded, and one possible cause of the fact that deposits of large sums were frequently made in one sum was indicated by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said that one great advantage of their savings banks was that if people removed from one part of the country to another, they always had them immediately accessible. He believed that a large number of these deposits in single considerable sums was due to this very facility; for though deposits could be transferred, they were frequently, upon removal from one town to another, withdrawn, through ignorance of the regulations, and redeposited, just as the stock investment regulations were not generally understood, and so not greatly used. This subject of class-investments had been very carefully studied by the Inspection Committee, and very valuable and striking figures were placed before them with reference to Aberdeen and Glasgow, and they came to the conclusion that these figures showed that the Trustee Savings Banks continued to serve very generally the needs of the working classes, both in the skilled and unskilled branches, and especially domestic servants, who were much liable to be plundered. The result of his own observation was that these banks were still serving essentially the class for which they were intended, and he desired to pay a tribute to the trustees and managers who, for nearly a century, had devoted their time and thought to the interests of these depositors. By the Act of 1891 the House, very properly, imposed upon them stringent obligations as to the
    1108
    mode in which accounts should be kept, the audit made, and excessive expenses of management reduced, and the like, and they had been almost universally conformed to, and also without great difficulty. The Inspection Committee had, under that Act, specially examined these banks, and they found that, almost without exception, they were in a condition which merited the confidence which had been reposed in them, and that they were even safer and sounder than they had been, and he thought that, under these circumstances, reducing as they were their expenditure, and doing their duty thoroughly to the community, they were entitled to very great consideration. He hoped, therefore, that when legislation was proposed, great care would be taken to retain their advantages for the benefit of the saving public. He heard with interest, and also with welcome, the statement that Chinese teas were being replaced by teas from India and Ceylon. But, while this was good, he hoped that it did not indicate a transition which would be disadvantageous—viz., that we were losing our hold on China, with its consuming millions, for exports and imports were correlative terms. Politically there had been difficulties in the Far East, and to-day they had not, in his opinion, nearly the commercial representation they ought to have there. For his part he welcomed the enterprise of the Blackburn Chamber of Commerce in sending out to China a commercial mission, as Lyons had done. He thought he might venture to say that the reception which had been given that night to the question of the graduation of the Death Duties, and the absence of any change, indicated that those of them who supported that change were justified in the course they took, but he was glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken the opportunity of remedying some of those inevitable difficulties which had arisen in the administration of a new law. He thought in that respect he had done a public service. He heard with interest what he said about works of art. He thought that in the case of heirlooms there was great reason for consideration, but he did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke not of the interest of the old family but of the collector. Collecting was one of the

    1109
    most profitable forms of investment, and while they should give every consideration to those who collected in the course of ages, through their families, and to whom such works as portraits, etc., had i a pretium affectionis, and were of priceless value, he did not think they ought to extend that consideration to those who made it simply a business to collect. The appropriation of the surplus was a subject upon which there might be some differences of opinion, but he thought that there would be none as to the appropriation of a considerable portion of it to education. To his mind, education was the most economical expenditure which they incurred, and he ventured to hope that when they came to discuss that appropriation, while the interests of one class of schools, viz., the Voluntary ones, would not be lost sight of, on the other hand they would not overlook the supplementary national system in our Board Schools. All of them deeply sympathised with the difficulties and relief of agriculture, but the proposal with regard to differential rating—he meant the reduction of agricultural rating, and the maintainance of urban rating, possibly in two absolutely contiguous holdings—raised a question of the very gravest importance, and one which would require very serious consideration. He trusted that when that subject came before the House that consideration would be given to it, but he was bound to add that he felt that the first step in dealing with this gravely important question should, he thought, be the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole subject in all its bearings—not only the incidence of taxation as between the various forms of land and other property, but the possibility of bringing other forms of property into rating and to take their share of public burdens as well as of public benefit. Meantime, he shared the opinion expressed from these Benches, and also from the Benches opposite, that the time had come when some of them must appeal for the redemption, if not the pledges, still of the strong views which they expressed on the subject of pensions for the aged poor. One hon. Member referred to the condition of the rural labourer. He would refer to
    1110
    the condition of the London industrial working-man at an advanced age. The Committee might not realise that one out of three of the working-classes of London found their way to the workhouses after 65, who had never received relief before they were 60. This showed that they were among the industrious and deserving poor up to the period of old age, and he could not help hoping, when so much was being done in other countries, though the German system was not quite an example to be followed, that the time was not far distant when, with these increasing surpluses, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find some means of providing for the industrial poor of this country that which would give them not only hope for their old age, but encouragement and inducement to devote themselves to the industrial interests of their country.
    *SIR SAMUEL MONTAGUsaid he differed somewhat from the last speaker with reference to the deposits in savings banks. He thought it must be generally agreed that the interest they paid on the savings banks deposits was excessive. The loss was far greater than was at first sight apparent. The yield in the State funds was barely 2⅜ per cent. Therefore, it was not only the loss of 2s. 6d. per annum on every £100 deposited, but they had to add to that the heavy loss for administrative charges. And, again, if very bad times occurred, or even very good times, with activity in trade, and money was withdrawn from the savings banks, a loss of 5 or 10 per cent. on the capital might be incurred in having to sell out stock to pay for these deposits. By attracting more money and investing it in Consols they would do much towards artificially raising the price of stock and damaging the operations of the State in regard to the sinking fund. During the past few months he had made inquiries in the City and elsewhere and there was only one opinion—that the interest should be reduced. They would all wish, of course, to encourage thrift, but he thought it might be done without a waste of money. He did not think that in any other country a greater interest was given on savings banks deposits than the rate paid on the State's own funds. In Belgium, where this

    1111
    description of business was admirably conducted, the Government paid on savings banks deposits 3 per cent. on sums up to 3,000 francs, and, when that limit was exceeded, the whole interest sank to 2 per cent. In that country the savings banks were administered by a separate Department, with good resources and reserves, so that there was provision to meet every possible contingency, and, besides this, the deposits were guaranteed by the State. He would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should continue to allow 2½ per cent. on deposits not exceeding, £50, and that for any higher sum the interest should go down to 2 per cent. There was undoubtedly a great advantage in having a multitude of small depositors; 20 depositors of £10 each were far better than one depositor of £200. If the rate of 2½ per cent. was only continued for sums under £50, the number of depositors would not be materially decreased, and a loss would be avoided. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, had promised to consider the matter at a later period, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would find some mode of satisfactorily dealing with it. He much regretted that the Budget did not include some proposal for the regulation of stamps on bills of exchange and stocks, for he believed reform might be introduced in this matter which might prove advantageous to the revenue and to the trade of the country. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should appoint a Committee—either a Departmental Committee or a Committee of experts—to consider the subject. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *Mr. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that in common with the whole House he listened with admiration to the most perspicuous statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. ["Hear, hear!"] Rarely had a statement so long—necessarily so long—been so plain or left such little doubt as to its meaning. The statement was maintained throughout at a high level, and it enunciated principles of a very important character. He was sorry, however, that the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "the old man of the sea" as though the Navy were an incubus upon the nation.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That was not my meaning ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not think the right hon. Gentleman did mean to use the term in any objectionable sense, but people did sometimes use unfortunate expressions. ["Hear, hear!"] However, without "the old man of the sea" the old man of the land would be in a perilous and dangerous condition. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman proposed to give the old man of the land £1,000,000, and he did not complain of his doing so, but he trusted the right hon. Gentleman was not under the impression that "the old man of the sea" was getting more than his share. He was surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer attribute the payment of direct taxation to the propertied classes and the payment of indirect taxation to the unpropertied classes alone; for the fact really was that the greater part of the indirect taxation as well as of the direct taxation was paid by the propertied classes of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman had complimented his predecessor for having been correct in his estimate that £14,000,000 would be derived from the Death Duties. But the compliment was uncalled for, because the late Chancellor of the Exchequer did not estimate or expect that amount. He estimated the duties at £12,500,000, but said that what he expected was that in the course of years the final and ultimate and highest amount of the Death Duties would be £14,000,000. Then, again, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said that of this £14,000,000 the sum of £2,500,000 would go to the Local Taxation Account. Now they had over £14,000,000, and instead of £2,500,000 going to the Local Taxation Account an appreciably smaller amount—£50,000 less—would be so devoted. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer, therefore, was wrong not only in his statement with regard to the £14,000,000 relating to the Death Duties, but also in his statement of the proportion to be paid to the Local Taxation Account. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the results of actual revenue for 1895–6 amounted to a falsification of Estimates. He did not like strong language, and

