Sitting of 23 April 1896

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STRAND IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. LAURENCE HARDY MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford) moved "That the Bill be read a Second time upon this day six months." He said that his first objection was that it was not an improvement Bill, but a Bill to give access to a very large hotel

  1497
  It would only result in an increase of from 3 to 5 feet in the width of the Strand along a small frontage, while it claimed the right to shut up two public thoroughfares. The House ought to be careful in giving compulsory powers to one set of private persons as against another. In this case, Messrs. Hobbs and Co., and the Liberator Society were the promoters of the Bill; and it was hard that they should have the right to acquire compulsorily the property of those who did not wish to part with it, especially when no public advantage was to follow. It was not the case, as was stated in the preamble, that all the parties concerned had agreed to the Bill. Two persons, who would be materially injured, had declined to come to terms. He understood, however, that a considerable alteration had been made in the Bill by agreement between the promoters and the London County Council, which would make it a real improvement Bill; and if that were the fact, he withdrew his Amendment.
  MR. R. B. MARTINsaid, that the promoters had agreed with the Works Committee to set back the Strand frontage a distance of 25 feet for the whole length of the area proposed to be acquired. The consequence would be that the narrowest part of the Strand would be made a broad substantial thoroughfare with an average width of 80 feet. Of course, the Bill was in the interests of the hotel, but it was much more in the interests of the Strand. Of the 12 persons interested, the promoters had acquired the interests of seven; there were two who were not very anxious; there was one who would sell if he had the power to do so; and there was only one who actually opposed the Bill. This Bill would afford the opportunity for a decided improvement in a great thoroughfare.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,)said that the Bill proposed compulsorily to acquire the property of certain residents on a part of one side of the Strand. Before such powers were given by the House, it was necessary to see what advantage to the public would result. When the Bill first came under his notice he was very doubtful whether it ought to be read a Second time. The public benefit would be
  1498
  merely a widening of the Strand for a short distance by a few feet. But since the introduction of the Bill, an arrangement had been arrived at between the London County Council and the promoters by which the Strand was to be set back no less than 25 feet for a distance of about 80 feet, including the whole frontage opposite the new hotel. He would not now say whether that was a sufficient improvement, but it was sufficient to allow the House to read the Bill a Second time and send it to a Committee. The London County Council had petitioned against the Bill, and they would be competent to appear before the Committee to protect the rights of the public.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the position. The County Council were now willing that the Bill should be proceeded with, though there were some points which would have to be considered by the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  POLICE SUPERVISION.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a notorious criminal named Charles Taylor, who on the 9th instant was convicted upon three indictments at the West Kent Quarter Sessions at Maid-stone, was subject to police supervision at the period when the offences were committed; when was Taylor last released from prison; how many times after his release did he report himself to the police, and what was the date of his last report prior to his arrest; and, what were the respective dates of the offences of which he was convicted at Maidstone?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): At the time of committing

  1499
  the offences charged against him, Taylor was at liberty under the conditions of a licence granted to him under the Penal Servitude Acts. He was last released from Prison on the 28th March 1895, and reported himself to the Police on that day, and that day only. There were three indictments against him, one for house breaking on the 11th December 1895, one for larceny from a dwelling-house on the 1st January 1896, and one for resisting his lawful detention on the 28th January; the first of these only was gone into.

  TUNBRIDGE WELLS POST OFFICE.
  MR. H. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster of Tunbridge Wells was acting under official instructions in requiring candidates for appointment to sign a document expressing willingness to be transferred to another town should the exigencies of the service demand it?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): The Postmaster was acting under official instructions in the matter. It is intended to employ a certain number of women at Tunbridge Wells instead of men as soon as suitable accommodation can be provided, and this arrangement renders it desirable that men now being appointed to existing vacancies should clearly understand that they can only be admitted on the condition referred to. The Postmaster General considers this arrangement a fair one in the interests of the men as well as of the Department.

  EXPRESS LETTERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it has been the rule for clerks in post offices to refuse to give receipts for express letters and express parcels; and, whether any precaution is taken to guard against loss or theft of such letters or parcels, or to furnish the sender with means of proving that he dispatched the letter or parcel in case of loss or theft, with a view to the recovery of compensation?
  MR. HANBURY: It has not been the practice hitherto to give receipts for express letters any more than for other letters, and experience has shown that there is no demand on the part of the public for them. Such receipts are in fact not necessary, because the Post Office keeps an accurate record or way bill of every express letter at every stage, which in itself would be a proof, for all purposes of compensation, of the posting of the letter, and also affords a sufficient guard against theft, by fixing the responsibility for the articles conveyed upon the messenger performing the service.

  MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, (1) whether it has been brought to his knowledge that a series of alarming burglaries were committed in Montrose between the month of November 1894 and March 1896, and that a prisoner named Hugh Macdonald pleaded guilty in the Sheriff Court at Forfar to eight charges; that the Sheriff in dealing with the case said that the charges were of such a serious nature that, in his opinion, he was deserving of a more heavy sentence than it was within his jurisdiction to impose, and accordingly remitted him to the High Court of Justiciary for sentence; that upon the case being called in the High Court, the Lord Justice Clerk said it would have been very difficult to have avoided sending the prisoner to penal servitude, but that nevertheless the Judge then and there dismissed him from the bar and granted him instant liberation, because, through the inadvertence of a clerk the plea of guilty, although written on a copy of the indictment, was not signed upon the principal document; (2) whether there was no method of correcting such a technical informality, and whether this burglar, guilty on his own confession, could have been detained till the clerk's blunder was remedied; and (3) whether steps will be taken to enable Judges in Scotland to correct mere technical errors or detain prisoners in custody till they are corrected?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir CHARLES PEARSON,): The statements in the first paragraph are substantially

  1501
  correct. There was no method of remedying the mistake, which was not technical, but consisted in the omission of a statutory requirement; and the Court held they had no power to order the accused to be further detained. I am considering the propriety of proposing a remedy in the direction indicated. Meanwhile I am issuing a circular to prosecutors and sheriff clerks, and taking other steps which I hope will prevent the recurrence of this regrettable miscarriage of justice.

  GRAND CANAL (IRELAND).
  MR. C. J. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that a boat master named Thomas Meany, in the employment of the Grand Canal Company, lost his life on the night of Friday the 10th instant at the twelfth lock on that canal, and that an inquest was held in the case; (2) whether he will state what was the verdict arrived at by the Coroner's jury, and why no public intimation was made of their decision; (3) whether he is aware that within the last few years material changes have been made in the construction of the boats used by this Company, and that since that date the number of accidents have been considerably increased; (4) whether he will ascertain whether night traffic is carried on by this company, and whether the locks are sufficiently lighted, having due regard to the safety of the men employed on night duty; also whether there is a man on duty and in charge of each lock during the night, or is the opening and closing of the lock gates left to the men who are in charge of the boats; (5) whether there is any limit to the number of hours of continuous work to be performed by men in charge of the boats; (6) whether the law provides for the inspection of the working and management of these canals, with a view to the protection of the lives of the men employed on this service; and, (7) whether any inspection or inquiry has ever been made out; and, if so, when?
  *THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. (2) The
  1502
  coroner's jury returned a verdict of accidental drowning. No reporter was present at the inquest, and hence, I presume, no public intimation of the case was given. (3) I believe the fact to be as stated in the first part of the third paragraph, but I am not in a position to say whether the changes referred to have resulted in an increase in the number of accidents. (4) Night traffic is continuous. The only lights used at the locks are the lamps used by the lock keepers. There is a lock keeper at each lock for duty both by day and night. It is his duty to open and close the gates, and the keys are in his custody. (5) The reply to the fifth paragraph, so far as I can ascertain, is in the negative. The matter appears to be one of contract between the canal company and the men. (6) I am informed that it is not the function of the Board of Trade to generally inspect the working and management of canals, and I do not think the law provides for any such inspection. (7) There has never been any inspection or inquiry in the case of the Grand Canal.

  COMPENSATION FOE MALICIOUS DAMAGE.
  MR. ENGLEDOW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will ascertain whether Lieut.-Colonel John James Hardy Eustace, J. P., was awarded by the Grand Jury of the county of Carlow, at last Assizes, of which he himself was sworn in a member, the sum of £27, in compensation for malicious injury to a thatched cabin or hovel, the thatch and roof of which was burned on his property, the value of which, as fixed by the Government valuator and as stated in the official records in the office of the Grand Jury, was 5s., and on which the taxes due up to the last Assizes were paid by the landlord?
  *MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The facts are, I believe, substantially as stated, the rent of the cottage being, however, £1 5s. I informed the lion. Member on Tuesday last that Colonel Eustace, took no part in the deliberations of the Grand Jury when this case was under consideration, and that it was open to the hon. Member himself, or any other ratepayer, to have objected before

  1503
  the Judge of Assize to the amount of compensation awarded. But no such objection was, as a matter of fact, raised.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1879.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it would be possible to furnish a Return, showing to what extent, in the case of convictions and orders respectively, Courts of Summary Jurisdiction avail themselves of the power conferred upon them by Section 7 of The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, to allow time for the payment of the sum adjudged to be paid, to direct payment by instalments, or to take security for payment?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: I have consulted the Chief Magistrate, but find that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to prepare the Return which the hon. Member asks for.

  PUPIL TEACHERS.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, in view of the fact that in all memoranda of agreement between school managers and pupil teachers to be executed in accordance with Article 38 of the Code of Regulations for Day Schools for 1896, by which, in engagements which are to begin on or after the 1st July 1896, pupil teachers are not to serve in school for more than 20 hours in any one week, it is the intention of the Privy Council, or the Education Department, to issue instructions as to how the time thus placed at the disposal of pupil teachers is to be employed; if this time is to be devoted to the furtherance of their studies, whether managers will be instructed to arrange for definite instruction to be given to their pupil teachers during this time; and, as the Regulations of the Code will compel managers to engage additional teachers to supply the places of pupil teachers thus taken from teaching, what arrangements it is proposed to make to aid them in bearing the additional cost which will be thus incurred?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Committee of Council do not propose to issue instructions regarding the employment of the time placed at the disposal of pupil teachers by the change in the Code. It may be devoted to study or to recreation, as circumstances may render it desirable. The change, which does not apply to pupil teachers engaged under previous Codes, will not necessarily involve additions to the staff. It is hoped that any difficulties will be met by a rearrangement of the time-table.

  GOVERNMENT PROPERTY (VALUATION).
  MR. CHARLES HARRISON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the valuations of Government property, in London, and at Plymouth and Devonport, are made, as stated in the letter of the Treasury to the Local Government and Taxation Committee of the London County Council of the 22nd September 1893, under the authority of and in the manner prescribed by the Treasury Minute dated 27th June 1874 (Parliamentary Paper, 234), and are based on the principles laid down in the Memorandum on the subject which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same day read in the House of Commons (Hansard's Debates, vol. 220, page 478); and, if not, then under what authority and in what manner, and based on what principles, are the valuations now made; and whether the contributions in substitution for the rate on the assessable value of the Citadel at Plymouth is a penny in the pound less than the rate levied on other assessable adjoining property, although the residents in the Citadel enjoy all the amenities derivable from local expenditure by the local authorities of Plymouth.
  MR. HANBURY: The valuations of Government Property in London and at Plymouth and Devonport were made under the authority of, and in the manner prescribed by, the Treasury Minute of 27th June 1874, and are based on the principles laid down in the memorandum on the subject read in the House of Commons on that day by the Chancellor

  1505
  of the Exchequer. Nearly the whole of the London valuations have recently been revised by the Treasury and the Assessment Committee of the Districts in which the Government Properties are situated. A revised valuation of the Government property in Plymouth was settled in December last jointly by the Treasury Valuer and the Assessment Committee's Valuer, and on the 13th December the Clerk to the Plymouth Guardians, who are the Assessment Authority for Plymouth, wrote to the Treasury respecting the new valuation as follows:—
  "I am instructed by the Guardians to inform you that they consider it a fair and just valuation.
  The contribution for the Citadel is calculated on a penny in the £ less than the rate levied on Plymouth property generally, for the reason that the Local Authorities do not render to the Citadel all the services that they render to rateable property in the Borough. The Citadel and other Government properties at Plymouth are drained by the Government's own system of drainage maintained at the Government expense. No service of any kind in the matter of drainage is rendered to the Citadel from local expenditure. The Plymouth rates last year were 6s. 1½d.in the £; the contribution for the Citadel was calculated on 6s. 0½d. in the £ in accordance with an arrangement come to in 1875. The following is a copy of the original memorandum of agreement:—
  "The Urban Sanitary Authority concur in the proposals, which they consider not unreasonable, that as very little use is made of their sewers by the Government, the contribution to the General District Rate should be subject to a reduction of one penny in the pound on the rates of each year."
  The hon. Member will therefore see that this Question is not in acordance with the views of the local authorities of Plymouth, nor with the facts of the case as regards the local expenditure in connection with the Citadel.

  HARLESTON CHARITIES NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.
  MR. JAMES PENDER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he could state to the House

  1506
  upon what grounds the Charity Commissioners decline to sanction the handing over of the parochial charities of the village of Harleston, Northamptonshire, to the management of the parish council, seeing that the said charities appear to come under the terms of the Local Government Act 1894, Clause 14.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The only provisions of the Local Government Act 1894, which permit trustees of a parochial charity to hand over their trust to the management of the parish council are contained in Section 14, Sub-section 1. That subsection does not apply to all parochial charities, an Amendment designed to make it so apply having been rejected in this House. The Commissioners have decided that the sub-section deals only with cases in which trustees hold real property which is enjoyed in specie—i.e., as land or houses—by the inhabitants of a parish, and that it does not apply to cases like that at Harleston, in which the property is let and the benefit of the rents enjoyed by such inhabitants. Later sub-sections enable the parish council to obtain representation in the trusteeship of the latter class of parochial charities, but not to take over the management of the trust as a whole. The Commissioners therefore have no power to sanction the proposal of the Harleston trustees.

  DEATH OF A PAUPER (WEST HAM UNION).
  *MR. ERNEST GRAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of a pauper named Richard Davey at the West Ham Union, at the inquest on whom the house surgeon of the West Ham Hospital stated that Davey's jaw was broken, and the dead man's brother stated that Davey had been buried without any notification of his death having been made to his relatives; and, whether the Local Government Board has made or intends to make an inquiry into the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,): The attention of the Local Government Board has been

  1507
  called to the case referred to. The circumstances attending the death of the man were the subject of a prolonged inquiry by the coroner, and I am informed that the jury returned the verdict that the death was from peritonitis, and that they unanimously expressed their opinion that the officers used no more violence than was necessary to convey the deceased to the receiving wards. As regards the statement that the man had been buried without any notification of his death having been made to his relatives, the guardians inform me that when he was admitted to the workhouse in April of last year, he described himself as a widower, and gave the address of a brother residing at West Ham as his only relative. Immediately Davey was placed on the danger list by the medical officer, a messenger was dispatched to the address given with a message notifying the fact, when it was found the brother had removed to Worth Tawton, Devon, and a letter was immediately posted giving particulars of the death and date of the funeral. In the course of inquiries made by the police, it was ascertained that the deceased had a wife living at Leyton. The widow received notice at 11 a.m. on the 7th instant, the deceased being buried at 2.30 p.m. I have applied to the coroner for a copy of the depositions, and when they are received I will consider whether any further action on the part of the Local Government Board is required.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON ART LIBRARY.
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Art Library at South Kensington is in charge of the Keeper of the Art Library, or in charge of the Director of the Museum; who is responsible for its management and the appointment of its staff; and, whether, as a matter of fact, the Secretary of the Science and Art Department exercises any control over the Library and the appointment of its officials?
  SIR J. GORST: The Art Library is in charge of the keeper, who is responsible for its management to the Director of the Art Museum. The staff of the Museum below the rank of keeper and above that of attendant are appointed by
  1508

  open competition, and are allocated to the several divisions by the Directors The Secretary of the Science and Art Department exercises a general control over the Library, but he does not appoint its officials.

  ITINERANT STREET MUSICIANS.
  MR. J. A. JACOBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been directed to the recent decision of Mr. Plowden at the Marylebone Police Court with regard to an itinerant street musician; and, whether it is obligatory on the part of a householder to give his reasons to a street musician for requesting him to desist before he is able to make the musician go away?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The Question which the hon. Member puts to me is one as to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, and one, therefore, which the Courts alone are competent to decide. I understand that the learned magistrate has consented to state a case on the point for the opinion of the High Court.