    1113
    would prefer to say a mistake, a blunder, a miscalculation. But it was a very notable blunder or mistake, because up to this point the Estimates of the Inland Revenue Department had been so very remarkable in their approximation to the results. Last year, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Death Duties had realised within £32,000 the sum estimated. It was not £32,000, but over £300,000. But that was a small blunder compared with those made this year. First of all the, Inland Revenue Department made a blunder of £1,500,000 in the Death Duties; and, secondly, a blunder of another £1,500,000 on Stamps; total, £3,000,000; which was pretty good in a grand total of £15,800,000. He only hoped that, in making his calculations for next year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had borne in mind the mistakes made in the year just past. He did not greatly blame the Inland Revenue Department for its miscalculations, especially with regard to the Death Duties. Those Duties were casual in their nature; they depended upon the number of deaths, and upon the state of the weather, and their yield depended upon the kind of deaths—upon whether the deaths were those of paupers or of millionaires. Their incidence, too, was extremely unequal; and that, in his opinion, was a strong argument for them being mild and moderate in their amount. Only one other small point. Last year there was a falling-off of £18,000,000 in personalty. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year, and he had repeated it to-night, that that was due to the number of people who sent in their accounts being much less. Yes; but when he looked at the return of the Inland Revenue Commissioners he found, to his surprise, that they had omitted a very large class, the largest of all the classes —those of under £100. The number of the accounts omitted was no less than 16,009. When they added those 16,000 omitted accounts they found that the difference between the year before last and last year was practically nothing at all. He admitted that the revenue from the Death Duties was more than he expected; it was a great deal more than the Inland Revenue expected. But he reminded the House that when dealing with the probabilities of this year's
    1114
    revenue he said the ex-Chancellor or the Exchequer might be saved in his calculations by an epidemic of deaths of millionaires. That epidemic had occurred. But it was not only that actual millionaires had died; it was that artificial millionaires had been created; that men had died who, under the old system, would not have been millionaires, men who did not leave a million of actual property, but who were created millionaires by notional and constructional property being added to the property they really left. This year the deaths of millionaires had been remarkable for their number. For the last 33 years they had averaged three a year; the largest number was five and the lowest number one. This year, he understood, there had been no fewer than eleven deaths of actual and artificial millionaires, whose property had paid duty. Almost that alone would suffice to account for the increase in the duty obtained. He had always held that the principles upon which the Act was founded were fiscally false; that they must finally defeat themselves, and finally result, not in an increase, but in a decrease of revenue. His justification lay in the statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made to-night on the authority of the officials of the Inland Revenue. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that next year, in spite of the prospect of increasing prosperity, they were to expect, not a further increase, but a decrease in the Death Duties a very large decrease —a decrease of £650,000. As to that, he would say this—that if the Estimates of the Inland Revenue were not more accurate next year than this, instead of a diminution of £650,000 they might have to add a million to it. It might be a decrease of two millions. His opinion was that sufficient had not been allowed for the various diminutions that might take place. They were now beginning; he believed they were increasing, and his opinion was that after three or four years' action of this Act it would be found such a fiscal failure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be driven to repeal it. He rejoiced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose to apply any part of the surplus to the purchase of workmen's dwellings, without any cost to themselves, or to

    1115
    suppressing of voluntary friendly societies by initiating a State system of old age pensions. He was glad his right hon. Friend had not frittered away any part of the surplus on these Socialistic experiments of the "policy of construction." He rejoiced greatly that he had given his attention to the Death Duties. The hardship which had been wrought by these duties was well within his knowledge, because it so happened that he had been the recipient of complaints from all parts of the country. [A laugh.] It was a fact that people had written to him at great length from every part of the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The complaints he had got were not from the rich, but from the poor and persons of moderate means and small means, who had suffered under what he ought to call the extortions, which he should call the exactions—the legal exactions—carried out under this Act. It was the poor people who had suffered most. He instanced the case of a poor old washerwoman who, on a cottage left her worth £50, had to pay £5. ["Hear, hear!"] Then, again, what could be more unjust than to charge a man on property which returned to himself? He thought the Amendment by which payments might be made by instalments good in principle though he feared it would lead to complications. Finally, with regard to works of art and heirlooms here, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was only reverting to the old principle of the Legacy Duty Act. It was perfectly monstrous that a man who had works of art and got no profit out of them, only looked at them and was merely their custodian should be charged. These Amendments, however, were not all that were required; he hoped to show him that there were other cases in which the Act required amendment. He should commend these matters to the sympathetic consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. On the whole he thanked him for the nature of his Budget. He believed it would be popular in the country.
    MR. JOHN DILLONsaid there were some points to which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had become heir to an enormous surplus — a surplus unparalleled in this country. He had a surplus of £6,500,000. He thought
    1116
    that they in Ireland might naturally have expected that some consideration should have been shown to the Irish people in view of this enormous and extraordinary surplus, because as the Chancellor of the Exchequer truly pointed out, the condition of prosperity in Great Britain had been almost unparalleled; but the prosperity had accrued at the same time with an unparalleled depression in agriculture. No language was too strong on his part to express their sympathy with and show compassion for agriculture. A considerable portion of the surplus had been applied to agricultural interests. What he desired to point out was this—that in Ireland they had not shared in that prosperity in any way whatever. They had only got practically one industry in Ireland, if he excluded one small district in one corner of the country, and that industry was agriculture. He, therefore, held that the people of Ireland were entitled to claim a much larger proportion of the surplus than would go to them under the plan proposed for the relief of agriculture. What did he announce? He had announced that Ireland was to share only in this sum of £975,000 which was to go in the relief of the local rates. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the sum in relief of distressed agriculture must be apportioned between the three countries in the old proportion of 80 per cent. for England, 11 for Scotland, and 9 for Ireland. The Irish Members protested years ago against those proportions when they were first set up as being most unjust to Ireland, and they would protest with even greater vehemence against them on the present occasion. Ireland had been hit to an enormously greater degree by the agricultural depression than England. [Ministerial ironical laughter.] There could be no controversy on that point. He was taking each country as a whole. It had been admitted that in England, in spite of agricultural depression, the year had been one of unparalleled prosperity in the towns. That could not be denied. In Ireland they had not got the trade or manufactures, the prosperity of which had redressed the balance in in England. Ireland was a purely agricultural country, and, therefore, in that country the full weight of the depression