  ARMY MESS UNIFORMS.
  COLONEL DALBIAC: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to make considerable changes in the mess uniforms throughout the Army?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): It is under consideration whether a reversion to the former more simple form of infantry mess jacket would not be desirable. If adopted, time to wear out jackets of the existing pattern would be allowed.

  BATH ESTATE (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) if he has received a memorial from the tenants of the Bath Estate, county Monaghan, who purchased their farms under the Ash-bourne Acts, for an extension of time in payment of their instalments from 49 to 75 years; and (2) whether he will grant the prayer of the memorialists before the next instalment day arrives?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Memorials have been received from the tenants on other properties in this county, but I do not appear to have received one from the Bath tenants. As to the second part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Land Bill.

  ALLEGED TREATY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND CHINA.
  MR. EDWARD MOON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the text and terms of an alleged treaty between Russia and China, whereby the latter Power, in addition to granting commercial facilities to Russia, confers the right to use ports, recruit forces, build barracks and coal depôts, lay a branch line through Kirin and Manchuria to Talienwan, occupy and fortify various positions, including an island near Talienwan, establish depots for stores, and maintain garrisons in such positions; and whether he can give any information on the subject to the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): Rumours of such an alleged treaty have appeared, and have been discussed in the newspapers; but Her Majesty's Government are in possession of no reliable information on the subject.

  SHUTTLE GUARDS.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, although the Home Office has hitherto directed prosecutions in cases where shuttles are a source of danger, and has obtained convictions in each case where shuttle guards had not been provided, a decision has just been given by the Recorder of Blackburn which seems to throw doubt upon the law governing such cases; and, whether steps are being taken towards obtaining a reversal of this decision?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: It is the case that the Recorder of Blackburn has recently quashed a conviction
  1510
  which was obtained against certain cotton manufacturers for neglecting to fence the shuttles in their looms. On the application of the counsel acting for the Home Office, the Recorder has consented to state a case for the decision of the High Court.

  CYCLING (HYDE PARK).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the desirability of excluding from the bicycle track in Hyde Park, between the hours of 10 and 12 o'clock, carriages to which the entire of the park is open all day, and which are a source of inconvenience and danger to the bicyclists?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): I have already explained, in reply to other hon. Members, that I was not prepared, as then advised, to exclude carriages from the road to which this Question refers. I am now, however, in communication with the Commissioner of Police and the legal advisers of the Government; and I hope next week to be in a position to state definitively what can be done to meet the wishes of hon. Members who are anxious to secure the greater safety of bicycle riders on the road in question.

  DEATH FROM VACCINATION (ALLEGED).
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to an inquest held before the Deputy Coroner for East London, on 7th April, on the body of the daughter of a printer, residing at 22, Mary Anne Street, St. George's, E., who was alleged to have died from the effects, direct or indirect, of vaccination; and, whether any Inquiry into the case has been made either by the Local Government Board, or on behalf of the Royal Commission on Vaccination?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Neither the Local Government Board nor the Royal Commission on Vaccination have received

  1511
  any information as to the case referred to. I have communicated with the Coroner requesting him to forward to the Board a copy of the depositions, and, as soon as they are received, I will consider whether an Inquiry in the case appears to be necessary.

  SUICIDES (MERCANTILE MARINE).
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the memorandum in the Board of Trade Journal for April, by the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, dealing with the question of suicides in the engine-room staff of the Mercantile Marine, in which he says that suicides in the foreign-going vessels are prevalent to a degree calling for serious attention; and, whether he will order an Inquiry into the question with a view to the application of remedies?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (for Mr. RITCHIE): The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the large number of suicides that have occurred among firemen and trimmers in the Mercantile Marine, and my right hon. Colleague has directed steps to be taken to elicit further information on the subject. When he is in possession of all the facts, he will further consider the matter.

  LOCAL LOANS (IRELAND).
  DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, considering the low rate of interest at which the Government can borrow money, he will reduce the rate of interest which Irish public boards are compelled to pay for money borrowed from the Board of Works?
  MR. HANBURY: I am afraid I have really nothing to add to my previous answers on the subject. As I informed the hon. and learned Member on the 9th March, in reply to his Question about the Westport Harbour Loan—
  "Four per cent. is the lowest rate of interest which can be allowed for such loans in the absence of special legislation, and as the Local Loans Fund is at present constituted, any reduction in the present rate of interest would seriously endanger its solvency."
  1512
  This answer I virtually repeated in replying to a Question put by the hon. Member for North Kildare on the 12th March.

  MINERS' NYSTAGMUS.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether it is part of the duties of an inspector of mines to inquire into the action of the safety lamp as a cause of miners' nystagmus; and, (2) whether it would be competent for an inspector to prohibit the use of any class of safety lamps, if it were proven that such lamp caused nystagmus?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: The answer to both parts of the Question is in the negative; but I may add that Dr. Snell, of Sheffield, who has written a work on miners' nystagmus, and is still carrying on his investigations into its causes, is afforded such assistance as is in his power by the Inspector of the District. The conclusions so far obtained, point, I understand, to other causes than the use of safety lamps.

  TELEGRAPHISTS (EDINBURGH).
  MR. J. CALDWELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. R. WALLACE), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain on what grounds two Edinburgh telegraphists of the established staff, who were sent on special duty to Killin and South Queensferry respectively had their salaries stopped during the time they were away from headquarters, the allowances only being granted; and, if he will direct that the amount withheld in each case, along with the railway fare of the telegraphist sent to South Queensferry, be paid, and that all telegraphists sent on such duty be granted the allowance in addition to the salary, as has hitherto been the custom?
  MR. HANBURY: The two women telegraphists at Edinburgh referred to by the hon. Member, who were in receipt of wages of 12s. and 13s. 6d. a week, respectively, accepted employment, one on the 4th August 1894, and the other at the end of July 1895, on temporary relief duties at South Queensferry and

  1513
  Killin, at wages of 16s. and 20s. a week respectively. It was explained to them that their pay at the Edinburgh office would cease during the period they were so employed. As the higher wages were intended to cover any additional expenses for subsistence, it is not proposed to pay these officers their ordinary wages as well. Directions were, however, given in November last to apply at Edinburgh in future cases the arrangement in force at other offices, namely, to pay a subsistence allowance in addition to the ordinary wages. As regards the payment of railway faros, the Postmaster General is making inquiries and will communicate the result to the hon. Member when he has the necessary information.

  PRISONER JOHN DALY.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any change was made in the work allotted to John Daly, at present confined in Portland Prison, at the time immediately following his election as Member of Parliament for Limerick; and, whether during this week he was and subsequently has been employed in the class of menial work, on which only the lowest class of criminals are usually employed?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: No, Sir, no change whatever has been made in the work assigned to John Daly since his election. He is required to take his turn with the other prisoners in his workshop in the performance of the duties to which the hon. Member alludes; but the practice is not a new one, and Daly has taken part in the work for years without any complaint. It is entirely a mistake to suppose that the work is usually given to any particular class of prisoners.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked whether Jabez Balfour and his companions were required to perform the menial work which Daly had been made to do?
  [No answer was given.]

  GRAVING DOCK, BELFAST.
  MR. M. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the necessity for a graving dock at Belfast sufficient to admit battleships, whether, considering
  1514
  the amount of money expended by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners in making docks and harbour works at Belfast, and considering the convenience to the Navy to be able to have battleships repaired there, he will make inquiry as to the desirability of granting a subsidy towards making a sufficiently large graving dock at Belfast?
  *CAPTAIN DONELANasked whether, before granting a subsidy towards the construction of a private dockyard at Belfast, the Admiralty would complete and equip the Government Dockyard at Haulbowline?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. E. MACARTNKY,): This Question is similar to one which was brought before the First Lord of the Admiralty last month by various hon. Members interested in the Clyde navigation. I must repeat the statement then made that the Admiralty have, as the House knows, extensive and costly plans in hand for the improvement of the docking accommodation of Her Majesty's ships, and that they are not prepared at present to take up the further large question of subsidising private docks in this country?
  MR. McCARTANasked whether they were to understand that the Admiralty refused to spend in Belfast any of the millions they had obtained from the House?
  [No answer was given.]