    1117
    in agriculture had been felt without anything in the way of prosperity in trade to relieve it. And yet the, principle underlying the distribution of the portion of the surplus allotted to the relief of agriculture was not that each country got its share according to its necessities, but that Ireland, because she was poor, should get less, and England because she was rich should get more of the relief. In other words the relief was to be given, not in proportion to the necessities of the people to be relieved, but in proportion to the wealth of the different countries. That was a vicious, a wrong and an unjust principle, and a principle against which they would fight in that House to the fullest possible extent when it came to be applied in the Agricultural Land Rating Bill, not because they wished to deny to English ratepayers a fair proportion of the relief, but because they thought the proposed arrangement was grossly unfair to Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in accounting for the surplus referred to the great increase of the Revenue from the Tobacco Tax which was the main instrument by which Ireland was compelled to bear an unfair proportion of Imperial taxation. Ireland paid about one-eighth of the whole of the Tobacco Tax, whereas its fair proportion would probably be one twenty-fifth, which was another reason why Ireland was entitled to a larger proportion of the relief than it was proposed to give her. The brewers all over the kingdom had denounced the late Liberal Government and the Irish Members who supported that Government because they proposed to sacrifice the interests of that great trade. But now they had got in office a Unionist Government in an unassailable position of power and in possession of an enormous surplus, and he begged to draw the attention of the great brewing interest of Ireland to the fact that this Government which floated into power on the beer of the brewers had deliberately abstained from giving relief to the brewers. What had the Government done with their surplus? He believed that no Government had ever faced the taxpayers of the country with a surplus so large as the present Government. At any rate, here was a Government in possession of a surplus which was not of their own creation, but which came to
    1118
    them as a legacy from their predecessors through the working of that just and far reaching Measure, the Finance Act of 1894, which they hated, but dared not destroy; and yet with that enormous and unprecedented surplus they deliberately faced the taxpayers of the country without any proposal for the relief of taxation. Without appropriating more than one-half of the surplus it would have been possible to redress all the financial grievances of Ireland, But the Government actually had the audacity to face the country with a surplus of 6½ millions and without any proposals for remission of taxation. That surplus had in part been handed over to the landlords, but by far the greater proportion had been seized upon to meet the enormous and insatiable demands for armaments. This system of monstrous and bloated expenditure on armaments was unfortunately in the ascendancy in England now; but he should continue to protest against it; and the time would come when a great reaction would set in.
    *MR. B. L. COHENsaid that he wished to pay his tribute to the lucidity with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained his Budget. He should have thought nobody could have misunderstood that statement, but the hon. Member for East Mayo had evidently done so. The hon. Member spoke of a surplus of 6½ millions, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that the surplus at his disposal was £1,715,000.
    MR. DILLON: I was speaking of the surplus of last year.
    *MR. COHENsaid that that surplus was absolutely beyond the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed adherence to the principle heretofore the law of the land that the surplus of a past year should be applied to the reduction of the funded debt of the country. He shared the hope that that practice would not readily be departed from. He himself did not distinguish between the old and the new sinking fund. Both were equally applicable to the extinction of debt. He did not deplore the expenditure on the Naval defences of the country; but he believed this expenditure would remain normal

    1119
    for a great number of years; and it ought to be met out of the money raised within the year, and not out of such haphazard sources as a surplus in a time of prosperity, which, by law, was appropriated to the extinction of debt, and by which alone debt could be extinguished. As to the extremely important subject of the Post Office Savings Bank, he had thought till that day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was disposed to make too light of the serious consequences to the taxpayers and to the Exchequer from the altered condition of the money market. The right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the gradually diminishing margin and growing deficit resulting from the falling-off in the income and resources of the Post Office Savings Banks to meet their interest. Not only that, there was a source of considerable danger and loss resulting from the high price of Consols. On the 10th February he called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the law provided—to meet depreciation in the price of the Funds —only a grossly inadequate sum of 5 per cent. on the excess of the yield of the assets over the liabilities. His right hon. Friend informed the House that the deposits in the Savings Banks and Trustee Banks now amounted to the enormous total of 141 millions sterling. The provision for depreciation in the value of the stocks held by the Department against these savings amounted to £200, just £2 per million. His right hon. Friend informed him that he thought it was premature to inquire into the question. In that he differed from his right hon. Friend. He did not regard the price of the Funds as in any way a test as to the provision to be made for depreciation, except indeed he should say that the higher the price of Consols the greater the necessity for making provision against loss. And more, it was quite certain that, as the Commissioners could only invest in Government, stock and as they were obliged to invest at 109, 110, and 111, if, and when they were obliged to sell stock because of the withdrawal of a portion of the deposits, because there was a pressure in the money market at home, because there was some political disturbance on the Continent, or perhaps—which Heaven forfend!—even at
    1120
    home, their paper margin—for it was all on paper—would at once disappear, and they would incur, in addition to the loss which was annually being incurred from the high rate of interest, a further loss on the price at which the Department invested the capital. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth rather threw in the teeth of the Ministerial side of the House what he called the proper appropriation of the surplus inherited by Sir S. Northcote from the Government to which he succeeded. The right hon. Gentleman said that Sir S. Northcote remitted taxation, and that that was the proper way of dealing with a surplus. But that was precisely what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing; he was appropriating it in relief of an industry with which he believed the House was most deeply sympathetic. With regard to the increased consumption of beer he did not, as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested, regard it as an evidence of drunkenness that the people drank to the health of the Government and, as regarded drinking, he had before him a return of the consumption of beer per head of the population for the last ten years, and it did not show that the consumption of barrels had varied very much between 1890 and 1894. On the other hand tea had gone up, and it was an injustice to the population to attribute to them greater intoxication. There was less drunkenness, only the consumption was more widely distributed. He hoped his right hon. Friend would look carefully into the point about the Savings Banks.
    MR. REGINALD MCKENNAregretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given the Committee no intimation of any provision for the superannuation of teachers. In disposing of a million of his surplus to relieve the agricultural interest, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was giving it to a purpose which would raise considerable dispute in the House; but if a portion of the money had been devoted to the purpose he recommended he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would be supported by both sides of the House. Earlier in the Session he asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intended to introduce a Bill for the superannuation of teachers. He was told that it was

    1121
    the wish of the Government to introduce such a Bill this Session. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make provision for carrying into effect the desire, of the First Lord of the Treasury.
    MR. SAMUEL HOAREexpressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer his warmest thanks for what was intended to be done in relief of agriculture. He regretted that from the other side of the House some remarks had been made which showed little sympathy with the agricultural interest. Hon Members could not know the straits to which agriculturists had been reduced in Norfolk and East Anglia, nor could they apparently realise the present position of affairs. The relief that had been, asked for had been supported by all the Chambers of Agriculture in the country, the majority of which were composed of farmers; and it had been asked for also by the labourers in the rural districts. It was no mere relief proposal for the landlords. It was really whether agriculture in many districts could go on at all. Most of the landlords were in the last straits at the present time; they had been obliged to leave their homes [ironical laughter], and the villagers and the labourers in the district regretted the circumstance as acutely as anyone could do. Land must go out of cultivation in East Anglia, and if it did what would be the position of the farmers and labourers? If the relief was not given many additional labourers would have to leave the rural districts and flock into the towns, thereby increasing the burdens of the ratepayers there. Some hon. Members spoke of landlords in a disparaging way; but a great deal of the land in this country did not belong to private individuals at all. He was a Governor of Guy's Hospital. Twenty years ago that hospital had landed property worth £50,000 a year, and all this money was spent in carrying out a great. work for the benefit of the poor. The income of the hospital body to-day was £20,000a year; and thus the poor suffered from the distressed position of the landed interest. He was glad that his right hon. Friend had brought the question of savings banks forward, because it was one that could not but cause considerable anxiety. Looking at the question from a business point of view he saw a
    1122
    sum of £149,000,000; and with this amount of deposit how was the State to carry on its business of buying Consols to-day at 111, and being liable at very short notice to be heavily called upon for they knew not how large an amount. Times of panic, external or internal difficulty might give rise, to a heavy demand; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration whether the whole system of carrying on the savings banks did not require some alteration. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they could not carry on the business at a heavy loss. He was prepared to incur some loss in order to encourage thrift among the working people if need be; but the state of the money market would soon be such that 2 per cent. would be difficult to obtain by the savings banks. It was, therefore, important to consider how £200,000,000 were to be invested and kept in such a way that a sudden drain or demand could be met without a tremendous sacrifice of securities. He was glad that his right hon. Friend had suggested that the Death Duties were open to revision, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would find it possible to exempt insurances effected for the express purpose of paying these duties from aggregation with the rest of a deceased person's property. It was hard when a man, whether rich or poor, insured his life in order to provide for the payment of his Death Duties, and ear-marked the policy for that purpose, that the amount for which he was insured should be added to his other property which must thus be brought within a higher grade, with the result that the duty payable would be larger. When asked to agree to this exemption the late Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be impossible to make a distinction between different kinds of savings, between money invested in Consols or other securities and money payable on a life assurance. To meet that objection he might point out that the Government had already assented to the principle that life assurance ought to be encouraged by allowing a rebate of Income Tax on premiums paid for life assurance. He wished also to suggest that libraries should be given the same exemption as art collections were to have. There were many private