  HALFPENNY WRAPPERS.
  *SIR ALFRED HICKMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a very large number of documents enclosed in halfpenny wrappers are surcharged because they are said to contain communications in the nature of a letter; whether an order for goods fixing the date of delivery is passed, but an order stating "urgently wanted" is surcharged, and an order defining exactly what goods are required is passed, but if simply "as before" is said it is surcharged; and, whether the Postmaster General will endeavour to make some consistent regulations on the subject, and furnish the public with clear and definite information as to what is and what is not admissible?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that a number of documents enclosed in halfpenny wrappers are surcharged as containing communications of the nature of a letter, and that orders are among the documents so offending. Messages are often added in writing to orders for goods which constitute the documents letters, and render them liable to letter postage. The particular expressions "urgently wanted" or "as before" are not, strictly speaking, admissible. The regulations on pages 4 and 5 of the Post Office Guide are as clear and as definite as it is possible to make them, and it is from inattention to these that the documents are so drawn as to be inadmissible at the halfpenny rate. A line has, of course, to be drawn somewhere, and it is thought that already very large concessions have been made with respect to halfpenny postage.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND BATING BILL.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, what is the estimate of the annual value, the rateable value, and the acreage of the agricultural land to which the relief proposed to be given by the Agricultural Land Rating Bill extends?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): It is estimated that the rateable value of the agricultural land to which the Bill extends is £26,250,000. I presume that the annual value to which the right hon. Member alludes is the annual value referred to in Clause 9 of the Bill. I have not the same material for making an estimate of the annual value as I have in the case of rateable value, but I have no reason to suppose that there is any great difference between the annual value and the rateable value of agricultural land. The acreage of the land is estimated at 32,745,610, without including allotments and other holdings— the area of which does not exceed one acre—as to which no statistics are available.
  MR. J. DILLONasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would give similar information in respect to Scotland and Ireland?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I shall be happy to do so after notice.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is little difference between the annual value and the rateable value. Is it not a fact that a large reduction is always made on the annual value before the rateable value is arrived at?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I shall be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman any further information that I can.

  ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN WITU.
  MR. ARTHUR PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the total abolition of slavery throughout the province of Witu, as fixed by an agreement entered into at Jongeni, 18th March 1891, between Her Majesty's Consul and the Administrator of the British East Africa Company on the one part, of the Sultan and Chiefs of Witu on the other part, will take place finally and absolutely on 24th May 1896, the date specified in the agreement?
  MR. CURZON: The position taken up by the late Government with regard to slavery in Witu is fully explained in the "Further Papers Relating to Witu" Africa No. 1, 1894, which were laid before the House in January 1894. In view of the state of affairs on the mainland, it is not at present possible to put into operation the comprehensive measures there foreshadowed.

  TELEGRAPH SERVICE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the sum of £7,600,000 has already been paid from postal revenue for interest on the £10,000,000 originally borrowed by the Government for the purchase of the telegraphs in 1870; and whether he can explain what measures are being taken to pay off the purchase money, and to relieve the telegraph service from the burden of the interest upon it?
  MR. HANBURY: NO sums have been paid out of either postal or telegraph revenue for interest on the stock created for the purchase of the telegraphs. That stock has been treated as part of

  1517
  the general debt of the country, and the interest is included in the provision made for the debt charge. In the years 1870 and 1871 stock amounting to £67,600 was purchased out of the surplus balance on telegraph revenue and cancelled; but, as there has been no surplus since that date, no measures, other than those applicable to the rest of the National Debt, are being taken to pay off the telegraph debt.

  POSTAL FACILITIES (COUNTY CLARE).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On be half of the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the Post Office authorities will order a sub-post office to be established in the neighbourhood of Moy Lahinch, County Clare?
  MR. HANBUHY: An application for a post office in the neighbourhood referred to is in the hands of the local surveyor for inquiry, and the hon. Member shall be informed as soon as a decision can be arrived at.

  PIER ACCOMMODATION (COUNTY DONEGAL).
  MR. THOMAS B. CURRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government purpose constructing a pier at Portaleen, Glen-gad, Malin; if this place has been examined lately by a Government official; and if he reported in favour of the erection of a pier there; and is he aware that this is one of the most frequented fishing ports in Donegal; and that the district about that of Glengad is one of the, if not the, most congested and poorest districts in Donegal?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: With the permission of my right hon. Friend, I will reply to this Question. An inspector of the Congested Districts Board recently visited Portaleen with a view of furnishing a Report on the proposal made to the Board for the erection of a pier at that place. The Report of that officer is now before the Board, but it would be contrary to practice to disclose its contents.

  RAILWAY BRIDGES.
  MR. J.M. MACLEAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the state of the existing law whereby railway companies are required to provide in Bills promoted by them for the height and width of bridges over roads in urban districts; and whether he will introduce a Bill amending the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, so as to provide that, in the construction of new railways through any urban district, the height of any bridge throughout shall be not less than 16 feet, and that the span of any such bridge shall be of the width provided in the byelaws of the urban sanitary authority for the construction of new streets within such district, and so as to provide also for the erection of proper screens hiding from view the traffic over such bridge, the prevention of the dripping of water therefrom, and the user thereof for advertising purposes?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (for Mr. RITCHIE): The President of the Board of Trade is aware, of the provisions of the law and of the Standing Orders of this House. It is open to local authorities to press upon promoters and Parliamentary Committees their views upon the points referred to in the hon. Member's Question. At present there is nothing to show that this procedure fails to afford them adequate protection; consequently, there do not appear to be any grounds for proposing amendment of the law.

  MATABELELAND.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) whether Her Majesty's Representatives in South Africa have received any complaint from the Matabele as to the treatment of Native women at the hands of the Chartered Company's servants; and, (2) whether any complaint has been made of the Company's servants enforcing a Law whereby they take over 10 per cent. of the cattle belonging to the Matabele?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The answer to the first part of the Question is that no such complaint has reached me. The answer

  1519
  to the second part of the Question is the same. I have stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Derby on February 13, what the law is as to the proprietorship of the Matabele cattle, and I may now add that I have directed that, as soon as. circumstances permit, an inquiry shall be made as to the manner in which the law has been administered.

  BRANCEPETH COLLIEEY EXPLOSION.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, having regard to the serious nature of the late explosion at Brancepeth Colliery, in the county of Durham, he will appoint some one to represent the Home Office at the adjourned inquest on the 12th of May?
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: Yes, Sir, I have decided to appoint counsel to represent the Home Office at the inquest.

  VACCINATION (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. A. B. BATHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state when the Royal Commission on Vaccination is likely to make a Report?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I can add nothing to the reply which, during the Session, I have frequently given in the House. I have communicated with the Commission, and am informed that they are considering their Report, and that it will shortly be presented.

  CHITRAL.
  SIR HENRY FOWLER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether any Dispatches or telegrams relating to the occupation of Chitral have been sent by the Secretary of State to the Government of India since the Dispatch of the Secretary of State of the 16th of August 1895; and if there have been any such Dispatches or telegrams, will he inform the House why they have been omitted from the Correspondence recently presented to Parliament?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): No telegrams or
  1520
  Dispatches, except those relating to details of unimportance, have been sent to the Government of India since August 16th on the subject of Chitral. On the day upon which the Correspondence was laid upon the Table of the House—viz., March 27th—a Dispatch was sent to India dealing with proposals for reduction of military expenditure in Gilghit, but the correspondence on this point is not concluded, as further experience of the recent changes is necessary before final arrangements can be sanctioned. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes it I will gladly show him these Dispatches.

  RIFLE RANGE (DOWNPATRICK, S.).
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the proposed rifle range near Downpatrick, whether any inspection of grounds has been recently been made at the instance of the Military Authorities; and. if so, if he will state with what result; and whether he has any intention of securing proper accommodation for a rifle range in that district?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No recent Report has beer received from the Commander of the Forces in Ireland as to a site for a rifle range in the neighbourhood of Downpatrick, the matter remains where it was when the hon. Member asked a question relating to it on the 5th ultimo.
  MR. McCARTAN: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether an inspection was made, not whether a report had been received.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: The only answer I can give the hon. Gentleman is the one I have already given.
  MR. McCARTAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will inquire whether any inspection will be made, and give the House the result of that inspection?
  [No answer was given.]