    1123
    libraries, which it was very important to keep together. In conclusion he wished to say that he believed that the line the Government were taking in connection with agriculture would be exceedingly popular in the country. In Norfolk certainly the inhabitants of the towns would rejoice to hear that something was to be done to improve the condition of the greatest of all our industries, for they knew that the unemployed labourers of rural districts were being driven into the towns, and they knew also that the more agriculture flourished the better every trade in the country flourished.
    *MR. T. P. WHITTAKERsaid the hon. Member had referred to the straits in which the landlords and the agricultural interests were placed.
    MR. HOARE: I said landlords, farmers, and labourers.
    *MR. WHITTAKER: Yes, but the hon. Member specially referred to the great straits the landlords were in. [Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] He did not understand hon. Members to contend that the landlords were not in great straits—and he himself believed they were. He was going to point out that in the hon. Member's view this proposal would not give relief to the landlords, while he and those around him believed that it would relieve the landlords and that it was part of the policy of taxing the manufacturing districts of this country for the purpose of enabling the landlords to obtain their rents. He gathered from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the position of the landlords was not quite so bad as had been represented in some quarters. They had been told, for example, that the Death Duties on 22 millions out of 25 millions in respect of realty were put down in a lump sum, although they might have been spread over a considerable period of time. As to the agricultural labourer he ventured to suggest that a free breakfast table would give him far more relief than the proposed reduction of rates. But he rose especially to call attention to the rate of interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank. He felt that the high rate of interest on those deposits, and the large amount of deposits which that high rate attracted, resulting as it did in the purchase by the Government
    1124
    of a large amount of Consols, increased the price of Consols, and increased it when, in order to reduce the National Debt, the Government were in other directions also purchasers of Consols. That it seemed to him raised a very serious question. It could not be doubted that the interest paid was far too high. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they could only now invest to realise slightly less than 2½ per cent. But on Consols they could not get 2½ per cent. If they made allowance for the reduction in the rate of interest in 1903, and for the redemption of the debt at par in 1923, it would be found that the present rate did not exceed 2 1/16 per cent. Then the working expenses of the Savings Bank Department were from 8s. 6d. to 9s. per cent., so that the net return was only about 32s. 6d. or 33s., and yet on that basis they paid depositors £2 10s. per cent. That was a very unsound and dangerous policy. It was true that the account showed a surplus, but that was purely a paper surplus, obtained by taking Consols at their market value today. But those Consols would be paid off at par in 1923, and that represented a very serious loss, and if, by the high rate of interest, they continued to attract deposits at the same rate that they were being attracted at now, the loss must be very serious when the redemption took place. The large London Banks put Consols in their balance sheets at 90; and the Government ought to put them at no more than 100, the price at which they would be redeemed. The large purchases which for redemption purposes the Government had necessarily to make, as well as the purchases of the Postal Department were continually sending up the price of Consols. It was very satisfactory to our pride to see Consols at 111, but it was a rather expensive luxury to the nation. The Government were now by their policy really forcing up the price against themselves. He was afraid that the high price which had to be paid for Consols for debt redemption might soon raise an outcry against the debt redemption itself—which in his judgment would be a very serious evil. He was strongly of opinion that the Government should lower the interest on deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks, and lower it very substantially indeed. Such a step might cause withdrawals and

    1125
    might depress the value of Consols, and thus place the, Government in a little difficulty. He did not think it would do more than check the continual rise, but even if it did, the longer such an operation was put off the greater would be the difficulties, because until it was done Consols would continue to advance in price. No one could tell what might happen in time of war or distress. Consols might fall to 95 or even to 90, and if they did, the balance sheet of the Government would look very curious. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred with satisfaction to the fact that the amount of the unfunded debt had been very materially reduced; but the liability on Post Office deposits was a very large unfunded debt which the Government owed. He understood the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to state that when he was in office, a Departmental Committee was appointed, and he gathered from that that the Treasury was fully alive to the difficulty and danger. He hoped the present Chancellor would face the problem soon and would deal with it. The suggestion merely to limit the amount which could be deposited at one time did not meet the case. The rate of interest should be reduced, so as to put the whole matter-on a sound and businesslike footing. Any other proposal would merely touch the fringe of the question.
    COL. KENYON SLANEYsaid, that at the risk of being monotonous, he must join in the chorus of gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way in which he had treated the agricultural interest. His reason for rising was not only that, but also to answer to the best of his ability one or two speeches that had been made from the other side of the House. The speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, naturally divided itself into two parts. The one relating to the subject with which the hon. Gentleman was familiar—namely, finance, and the other relating to agriculture, of which he knew little or nothing. The hon. Gentleman prefaced his speech by one or two disparaging remarks with regard to landowners, and his observations re minded him of the view usually taken by an ignorant recruit when he first joined his regiment, which was that the colonel was his worst enemy. When, however,
    1126
    he came to know a little more about regimental life, he found that the man he abused in the day of his ignorance was really his best friend. No doubt a somewhat similar experience was awaiting the hon. Gentleman opposite, and with his increasing knowledge there would be a diminution of his disparaging remarks with regard to landowners. In reply to the remarks upon agriculture which had been made by the hon. Member for East Mayo, who led some portion of the Irish Nationalist Party during this Session— [Mr. DILLON: "The whole"]—the hon. Member said that he led the whole of the Nationalist Party, and, therefore, he congratulated him upon a position in that House which he had not been able to assume in Ireland. The hon. Member had spoken disparagingly of the agricultural provisions of the Budget as far as they affected the Irish agriculturist. He could not understand how the hon. Gentleman could assume such a position as that. The hon. Gentleman spoke of agricultural depression in Ireland as being far worse than in England. The hon. Member knew very little about; agriculture in England, but he himself did know something about agriculture both in England and in Ireland, and he thought that the Irish agriculturist had considerably the best of the bargain as matters stood at the present moment. But going beyond that he know that there was a great deal more land in Ireland that was valuable from an agricultural view than there was in England, if the land in both cases were properly and zealously managed. Only the other day a Measure had been introduced into that House by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, which would operate more beneficially in favour of agriculture in Ireland than in England. Certainly, therefore, it was a peculiar position for the hon. Gentleman to take up when he opposed the Budget on the ground that Irish agricultural interests would not be benefited by it. The hon. Gentleman had entered a protest against the proposed Naval expenditure which hon. Members on the Government side of the House were not likely to forget, because if the hon. Gentleman were serious in what he had said he must be taken as inveighing against Measures which were proposed to be taken for the protection of the