  RURAL LETTER CARRIERS (IRELAND).
  Mr. L. P. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how often rural letter-carriers in Ireland are supplied with waterproof capes for their protection and that of the parcels, etc., which they

  1521
  carry; and whether, seeing that the supply has become irregular, steps will be taken to see that this grievance will be remedied?
  MR. HANBURY: The supply of waterproof capes to rural postmen has, until recently, been renewed every three years, but in future new capes will be issued every two years. There was some delay on the part of the contractors in completing the last winter's issue, but it can hardly be, said that the supply has become irregular. Every effort will be made to prevent delay in future.

  BUCKFASTLEIGH ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Buckfastleigh Roman Catholic School, built and opened in 1893, and certified by the Education Department as a public elementary school satisfying all the requirements of the, Code, and since examined by Her Majesty's Inspectors, and reported of very highly, receives no grant; whether he can say why this school has been so treated; whether this school will be entitled to a grant under the Education Bill now before the House; and whether, in the time between now and the passing of the Education Bill, this school will be allowed a grant under the existing law?
  SIR J. GORST: The school, as I stated in answer to a Question on the 29th of August last, is refused the grant on the ground that it is unnecessary, within the meaning of Article 80 of the Code, The position of the school will not be affected in this respect by the Bill now before the House?

  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FACILITIES) BILL.
  MR. F. A. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the percentage of fatal accidents to the numbers employed in certain classes of railway work is considerably higher than the similar percentages of fatal accidents to the numbers employed in coal mines and in factories and workshops, and to the
  1522
  difficulty of determining the causes in many railway accidents, he will consent to the Second Reading of the Coroners' Inquests (Railway Fatalities) Bill, and to send the Bill to a Standing or Select Committee, or will introduce legislation on similar lines to place the inquests in railway accidents on a similar footing to those in the cases of mines and of factories and workshops?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (for Mr. RITCHIE): In the opinion of my right hon. Colleague there is nothing to show that existing legislation fails to give Coroners ample means of obtaining technical assistance in difficult cases, or that any such comparison of percentages as is suggested by the hon. Member can be made. Under these circumstances the reason for the legislation referred to does not seem strong.

  POLICE ESTABLISHMENT (COUNTY CAVAN).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state what was the number of policemen employed in county Cavan in the years 1875 and 1895 respectively; what is the present number of extra police employed there; and, in view of the peaceful state of the county and the depressed state of the farming interests, will he consent to a reduction of the police force which on inquiry may be found to be unnecessary?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The police establishment of county Cavan numbered 285 men in 1875, and 243 men in 1895. There are no men of the extra force stationed in the county. The existing establishment entails no charge whatever to the local rates, and, consequently, no relief to the farming interests would ensue upon a reduction of the present free quota.

  EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF CHILDREN).
  MR. D. H. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the limit of 20s. a child, imposed by Section 26 of the Education Bill, applies to blind and deaf children supported and educated under the Elementary Education Act, 1893 (Blind and

  1523
  Deaf Children); and, if the limit does apply, will he, considering the expensive character of the education given to blind and deaf children, take steps to specifically exempt them from its operation.
  SIR J. GORST: Clause 26 is not intended to apply to blind and deaf children.

  TROOPS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
  COLONEL HUGH McCALMONT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to the movement of the 7th Hussars from Natal, whether it is intended to send to South Africa another Cavalry Regiment or Mounted Infantry, as stated; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the disaster at Lang's Neck in 1881, when Mounted Infantry were employed, was in a great measure due to the want of Cavalry, the Government will consider the necessity of employing Cavalry and not Infantry for Cavalry duties.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODEICK,): Three hundred men of the 7th Hussars and 250 Mounted Infantry now in South Africa are, as the hon. Member is aware, under orders for service in Matabeleland. It has been decided to send a further body of Mounted Infantry from England to the Cape, Mounted Infantry being considered better fitted than Cavalry for the special work to be performed. I would point out that the operations proposed are against the Matabele, and, therefore, the parallel suggested in my hon. Friend's Question does not apply. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREasked whether the hon. Gentleman would keep an account of the cost of these troops, in order to submit the payment of the amounts to the Chartered Company.
  *MR. BRODRICK: Certainly, every item of the expenditure is carefully registered.
  COLONEL McCALMONTasked whether it was not in consequence of the absence of Cavalry at Lang's Neck in 1881 that we lost the Transvaal? [Cries of "Order!"]
  [No answer was given.]

  DUBLIN SORTING OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state on what date the long promised revision of the Dublin Sorting Office will come into operation; and, if so, how far it will extend towards an improvement of the hours of duty, an increase of salary, a widening of the prospects of promotion, and an increase of First Class Officers?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General regrets that he has not been able to carry out the revision of the staff of the Sorting Office in Dublin yet, nor is he in a position at present to state what changes will be made in connection with the revision. He is daily expecting from the Secretary of the Post Office, Dublin, the further reports required to enable him to come to a decision.

  ALDERSHOT (MILITARY HOSPITAL).
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to use green slates of a cheap and inferior quality, produced in Germany, in the construction of the roof of the large Military hospital about to be erected at North Camp, Aldershot, instead of the well known hard green slates of the North of England?
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: No, Sir; there is no such intention.

  BELFAST POST OFFICE.
  MR. MCCARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) whether his attention has been called to the case of a number of youths who entered the School of Telegraphy in connection with the Belfast Post Office at various dates from June 1892 to June 1893, upon the understanding that when qualified they would receive constant employment and also appointments as vacancies occurred, and having since been employed on an average only about three days a week, have lately been informed that there is

  1525
  no prospect of receiving appointments for years to come; (2) whether some time after their admission they were asked to sign a paper to the effect that they had no claim on the Department and they refused to sign it; and (3) whether, considering the small number now affected, he will reconsider their case with the view to provide for their appointment?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is fully acquainted with the circumstances of the case. It is not true that the youths in question were admitted to the School of Telegraphy at Belfast upon the understanding that when qualified they would receive constant employment and appointments on the occurrence of vacancies. On the contrary, the Duke of Norfolk is assured that they were admitted to the school on the usual condition that their admission gave them no claim on the Department for appointment to the establishment or for fixed employment in any capacity. They have been employed whenever possible as temporary telegraphists, and they have been paid for their services at the usual rates. As the work in the Telegraph Department has not always been available the youths have from time to time been offered temporary employment in the Postal Branch, but they have refused either to accept this, to qualify themselves for permanent employment by learning postal work, or to afford assistance when this has been required at times of pressure, although of course such assistance would have been paid for at the usual rates. The statement made in the second paragraph of the Hon. Member's Question is correct.
  MR. McCARTAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the second paragraph of the Question?
  MR. HANBURY: The statement made in the second paragraph is correct, but, as I have said, had the youths shown themselves willing to take advantage of such opportunities as could be offered them, the present difficulty might not have continued; but in the circumstances, the Postmaster General does not feel justified in making exceptional arrangements to retain in the service candidates who are not ready to accept such work as the Department have to offer to them. This reply is the same as that
  1526
  given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast some weeks ago, when he was in communication with the Post Office on this subject.

  STRANORLAR AND GLENTIES RAILWAY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the construction of the Stranorlar and Glenties line of railway, under the direction of the Board of Works, the contractors have diverted a road south of Cloghan Station in such a manner as seriously to interfere with the drainage of adjoining land, especially that occupied by James Kee; whether the responsibility for this part of the work rests on the contractor or on the Board of Works; and, what compensation is to be secured for the occupiers whose land is injured?
  MR. HANBURY: The interference with the drainage caused by the road diversion has been obviated by the works carried out by the order of the Drainage Commissioners. The responsibility presumably rests with the Board of Works as Drainage Commissioners. All questions of compensation are, or have been, dealt with by the Arbitrator's award.