    1127
    interests of the Empire. Of course the remarks of the hon. Gentleman upon that point were merely intended for platform consumption and to amuse the Irish people. The hon. Gentleman had asked what had been done with the surplus, a full share of which he demanded should go to Ireland. If he rightly understood the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ireland would get her full share of the surplus for her agriculture as compared with that which would go to English agriculture. The hon. Gentleman went on to say, with the usual sneer, that the present Government was benefiting by the action of their predecessors. When taunts of that kind were levelled at hon. Members sitting on the Government side of the House, it was only fair to remind hon. Members opposite that the foundations of the surplus appeared to have been laid when the last Conservative Government ceased to hold office. He did not put that forward as a valuable argument by any means, but at all events it was a perfectly fair retort to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman having asked what had been done with the surplus proceeded to echo the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to complain that no remission of taxation had been made in favour of the working classes under the provisions of the Budget. If any hon. Gentleman ventured to make such an assertion he would take him down into the rural districts and ask him to repeat that charge in the face of the agricultural labourers. The fact was that the proposals of the Budget would benefit in the first degree the labouring classes. He should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have known that it was a mistake to think that they could play upon the ignorance of the working classes. His hon. Friend had referred to the case of Guy's Hospital, and shown how clearly, in cases such as that, his proposal would work directly for the benefit of the working classes. Hon. Members opposite seemed to have forgotten the existence of the Friendly Societies, which were large owners, in the aggregate, of property that would be affected and benefited by the suggestions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A very foolish attempt was being made to
    1128
    make a split between borough and rural constituencies, and it might perfectly well be that the larger cities and towns would not benefit directly from the propositions of this Budget—[Opposition cheers]—but when hon. Members opposite Had secured a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was able in any one Budget to touch the interests of every class in the country they would have produced a sort of financial archangel which they had not begun to breed at present. There were, at all events; large boroughs whose interests depended on the fortunes of the agricultural districts round them, and they were very directly interested in the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman. There were, of course, industrial communities whom these Measures would not affect, but the great bulk of our rural boroughs would be affected beneficially by the suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman had laid before them. He maintained that the interests of Irish and English agriculture could not be divorced, and therefore protested against Irish Members opposing this Budget, when it was universally approved by the agricultural interest in Great Britain.
    MR. R. B. HALDANEsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer might no the the most eloquent speaker in that House, but there was no Member who was a more thorough Parliamentary man, or who had a more complete mastery of what the House of Commons liked. They had listened to a statement which was an admirable and perfect one from a Parliamentary point of view —["hear, hear!"]—and he doubted if they had ever listened to a more lucid explanation of a complicated subject. When the right hon. Gentleman referred in grave language to a crisis which we were approaching, when there would be an increase of expenditure, and when we might reach the limits of direct taxation, he had wondered whether that was prophetic, and could not help thinking of a remarkable speech which was made by a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman's the other day upon an Imperial Zollverein. If they ever came face to face with that crisis, and if there was a question of departing from principles which had become the tradition of all Parliaments of the last half-century, he hoped they would then have the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman. He

    1129
    could not help thinking, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said about the extreme desirability of not embarking on new forms of expenditure, that his practice was not quite equal to his precept, for he proceeded to inform them that Her Majesty's Government were about to embark upon a wholly new expenditure of £2,500,000— £500,000 differential bounty to Voluntary schools, and £2,000,000, one in the current year, and £2,000,000 every year afterwards—in the form of subsidies in the relief of rates. No one could realise more keenly than he did the pressure felt by the agricultural or landed interest; they all sympathised with the difficulty in which it was placed; but there might be other industries equally oppressed; and one could not help thinking it rather rash to embark on this new expenditure in relief of that industry, because it was evident that that £2,000,000 would not be forthcoming out of existing sources of revenue, at all events, if our expenditure kept up to the level now reached. The great fight would be over the grants for Voluntary schools and in aid of rates; the rest of the Budget did not raise any questions of principle. As to the Death Duties, the new proposals did not amount to much; and he was not quite sure he accurately apprehended the fourth of these. In the case of works of art and other objects of national interest, which he trusted would include valuable libraries, it was proposed that Estate Duty should be paid upon them only when and so soon as there came into existence a person capable of disposing of them, or who actually did sell these objects, and that they would not be subject to aggregation. But suppose the case of a man who took advantage of this rule to declare that his pictures were not to be sold until two or three years after his death. In that case there might be a sale, and duty be paid on the amount realised, but the estate would have escaped aggregation in respect of the pictures. That would be making use of the rule to escape the payment of full duty. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "That would not be so."] Of course it was impossible to discuss the matter without the text of the Bill. He was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had recognised the great financial value of the new system which came
    1130
    into operation under the Act of 1894, and he was glad to thank the right hon. Gentleman for propounding sound and admirable financial views, not only to night, but also on previous occasions.
    DR. CLARKsaid, that while he concurred in what had been said on both sides of the House in reference to the clearness and ability of the financial statement, he regretted he could not agree with what had been said as to the fairness of the new proposals. They were inequitable, and, indeed, this might well be described as a landlord's Budget. It proposed to give the landlords £100,000 directly through the Land Tax, and indirectly £975,000 through the reduction of local rates; and this was going to be done on the lines laid down by the Probate Duty Grants. He protested against this, and appealed to the sense of fairness of the right hon. Gentleman opposite because he had always been one of the fairest men. His predecessor, when he first began the system, introduced a clause by which one half of the Probate and Licence Duty would be paid over to each county, to be used by the County Councils. But immediately afterwards the Scotch people, having used their money not to reduce local taxation, but to have free education, a demand arose for free education in England, and it was granted, not from the Probate Duty or the Property Duty alone, because, as far as the terms went, England paid more for property and less in direct taxation than any other part of the United Kingdom; but there was to be a grant of 10s. for every child that went to school. The present Government were treating England, Scotland, and Ireland alike, and giving 10s. per head per child. With regard to Ireland the hon. Member for East Mayo was correct in saying Ireland had more agriculture and less commerce than England. Where was the market for Irish produce but in this country? Where the boon proposed was wanted most it was least given. In Scotland the system was different from England. Until 50 years ago all the taxes in Scotland were paid by the landlord. But by the Act of 1845 one half were to be paid by the occupier and the other by the landlord. By the Act of 1888 the landord's rates were consolidated. The Land Tax at the present time was fixed by an Act passed two

    1131
    centuries ago. It was made perpetual at 4s. in the pound on a valuation of two centuries ago. There were some poor agricultural parishes in which the rate, he believed, was even as high as 4s. in the pound upon the actual rental. In some parishes, again, it was 1s. and 2s., and in others it was as low as 1–12th and 1–16th of a penny in the pound. They had parishes which had been poor but which, owing to mineral and industrial development had become rich, and which yet only paid l–12th of a penny, whilst other parishes which were formerly centres of the wool-growing industries, but which had now become poor, were paying on a grossly unfair assessment, based upon their previous prosperity. As far as he understood it, the Government wanted to prevent this unfair assessment of poor and purely agricultural parishes, which were not to pay more than 1s. in the pound upon the present or Income Tax valuation. Something could be said for that, but why they should not make rich parishes pay in the same proportion he failed to see. Some rich parishes about London, unaffected by agricultural depression, where the Land Tax was a mere flea-bite, and where the land rents were a hundredfold greater than when this tax was imposed, were still only paying l–12th of a penny in the pound. If they were going to lessen the tax in rural parishes because there had been depression in the value of land, why not increase it in urban parishes where there had been this great appreciation of value? In any change of this kind, the only thing to do was to make the Land Tax, like every other tax, payable upon the present valuation. As the Debate would terminate for that night at 12 o'clock, he did not intend to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer replying to the different speeches, but he would notify the right hon. Gentleman that when this question came to be dealt with, he would require to go much further than his proposals indicated in order to secure a fair taxation of the land values in this country. He should be glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer so tackling the whole subject as to put the burden fairly on the agriculturists on the one hand, and on the great town landlords on the other.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, who was received with
    1132
    cheers on rising to reply, said: I really feel I owe a debt of gratitude to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the far too kind and flattering observations made with respect to my financial statement. I have no greater wish than to discharge such work as I have to do in a way that will commend it to both sides of the House, and I am really very deeply grateful for what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by many hon. Members who subsequently followed him. ["Hear, hear!"] There have been many suggestions made in the course of this Debate to-night which I will carefully bear in mind, particularly upon the question of the Savings Banks deposits. This matter has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Islington—to whom the country is greatly indebted for the care and trouble he has taken in regard to Savings Banks—and also by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I wish to say that I never intended to lower the limit of the Savings Banks deposits, but the point I wished to press upon the House had relation to the question of the amount of interest we were paying, and especially with regard to deposits above a certain amount. It is not necessary to go further into this matter until I am able to make some proposals to the House. I think that the general Debate has turned upon the question of the grant we propose to make out of the proceeds of the Estate Duty on personalty, amounting in the current year to £975,000, in aid of agriculture. That grant will be proposed to be allocated in England, Scotland, and Ireland according to Bills which will be presented to the House by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, by the Lord Advocate, and by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Complaint has been made that this is a mere question of the position of the landlords. I think it has been shown in the course of the Debate that it is not now in the distressed districts of England a question of the position of the landlords at all. The real question is whether the agricultural labourers, at any rate in the south and east of England, are any longer to find employment in the cultivation of the land. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not want at all to argue the question to-night,

    1133
    because it really does not arise at the present moment; nor do I touch on the other question that has been raised— whether the proportions of 80, 11, and 9, in which it is proposed that this grant shall be allocated to England, Scotland, and Ireland, are fair to Ireland and Scotland, or are not fair. I should say that they were advantageous to Scotland and to Ireland rather than otherwise, because it is my belief that agricultural depression has been far greater in England than it has been in either of those countries, but that is a matter for further consideration when we come to deal with the grants. What I would ask the Committee now is whether we might not be allowed to take, at any rate, some of the Resolutions, none of which deal with this controverted question or with the question of the Land Tax, and thus to make some progress with our work this evening—["Hear, hear!"]—the Resolutions relating to the duty on tea, the duty on beer, a slight alteration in the Stamp Acts, relating to companies, by which it is proposed to make companies certified by the Board of Trade or by an Order in Council pay the same stamp duty as ordinary limited liability companies, the Resolution relating to the Income-tax, and the general Resolution relating to the Inland Revenue. If there is any desire on the part of the Committee for further Debate before the Resolutions are passed and leave is given to introduce the Budget Bill, of course we must provide another occasion. I would venture to suggest that, if there be no such desire, we might now be allowed to take the Resolutions, and then I should be able to bring in the Bill If it is desired to reserve any Resolution for discussion, perhaps the Income-tax Resolution might be reserved and discussed on a future occasion. ["Hear hear!"]
    *SIR W. HARCOURT: I think that what the right hon. Gentleman proposes is reasonable. The tea and beer Resolutions and the other minor Resolutions might be taken to-night. It has always been usual to reserve one Resolution, at least, on the Budget night, and I under stand the right hon. Gentleman reserves the Income-tax Resolution. That would be a very proper arrangement.
    MR. LOUGHsupposed the right hon. Gentleman would give them that other opportunity for discussion.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Oh, yes. I understand my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will let the discussion be taken on Thursday, but he will state that.
    DR. TANNERsaid that more money was to be spent on Scotland in connection with the agricultural interest than was to be spent on Ireland. That was manifestly unfair.

    TEA.
    1. Resolved:—
    "'That the Duty of Customs now payable on Tea shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid on and after the first day of August, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, until the first day of August, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven, on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say:—
    Tea . . the pound." Four Pence. —(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)"

    CUSTOMS DUTY ON BEER.
    2. Resolved:—
    "That, in addition to the Duties of Customs payable on and after the first day of July, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, on Beer imported into Great Britain and Ireland, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on and after that day the Duties following (that is to say):—
    In the case of Beer called or similar to Mum, Spruce, Black Beer, or Berlin White Beer—

    £

    s.

    d.

    For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof are or were before fermentation of a specific gravity—

    Not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

    0

    2

    0

    Exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees, a duty of

    0

    2

    4

    In the case of every description of Beer other than that above specified—

    For every thirty-six gallons where the worts thereof were before fermentation of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five degrees, a duty of

    0

    0

    6

    and so in proportion for any difference in gravity."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

    EXCISE DUTY ON BEER.
    3. Resolved:—
    "That in addition to the Duty of Excise payable on and after the first day of July, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, in respect of Beer brewed in the United Kingdom, there shall be charged, levied, and paid on and after that day:—
    For every thirty-six gallons of worts of a specific gravity of one thousand and fifty-five

    1135
    degrees, the duty of sixpence; and so in proportion for any difference in quantity or gravity."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    And, it being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again this day.

    CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

    PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.
    Considered in Committee:—
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1:—
    DR. TANNER DR. TANNER (Cork, Mid.), moved that progress be reported.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,), appealed to the hon. Member not to persist in the motion, on the ground that the Bill was entirely non-contentious. The hon. Member for South Shields had an Amendment on the Paper in relation to it, but he had been satisfied with the arrangements made, and would not proceed with it. Moreover, the Bill would be the means of saving the country many thousands a year, and he hoped the hon. Member for Cork would allow it to proceed.
    DR. TANNERdeclined to withdraw his Motion.
    Committee report progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DETERMINATION OF DIFFERENCES) BILL.
    Committee deferred till to-morrow.
    PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) BILL.
    Second reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    TELEGRAPHS (ADVANCES).
    Committee thereupon deferred till to-morrow.
  SUPPLY (10TH APRIL).
  Resolutions reported:—
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £536,607, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1897, for the expense of the Post Office Packet Service "—
    *MR. J. M. MACLEANsaid, he desired to refer to an attack made upon him in his absence by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) in reference to the employment of Lascars and Seedee boys on British mail steamers. The hon. Member said he claimed his (Mr. Maclean's) vote because of an election placard issued during the election at Cardiff, which pledged him, if returned, to endeavour to secure the employment of British sailors on British ships. He did not want to defend that placard, and all he now had to say was that the employment of so many foreign sailors in the British Mercantile Marine was a serious matter that ought to engage the attention of Parliament. But that was quite distinct from the question of the employment of Lascars on mail packets. He would not wish his bitterest enemy to undertake stoke-hole duty on Red Sea steamers. As to the employment of Lascars, the hon. Member for Battersea had quite misrepresented the case as regarded what he (Mr. Maclean) had said at Cardiff. The people of Cardiff did not judge him by a few election squibs on the walls, they had known him and his opinions on every question of foreign and domestic policy for 15 years, and as regarded the question of the employment of Lascars, his record was perfectly clear and strong. This hare was first started by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who went to Cardiff and opened a campaign, attacking Lascars, and showing such colossal ignorance of the most elementary facts of the situation that he spoke of these sailors as foreigners, whom it was disgraceful to employ under the British flag. Indignant at that speech, he (Mr. MacLean) took the earliest opportunity of addressing a public meeting at Cardiff.