  JURORS (IRELAND).
  MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that jurors in Ireland have to travel in some instances 30 miles to be present at the presenting of white gloves to the Judge; whether he will, during the present Session, introduce a Bill on this subject to prevent jurors attending Sessions or Assizes if no cases are to be tried; whether he has seen a resolution passed by Sessional Grand Jury at New Ross in October last, and the remarks of Judge Kane on the occasion; and if he is aware that Judge Orr, in October last, at Castleblaney, when addressing the Grand Jury, regretted the hardship imposed upon jurors having to attend before him when no business was to be done, and expressing a hope that legislation on this subject would be passed soon to prevent this hardship upon jurors?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,): With the permission of my right hon. Friend, I will reply to this Question. I am aware that jurors are obliged in some instances to travel a considerable distance to attend Quarter Sessions when it may turn out that there is no business to be disposed of, but I think thirty miles must be an exaggeration. I am also aware that several Grand Juries, assembled at Quarter Sessions, have passed resolutions in reference to the present state of the law, and County Court Judges have made comments upon it; but none of these persons have made any reference to the almost insurmountable difficulty of dealing in one Measure with remote or peaceful districts and localities less fortunate where many accused persons are returned for trial during the two days preceding the Quarter Sessions. A Bill dealing with the subject cannot be introduced this Session.

  METROPOLITAN COUNTIES WATER BOARD BILL.
  MR. HARRY MARKS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can give any information as to the approximate date when the Metropolitan Counties Water Board Bill may be expected to come before this House?
  MR. CHAPLIN: The answer to this Question is that it depends on the other House of Parliament. I am informed that the Second Reading will probably be taken in the course of next week, and the Bill will come down when the other stages have been completed.

  GUIANA-VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the plan proposed by the United States Government in regard to the disputed frontier line between British Guiana and Venezuela for referring the question to the decision of a Commission composed of two Englishmen and two Americans with, if necessary, a fifth member, a neutral, or of the Chief Justices of England and the United States with, if necessary, a third
  1528
  neutral member, has been declined by Her Majesty's Government; whether in the scheme of general arbitration as to any disputes arising between Great Britain and the United States, which has been submitted to the Government of the United States by Her Majesty's Government, the Venezuela dispute was excluded; whether negotiations with regard to this dispute are still continuing between Her Majesty's Government and the United States; and, whether, if this be so, there is any probability of an agreement before the American Congress adjourns in May?
  MR. CURZON: Negotiations with the United States Government are still proceeding, but it would not be advisable to make any statement with regard to them at present.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: May we suppose that these negotiations will have a favourable termination?
  MR. CURZON: That, undoubtedly, is the hope of Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I will ask a Question on this subject on Monday.

  WEST INDIES (TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION).
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that telegraphic communication between this country and the West Indies is slow, circuitous, and excessively costly, and is liable to interruption in consequence of the disturbed condition of the Island of Cuba, which the wire crosses, whether representations have reached him as to the necessity of a more efficient system, both for the purpose of Imperial defence and the improvement of commercial communication between the British West Indies and Great Britain; whether there are any constructive difficulties which would impose obstacles to laying a cable which should be under British control; whether any such scheme is under consideration; and, whether he can hold out any hope of its being carried into effect at an early date?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received communications from the West

  1529
  Indian Colonies representing the importance of establishing improved telegraphic communication between this country and those colonies for the purpose of Imperial defence as well as for commercial purposes. I have no reason to think that there are any insuperable constructive difficulties in effecting such communication. Proposals on the subject are under consideration, and I hope that they may result in a cable being laid at no distant date.

  EDUCATION BILL (SPECIAL AID GRANT).
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with regard to Clause 13 of the Education Bill which prohibits any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is or is not provided by a School Board, whether the local authority would be justified in distributing the School Board surplus to schools not provided by a School Board?
  SIR J. GORST: An education authority would not be justified in distributing any of the School Board portion of the special aid grant to schools not provided by a School Board. It is expressly provided that Clause 13 (1) shall not apply to the special aid grant.

  TRANSVAAL (BOUNDARY PATROLS).
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether a considerable Boer force is now assembled near Mafeking; and, if so, whether President Kruger has offered Her Majesty's Government any explanation with regard to that fact; and, whether he can inform the House as to how many Foreign immigrants with a military training have entered the Transvaal since January 1896?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: According to my information the Government of the South African Republic has placed strong patrols all along its north-western and western boundaries, which would include Mafeking, in order to prevent the introduction of rinderpest. It informed the High Commissioner of its intentions in telegrams of March 19 and 21, and on March 22 Sir Hercules
  1530
  Robinson answered suggesting that the Republic should increase these patrols, as there was a tendency to break quarantine. He himself was at the same time taking vigorous action to maintain the cordons in the colony and protectorate. I do not know how many foreigners with a military training have entered the South African Republic since January 1, 1896, and as shipping companies and port authorities never ascertain and record such particulars about passengers, I fear I never shall know exactly. I may add that the rumour that a large number of German immigrants were landed at Delagoa Bay the other day is absolutely contradicted by the owners of the ship which was alleged to have brought them.
  MR. ALLAN: May I ask this Question of the right hon. Gentleman? Has not the Transvaal Government the right to allow German or any other immigrants to enter its territory?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think their right to do so has ever been disputed.

  BELFAST COUNTY COURT AND RECORDER'S COURT.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, what hour, if any, is fixed by statute for the morning commencement of business in the Belfast County Court and Recorder's Court; is he aware that grave conplaints have been made from time to time by suitors in those Courts, owing to prolonged attendance in waiting to have their cases heard; and, can any arrangement be made to allow the business to be commenced earlier than 11 o'clock a.m.
  MR. McCARTAN: I beg to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. David Ross, Q.C., the late Recorder for Belfast, in his time commenced his sittings at 10 a.m., but that hour was found to be so inconvenient to the suitors and solicitors that it had to be altered to 11 a.m.; and whether it was the general opinion that the present Recorder, Judge Fitzgibbon, had invariably made his arrangements to suit the convenience of the suitors and practitioners without regard to his own convenience?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,): The statute provides that the Court shall not be opened before 10 o'clock. The present Recorder, following the practice of his predecessor, sits at 11 o'clock, and does so to suit the convenience of the legal profession rather than his own. I have not heard of any complaints such as are mentioned in the Question, and having regard to the arrangement made for the dispatch of business, such an amount of work being selected for each day as it is calculated can be disposed of in the day, I think it is impossible that inconvenience such as is complained of can arise from the sitting of the Court at 11 rather than 10 o'clock. I am aware of the statements to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Down calls attention.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES (RATHDOWN UNION.)
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Rathdown Guardians were some years ago provided with the sum of £537 to build labourers' cottages, and that about a year ago the Local Government Board of Ireland warned the Guardians that if they did not at once proceed to build the cottages they (the Local Government Board) would order the cottages to be built, he will advise the Local Government Board to forthwith exercise their rights under the Labourers' Acts, and order the cottages to be built in the Rathdown Union?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I replied to a similar Question put by the hon. Member on the 10th instant. Since that date the Local Government Board have received the application of the Guardians for confirmation of a Scheme for the erection of three cottages, and the matter will be dealt with by the Board as expeditiously as possible.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state on what day it is proposed to resume the Committee on the Military Man-
  1532
  œuvres Bill; and, whether the Bill will be passed in time to allow manœuvres to be held this year?
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the necessity of passing the Military Manœuvres Bill by 1st May if manœuvres are to be held this year; and whether, seeing that the main portions of the Bill have now been approved by the House, he will give the necessary time to complete the stages of this Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): It is the fact that it is desirable that the Military Manœuvres Bill must be passed before May 1, because unless it is passed by that date it will not be possible to hold the manœuvres in the course of the present year. The House is aware that I have done what I could to give facilities in order that that desirable object should be attained. Unfortunately that object has not been attained, and it is quite impossible for me any longer to allow the Manœuvres Bill to stand between the very important proposals of the Government which have to be dealt with during the remainder of the Session. I will, however, endeavour to see whether it will be possible, by suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule or otherwise—["Hear, hear!" and Opposition cries of "Oh!"]—to get the Bill through in time. ["Hear, hear!"] I ought to say that I am not very sanguine of the issue of any such endeavour on my part. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. E. STRACHEYasked whether it was not the case that the right hon. Gentleman had not given further facilities for passing the Bill than something like five hours for the discussion of this most important Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: That depends upon what the hon. Gentleman considers to be facilities. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] I remember one Tuesday which we devoted, as far as the Government can devote a day, to this Bill. It so happened that private business on that afternoon occupied an extraordinary amount of time, especially as far as hon. Members opposite were concerned. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYasked whether the right hon. Gentleman recognised that the Bill was of first-class importance to the Army, and whether in the circumstances he was prepared to make such provisions for passing the Bill as lay in his power, ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am ready to do my very best. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLasked what that best was— whether it might not be the worst for the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Was it the intention of the Government to allow the Debate upon this important Bill to proceed after Twelve o'clock?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If the further discussion upon this Bill is to take place at this period of the Session it must be after Twelve o'clock. I am afraid that I cannot say at the present moment whether I can make arrangements for carrying my proposal into effect.