    1137
    The speech he made was published in the newspapers and afterwards in pamphlet form by the Conservative Association, and circulated by tens of thousands. That speech being made he was never asked any questions on the subject, and the electors of Cardiff accepted his views. It would have been disloyal to India to take any other view. He had made many voyages to India on steamers manned by Lascars. Those men did not approach in training and discipline the men of the British Navy, who were probably the finest specimens of humanity the world could show; but they were excellent sailors in point of discipline and capacity for doing their work, and he meant to say that ships navigated by Lascars were as well handled as most of the ships in the Mercantile Navy of England. These Lascars belonged to a seafaring race, who for centuries had been daring and skilful sailors. These men crossed the Indian Ocean and Red Sea long before England was heard of in India. England had taken possession of India, and were they to deny these men the right of earning their own living under the British flag? They were as much entitled as our own sailors were to do that. It would be a very shameful thing to prevent them doing so. What was suggested by the hon. Member for Battersea would be a very shortsighted policy. What would be the result of driving these men out of employment? The Indian Government would be bound to protect its own people by subsidising steamers for the special service of the Indian Government, and employ Lascars, and thus we should lose the carrying trade which at present we enjoyed. He could not allow a slur to be cast on him on this question. He expressed his regret that any Member of that House should have brought forward these intolerant views against the people of India at the very time they were employing Indian troops to fight their battles in Central Africa, and they hoped soon in the Soudan.
    *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he was not going to be led away by the excellent red herring of the hon. Gentleman on whom he had thrown no slur. He had seen from his bedroom window, when at Cardiff, on an election placard issued by the then candidate now the Member, that the hon. Member was in
    1138
    favour of "British labour on British ships." He therefore claimed the hon. Member as in favour of the exclusion of Lascars. He did not think the hon. Member had strengthened his position by his qualified denial. He did not deny the authenticity of the placard, and he hoped he should not deny the authorship. [Mr. MACLEAN was understood to deny the authorship of the placard.] Out of our mercantile marine, supposed to number 200,000 men, there were, according to Lord Brassey, an undoubted authority on marine matters, not more than 55,000 British-born sailors. That must be a matter of serious concern to every one who had at heart the social condition of our sailor population, and must appeal also to every man who had any regard for the military and naval position of the country from a strategical point of view. The hon. Member for Cardiff said he would be sorry to see any countryman earning his living by stoking in the Red Sea. He challenged the hon. Member that, if he went down to Cardiff and at a mass meeting of sailors put to them the question whether they would prefer hanging about Cardiff waiting for ships to stoking in the Red Sea, he would find that the sailors, to their credit, would far prefer the latter. The hon. Member spoke about the fitness of the Lascars as seamen. He did not depreciate them. But he held that the average British sailor was the best man at sea in times of difficulty and danger. One of the most creditable things he ever heard of about the British boy was that the day after the Victoria went down he saw ten times the number of London boys outside the recruiting offices of the Royal Navy in Spring Gardens than he had ever seen before during his daily walks for eight years to Spring Gardens as a Member of the County Council. That showed that the spirit for the sea was reviving, and it was their duty to encourage it by providing places in ships for those boys. He believed that since Friday, when this subject was before the House, the Secretary to the Treasury had inquired into the truth or otherwise of his allegations, and that the right hon. Gentleman's unsatisfactory reply on that occasion was due to the fact that, as he had to do two men's work in the House—to which he (Mr. Burns) objected on the principle of one man one job—he was ignorant of the facts.
    MR. HANBURY: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I was not ignorant of the facts at all.
    *MR. BURNSsaid he was sorry, and he would now have to prove that the right hon. Gentleman was ignorant of the facts, which he had been under the impression was due to the circumstance that, as he was not directly connected with the Post Office, he was not well posted in the proportion of Lascars to British sailors employed by the Peninsular and Oriental Company. It was not fair of that Company to employ nearly 7,000 Lascars in the vessels for which they were receiving a subsidy from the Government at the rate of £1,000 per day for the carrying of the mails, and that, apart from the European officers, they should not have, side by side with those Lascars, a single British able seaman, or a single able seaman who was a stoker. That was a disproportionately large number of foreigners as compared to Englishmen; but he was not asking to have the proportion reversed. He only asked the Secretary to the Treasury to promise a sympathetic consideration of the case. Mr. Williamson, of Liverpool, one of the best authorities on the mercantile marine, said that the chairman of the P. and O. Company told him that 5,000 British seamen were displaced in 1876 by foreigners; and everyone knew that it was simply because the British sailor had got out of hand. But that this unreliability now disappeared was shown by the fact that there were English seamen and stokers who had been continuously employed for five, ten and fifteen years on the White Star, Cunard, Orient, and other lines. He simply claimed that British sailors should have an equal and fair treatment. His case was a reasonable one, and he had rather under-estimated it. He claimed that it was not fair for us to add to our naval defence expenses, to be continually talking about the advantage of a Naval Reserve, to spend millions of money in attracting men to the Army and the Navy, and when these men had served their time, then we should deprive them of the opportunity of being more effective Army and Navy reserve men by saying that Lascars and other foreigners should be employed to their exclusion. He did not want the mantle of Protection thrown over the
    1140
    English sailor, but he objected to capitalist steamships using the low wages of the Lascar, his ignorance and inability to combine, in order to deprive England of 7,000 or 8,000 of the best reserve men she could possibly get, he objected to a company subsidised by national money and employing a disproportionate number of foreigners and turning English sailors on to the streets.
    *MR. LEWIS MCIVERobserved that the hon. Member for Battersea disclaimed any desire to wholly oust the Lascars, but in that case it became a question of how many were to be ousted in the interests of British seamen. It then became a question of degree and then a question of who was to settle the degree, and upon what principle it was to be settled. If it was to be a question of efficiency, who were better able to settle that question than those engaged in the trade? if it was a question of money, who ought more properly to settle it than those who had to pay the money? The Treasury and the Post Office had adopted and approved the present system, and had accepted a contract which was based upon that system. The hon. Member for Battersea then shifted his ground and contended in the alternative that if Lascars were to be employed on contract ships, they should come under the Fair Wage Resolution. That was a very interesting development, and an unexpected expansion of the theory of Fair Wage. By what standard was the fair wage to be judged? Was the Lascar to be paid according to the standard of the British A.B., or by the Bombay standard? It was a dangerous proposition, because why should it not be extended to the Bombay millowner, who should be called upon to pay his men at the same rate of wages as the Lancashire millowner. He suggested that the supporters of the fair wage theory should be content with what they had got. Some hon. Members might have inferred that the P. and O. Co. was a powerful corporation, largely supported by Members of the House, who had an interest in the Company, and that it had thus been able to secure a profitable contract, to the exclusion of competent rivals. He could not conceive a more ludicrously inaccurate statement of the actual facts. The P. and O. Co. had the contract because they alone,