  METRIC SYSTEM.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce during the present Session a Bill legalising the use of the metric system of weights and measures in all transactions in the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the compulsory adoption of the system has been enforced without difficulty and with complete success in France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan, and many other countries, he will introduce into such Bill compulsory provisions to take effect within a given period?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that he had already informed the House that he did not see his way to introducing a Measure this Session which would have the effect of changing our whole system of weights and measures. It would be unjust to compel people to adopt a system of weights and measures which was not desired.

  ACTS OF PARLIAMENT (INDEX).
  MR. BRIGG: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in view of the fact that many private Acts of
  1534
  Parliament passed between 1800 and 1865, relating to inclosures and other matters of great interest to county, urban, and parish councils, have no index procurable from the Queen's printers, and also that the index for similar Acts passed prior to 1800 is not available for the general public, he will take into consideration the necessity of publishing such an index, either as a Parliamentary Paper or otherwise.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he had made inquiries into the matter, and he found that there was a House of Lords paper in 1867, which, he understood, gave the index to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That paper was, however, out of print, and he would consider whether it could not be reprinted.

  POST OFFICE ANNUITIES.
  MR. JAMES RANKIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will agree to the Return with reference to persons in receipt of annuities from the Post Office and other insurance offices which stands on the Paper this day?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): As regards Post Office Annuities, the information is in the possession of the Post Office, but its tabulation would involve a considerable expenditure of time and money. As regards friendly societies and insurance offices, no Government Department is in possession of the information required. It could only be obtained by issuing circulars to 24,000 friendly societies and to the various insurance offices. The insurance offices would not be under any obligation to give the information asked for, and, so far as I know, this is also true of the friendly societies. In these circumstances, I do not think the Return can be given.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consider the advisability of facilitating the discussion on the Irish Land Bill this Session by appropriating the remainder of Tuesdays and the whole of Wednesdays to Government business?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes, Sir; I will consider that proposal. [Cheers.]

  SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES AND THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELasked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies a Question, of which he had given private notice, namely— whether he had been correctly reported that day in The Times as having stated in the course of the speech delivered last night at the Constitutional Club in regard to the South African Republic, when he was made to say, "The administration is defective and corrupt; the preservation of order, the administration of the police, all the Departments of the State are subject to just criticism"; and whether, having regard to the important effect which that declaration was likely to have, he intended to afford the House an early day for the discussion of the Transvaal question. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The private notice of which the hon. Gentleman speaks only reached me a few minutes ago, but at the same time I am perfectly able to answer the Question. ["Hear, hear!"] I have not been able to read the report of my speech in The Times, but I have no doubt that it is, as usual, substantially correct. ["Hear, hear!"] As regards the particular paragraph to which the hon. Member refers, I would point out to him that it alludes to circumstances and facts which are matters of common report and of common knowledge, and have been so for a long time past, and, therefore, it does not constitute any special ground for urgency of discussion. ["Hear, hear!"] At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already stated that if it should be the desire of any considerable section of the House that the matter should be discussed, although the Government do not think that the present is the most convenient time, they will be perfectly ready to put down the Colonial Vote for discussion at an early date.
  MR. DALZIELasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to lay any papers upon the Table with
  1536
  reference to the charge of corruption against the Transvaal Government.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That will not be necessary, I think. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid that, with regard to the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would put down the Colonial Vote for to-morrow week in case that there was a considerable expression of feeling in favour of that course being adopted.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes. If I am satisfied that that is the general view of the House, I am certainly prepared to do it; but I will remind the House of what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to the views of the Government as to the convenience of the present time for the discussion of the subject.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN, rising subsequently, said: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend has asked me to make a further statement with regard to the Colonial Vote. I want the House to understand that I am informed that the reply of President Kruger to the invitation of Her Majesty's Government to come to England is on its way, and may arrive at any moment. As soon as it has arrived the situation will, of course, be considered by the Government, and, in all probability, no doubt it will result in my laying upon the Table the whole of the correspondence which has passed with reference to the subject. ["Hear, hear!"] I venture to submit to the House, under these circumstances, that the most convenient time for discussing the subject will be after these papers are in the hands of hon. Members. ["Hear, hear!"]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked the First Lord of the Treasury what class of Estimates would be taken To-morrow?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Scotch Estimates will be taken.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the course of Business will be?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Second Reading of the Agricultural Bill will be taken on Monday, and will be continued until it is finished. We hope to take the Budget on Thursday. We propose to put down Clauses 6 and 7 after the Scotch Estimates.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar), asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would lay upon the Table papers with reference to the position of the Chartered Company, and also any other papers bearing on the subject.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have promised, I think in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, to lay upon the Table the instructions with regard to the appointment of Sir Richard Martin, and also the alterations which will be necessary in the Charter in order to transfer the entire control of the police to Her Majesty's Government. Those are under consideration at the present moment, and I hope to lay them on the Table at a very early period. As regards Matabeleland, I will consider the question; I am not quite sure whether the time has come for the presentation of papers, which, I would remind hon. Members, must necessarily deal only with the facts already published. There are no papers in the ordinary sense of the word, only the telegraphic reports which have been published as they have arrived.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNasked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the Financial Commission, whether it was the intention to present the draft Report of the late Mr. Childers along with the evidence, or whether that Report would be postponed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the Government had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and had no control over the proceedings of the Commission, which rested entirely with the Commissioners.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES.
  Paper [presented 22nd April] to be printed —[No. 147.]

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW (SITTINGS OF THE COMMITTEE).
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir WILLIAM WALROND,)THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir WILLIAM WALROND, Devon, Tiverton) moved:—
  "That until the conclusion of the consideration of the Benefices Bill, the Standing Committee on Law have leave to sit every day until Four of the clock notwithstanding the sitting of the House."
  *SIR G. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, the Motion was absolutely without precedent, and if carried the result would be to make a very heavy charge on the time of hon. Members, and actually to deprive many of them of the opportunity of discharging their public duties in the House. During the seven or eight years for which he had been Chairman of one of the Standing Committees, it was never even suggested that the Committee should sit while the House was sitting, except to finish the proceedings on a Bill.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that in previous Sessions a sessional Order had been made sanctioning the sitting of Standing Committees during the sitting of the House. This year this was not done and therefore the Motion was necessary. The Bill under the consideration of the Standing Committee on Law had occupied a great deal of time—he did not for a moment say an undue time—[ironical Opposition cheers]—and would occupy more time, and there were three other Bills which they had to consider, and which would probably be precluded from consideration if the Motion was not passed. He had obtained the consent of the Committee to ask the House to give them more time. If the discussion of one Bill was to occupy all the time of the Session, he thought the system of Grand Committees would break down. Now that the House held morning sittings on Tuesday, the Motion was all the more necessary. An hon. Member who was, perhaps, the most prominent opponent of the Benefices Bill in the Committee, had told him that although he would object to an unlimited extension of the time of the Committee, he would not object to an extension of one hour. It was not proposed that the Committee should sit till four every day, but only that it should have the power to sit after three if any matter was before them which could be