    1141
    in the estimation of the Department, were able to supply guarantees of efficiency and price. There was no shipping company in the country in a position to replace it. The appeal on behalf of the British seaman had been unfairly twisted into an attack on a company which had served the Post Office for a long series of years and had never lost a mail bag, which performed 2½ millions of miles of mail contract every year, and which was at present the only company competent to fulfil the work.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,)said that originally there was an idea that some hon. Members wished to drive the Lascars out of this trade altogether; but the discussion had cleared up the point at least that this was not the intention of the hon. Member for Battersea. The only substantial question was how far the House of Commons' Resolution touched a case of this kind, and he did not believe that it touched the case at all. It would be stretching the Resolution to an extreme point if they were to apply it to cases in which subsidies were given to railway companies or steam packet companies of this kind. The point as now raised by the hon. Member for Battersea was a very small one. It was merely a question of degree. The hon. Member based the claim for the employment of more British seamen on these packets on two grounds, the first being that England paid a very large proportion of the subsidy. The other and far more important ground was that we ought to have upon these subsidised boats men who could be of use to us for naval purposes. He would bear these points in mind, and when the opportunity arose he would consider how far it would be possible to provide for the employment of a few more British seamen on these ships.
    DR. CLARKasked whether the Treasury would consider the advisability of modifying the existing contract with the P. and O. Company in the sense that had been indicated, or whether the change which his hon. Friend advocated would only be effected when the present contract terminated From Brindisi to Bombay a Lascar was probably as efficient a man as a British seaman, but between England and Brindisi the Lascar was not so useful a man, especially when
    1142
    there was bad weather in the Channel and the Bay of Biscay. The P. and O. Company had also an Australian and China service, and on that service British sailors ought to be employed in greater numbers. If the Caledonia, to give an example, were wanted suddenly for the naval purposes of the country, a completely new crew would have to be supplied for her, for none of her present crew were Royal Naval Reserve men. Almost all the crew were natives of India, the only white men employed on board the steamer being the officers, quartermasters and stewards. The P. and O. Company had also been transporting soldiers to India and Africa, and the steamers by which that work was done were also in the hands of Lascars. For such work they were not efficient. He wanted the Secretary to the Treasury to see, when the new contracts came in for China, India and Australia, that the conditions should be such that other companies would be able to compete, and not such as to give the P. and O. Company a monopoly. The Orient Company had now one half of the Australian service; and if the India and China trade were put up separately, it would give a fair opening to other companies. He objected to such a large subsidy being paid to the P. and O. Company, because he did not think that they required it. All the important correspondence between this country and India, and the colonies, was done by telegraph, and there were plenty of large steamers constantly running to India, China and Australia, which would take letters at a less rate.
    MR. BURNSsaid that, in consequence of the sympathetic answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and the expression of his intention to communicate with the proper authorities, he did not propose to put the House to the trouble of a Division, because he believed this would be made a Party question and the sailor would not benefit.
    Resolution agreed to.—
    *MR. C. HARRISONsaid, he desired to call attention to the inequitable method pursued in the assessment and rating of Government property. Upon the discussion of a Resolution on the subject in 1874, the Chancellor of the Exchequer read a statement of the principles upon which Government

    1143
    property was to be rated. These were that it was to bear its due share of local taxation, and to contribute to local rates equally with other property, and that the valuation was to be, as far as possible, on the same principle that was applied to the valuation of private property. This undertaking had been inadequately carried out by the appointment of a Treasury Officer, on a comparatively small salary, to assess Government property and say what it should be rated at. Thus the assessment of forts, Custom houses, and the like, was settled by a Treasury Clerk in London, without local knowledge, and without examination of the circumstances of each case. This was a matter which largely affected Plymouth and Devonport.
    MR. HANBURY, interposing, said, the hon. Member was referring to ancient history; the whole system had been altered.
    *MR. HARRISONcontinued, that the system had been made by Treasury Officials; it was not made and worked under the ordinary law; and the result to Plymouth was that the assessment was reduced a penny in the pound simply because an old sewer ran from the barracks into the Sound, and they did not make use of the borough sewers. In 1875 Government property was assessed at £3,231; in 1895, at £3,898; and in 1896 it was suddenly raised to £4,997, an increase of 40 per cent., without any extraordinary expenditure having been incurred by the borough. Either the estimate of 1896 was correct, in which case 40 per cent. had been under-assessed this year, or there must have been some great neglect with regard to the assessment. That being so, they found, when they came to examine what the increase had taken place upon, that the Post Office, which was assessed at £520 in 1895, without a single alteration or structural addition, had been raised to £600. Which system was right? If, instead of resorting to the valuation list of the Treasury in London, the ordinary system of assessment had been adopted, they would have had a totally altered, just, and proper system. That idea was perfectly practical. The matter was thoroughly investigated in 1873, and in the Bill introduced by Mr. Bruce, when Home Secretary, and the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and which was amended by the Committee upstairs, there was an
    1144
    elaborate clause with regard to the rating of Government property, and the rating was to be ascertained by arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Acts in the ordinary way, and after the umpire had decided the valuation, it was to be put into the scheme, and brought to the House in the form of a public Order. Now there was no reason why the system proposed in this Bill should not be adopted, or some alteration made in the present antiquated system. If ordinary property in Plymouth was assessed, an appeal lay from the Assessment Committee to the local justices, and from them to the Recorder, and, if any principle of law arose it could be carried up to the highest Court in the Kingdom, and there was no reason why Government property should not be assessed on the same principle as the rating of other property. He therefore urged that the present Resolution, and the Treasury Minute of 1874, under which these Government assessments were made, should be amended, and some other principle adopted, so that Government property should be assessed on the same basis as was now applicable to all other property.
    Resolution agreed to.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,009,281, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,701,036, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."

    CLASS I.
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £281,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £132,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes."
    6. "That a sum not exceeding £26,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come

    1145
    in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
    7. "That a sum not exceeding.£74,000. he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
    Resolutions agreed to.
    8. "That a sum not exceeding £23,900 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings,"—
    *MR. HERBERT LEWISasked whether the right hon. Gentleman, the First Commissioner of Works, would consider the advisability of extending the telegraph system to the smoking and dining rooms and the library. He also wished to know what was going to be done with regard to the statue of the late Mr. John Bright.
    *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said, that the subject of the extension of the telegraph was under consideration. With regard to the statue of the late Mr. John Bright, the matter was not entirely within his jurisdiction. There seemed to be a difference of opinion with regard to the merits of the statue, which some thought was hardly worthy of the gentleman it was supposed to represent. The statue had not yet been taken over by the Government.
    DR. TANNERsaid that he desired to call attention to the defective ventilation of the House. None of the systems of ventilation had been carried out in their entirety. Some attempt at properly ventilating the House had been made in consequence of a speech that he had made in 1885. It was then thought that the system in force in the Hôtel Dieu in Paris should be adopted. If that were done it would be possible to pump the air through cotton wool, by which it would be deprived of all extraneous matter. What he asked of the right hon. Gentleman was that the system that had been partly carried out in 1885, and that had been endorsed in 1887, should be carried out in its entirety, or at all events something should be done to mitigate the evil of which he complained. The House was entitled to some definite expression of
    1146
    opinion from the right hon. Gentleman on the subject.
    Resolution agreed to.
    9. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Extension of the Admiralty Buildings."
    10. "That a sum, not exceeding £36,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, viz., County Courts, Metropolitan Police Courts, and Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland."
    11. "That a sum, not exceeding £20,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
    12. "That a sum, not exceeding, £19,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
    13. "That a sum, not exceeding £140,210, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Survey of the United Kingdom, and for minor services connected therewith."
    14. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,570, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for constructing a new Harbour of Refuge at Peterhead."
    Resolution agreed to.
    15. "That a sum, not exceeding £174,853, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for Rates and Contributions in lieu of Rates, etc., in respect of Government Property, and for Rates on Houses occupied by Representatives of Foreign Powers, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Rating of Government Property Department,"—
    *LORD HUGH CECILasked what was going to be done in the case of the borough of Greenwich?
    MR. HANBURYsaid that the noble Lord need not be afraid that the borough he represented would suffer in any way when the re-valuation took place.
    Resolution agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS (14TH APRIL).
    Resolution reported:—
    "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the

    1147
    year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, the sum of £27,442,207 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James William Lowther, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hanbury.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL.
    "To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March One thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven."
    Presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow.

    MILITARY MANOEUVRES BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.— [H.L.]
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 11th May.
    DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    EDUCATION BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
    TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
    NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    SUPPLY.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.
    REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    DISTRICT COUNCILS (WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday 30th April.
    CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Committee deferred till Monday 27th April
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (QUALIFICATION OF VOTERS) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

    BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee:—
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause I.:—
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

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

    PAYMENT OF JURORS (IRELAND) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1887) REPEAL BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    HOUSES IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
    PRISON-MADE GOODS IMPORTATION BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
    INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT AND INCORPORATED BUILDING SOCIETIES (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
    GROUND GAME ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

    LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Second Reading deferred till Tomorrows.
    And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without question put.
    Adjourned at Ten minutes after One o'clock.