  1539
  finished in a short time—of course, with the consent of the Committee. Therefore he thought this Motion was not one of a very unusual character, and it was only intended by it to enable the Committee to do their work.
  MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, the Motion was put down on the Paper in the name of a Member of the Government, but he hoped the House would observe that not a word had been advanced by him in support of what was an utter departure from the precedents of Standing Committees. He also objected to this Motion being made by a Member of the Government at all; it was a Motion made in the interests of a private Bill— an ecclesiastical Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Rochester. Why were the Government taking this Bill under their shield? The only time, he believed, when a Motion approaching this had been made was in 1892 in the interest of another ecclesiastical Bill, the Clergy Discipline Bill. The Motion asked for an extension of time, not until three, but until four o'clock. The right hon. Member for the North-East Division of Manchester had himself said that no undue time had been taken over the Benefices Bill. As far as he had observed there had been nothing in the nature of obstruction, and most of the Debate had been conducted by hon. Members who sat on the opposite side of the House. If the argument of the right hon. Baronet held good at all, it would be an argument against ever sending Bills of this character to a Grand Committee. As a first Amendment to the Motion, he would move to omit the words "every day," and to insert the words ''on Tuesdays and Fridays."
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "four" and insert the words "half-past three."
  DR. TANNERseconded the Amendment.
  *MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMSpointed out the inconvenience to which hon. Members had been subjected at the last sitting of the Committee. They had then three times to rush
  1540
  down to the House to record their votes. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought that this Motion was not in the interests of the promoters of the Bill. The result would be that Members who were unable to discuss the Bill in Committee would feel themselves called upon to avail themselves of the better opportunity afforded in the House when the Bill came back to it. As to the remarks about the congestion of business in the Grand Committee, if necessary they could have two Committees, and not rush a particular Bill through the existing Committee to the great inconvenience of Members desiring to do their duty in Committee and attend the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHERdid not desire to express any opinion about the Grand Committees. He had no great experience of them. [A laugh.] He should defer any remarks he had to make until the Bill came before the House, but he must own there was a great deal of force in the suggestion of the hon. Member as to half-past three. Acts of Parliament and Resolutions of that House were no doubt very powerful, but neither a Resolution nor an Act had power to make an individual appear in two places at once. It was inconsistent that business should be going on concurrently elsewhere.
  *MR. JOHN ELLISsaid, they had before them a Resolution moved by a Member of the Government in the interests of a Bill promoted by a non-official Member. He must say that so far as he was aware that was perfectly unprecedented.
  SIR W. WALRONDexplained that he put down the Motion at the request of the Chairman of the Committee, to whom he said that he ought to move it himself. [''Hear, hear!"] On inquiry at the Table, however, he was told that a Member of the Government ought to move the Motion. There was a precedent when, on the 20th of May 1892, a Member of the Government moved a similar Motion.
  Mr. JOHN ELLIS and OTHERS: It was a Government Bill.
  SIR W. WALRONDwas not sure about that.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Oh! Yes, it

  1541
  was—that is my recollection. The Bill was managed by the present Attorney General.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was not a Government Bill for all that. [Laughter.]
  SIR H. CAMPBELL - BANNER-MANsaid, it appeared to him that the difficulty had arisen mainly from the fact that a private Bill of a very contentious character had been sent to this Committee raising a stronger feeling of opposition than the promoters of the Bill anticipated. If this were to be pursued, they would have the whole machinery of the Grand Committees thrown into disorder. It was like a goods train breaking down on the line and blocking more important traffic. It added to the poignancy of the case that Members in case of a Division had to come from the other side of Westminster Hall. He feared that half-past three would not accomplish his hon. Friend's purpose.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have another Amendment. [Laughter.]
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MANsaw no reason why the two Standing Committees should not meet on the same day.
  MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, that when the Bill was read a Second time it was pointed out that it would be better to refer it to a Select Committee, and that difficulties might arise if it were sent to the Standing Committee. It was pointed out that the effect would be to block other Bills which should properly go before it.
  *SIR JOSEPH PEASE*SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle), having had considerable experience on Committees, believed the old rule of a Member of the Committee coming down to the House and having the Motion put from the Chair was the most convenient and orthodox method.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope the House will not spend more time in discussing this question. As to the question of dividing the House, which has exercised some hon. Gentlemen, next Tuesday and the Tuesday after will be occupied by Second Reading Debates, and there will be no necessity for Divisions. As to the action of the hon. Member near me in moving this Motion, he has pursued what he understood to be the precedents. It is a
  1542
  matter of courtesy only, and it does not matter who makes the Motion.
  MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid, that in the last Parliament there was a far more aggravated state of things when the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill was before the Grand Committee. The Chairman at that time declared that there was obstruction, and yet the promoters of the Bill did not ask the Government of that day for assistance, although the Session was more advanced.
  MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid, that this Bill last year was laid aside through want of agreement on the Committee.
  *MR. SPEAKER: That is not relevant to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. WARNERsaid, that he wished to point out that if the Committee sat at inconvenient times the experience of last year would be repeated.
  DR. TANNERrose to address the House, but
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member has spoken once; he seconded the Amendment.
  DR. TANNER: No, Sir.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Several hon. Members rose at the same time, and I selected the hon. Member for Mid. Cork as seconder. [Laughter.]
  Question put, "That the word 'Four stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 227; Noes,126.—(Division List, No. 126.)
  Main Question, as amended, proposed. Debate arising.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 128.—(Division List, No. 112.)
  Main Question, as amended, put accordingly.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 263; Noes, 114—(Division List, No. 113.)
  Ordered, that until the conclusion of the consideration of the Benefices Bill, the Standing Committee on Law have leave to sit on Tuesdays and Fridays until Four of the clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS.

    BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
    Considered in Committee.
    [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER in the Chair.]

    STAMPS.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproposed:—
    1. "That the Stamp Duty of Two Shillings for every hundred pounds, and any fraction of that turn over any multiple of One hundred pounds charged on the nominal share capital of any Corporation or Company by section one hundred and thirteen of The Stamp Act, 1891, shall be extended to the capital of any Corporation or Company where the capital or any increase of capital is authorised by an Order in Council or a certificate of a Government Department, or in any other manner."
    Resolution agreed to.

    INCOME TAX.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproposed: —
    2. "That there shall be charged, collected, and paid for the twelve months which began on the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, in respect of all property, Profits, and Gains respectively described or comprised in Schedules (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E), in The Income Tax Act, 1853, the Duties of Income Tax at the rate of eight pence—
    For every twenty shillings of the annual value or amount of Property, Profits, and Gains chargeable under Schedules (A), (C), (D), or (E) in the said Act; and
    For every twenty shillings of one-third of the annual value of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) in the said Act in respect of the occupation thereof,
    and no deduction of one-eighth out of the Duties chargeable under Schedule (B) shall be made."
    *SIR HENRY FOWLERsaid: I want to interpose one or two remarks partly on the Resolution which has just been put from the Chair and also upon the general questions raised by the Budget. I am glad to-night to be able to approach the subject without being influenced by the glamour of the
    1544
    Chancellor of the Exchequer's eloquence. The right hon. Gentleman's statement, I am bound to repeat, was one of the clearest and most lucid, interesting and eloquent, I have heard since I have been a Member of this House from a Chancellor of the Exchequer— [cheers] —and, seeing that the Chancellor took a very optimistic view of the situation, it was natural that that view should colour the whole Debate last Thursday evening. When next morning comes, however, in this as in so many other transactions, one looks at the thing in rather a cooler light, and I am bound to say that I cannot take an optimistic view of our present financial position. There is no doubt perfect accuracy in what the Chancellor said with reference to the condition of the trade of the country. The signs of improvement which he pointed out are general, and I think are extending. Nevertheless, in Committee of Ways and Means we have to deal with the finance of the country for the year, and we have to deal with an expenditure which, as he himself says, is unprecedented and one which is next year to be further increased. The Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that, so far as the year that is closed, 1895–96, is concerned, there was an excess of income over expenditure, including in that expenditure very heavy supplementary estimates, of 4¼ millions, which no doubt is a very gratifying figure to the House and the country, and he based his scheme for next year upon the assumption that there would be an excess of income over expenditure of 1¾ million. That, at first sight, is a very satisfactory state of things, but when we come to look at the thing a little closer our satisfaction must be qualified. Three years ago, when my right hon. Friend behind me (Sir W. Harcourt) assumed the control of the Exchequer, he called attention to the fact that he was proposing to raise during that year and to expend the enormous sum of 91½ millions; and the House was startled. Yet in three years that 91½ millions has gone up to 100 millions. To meet this expenditure the Chancellor expects a revenue, assuming the basis of existing taxation to continue, of lOl¾ millions. Now, the first question I should like to ask the Committee is this, seeing that the

    1545
    estimate of revenue based upon the taxation of last year will not only meet the expenditure but will produce 1¾ million more, whether the first claim upon the Government and the House is not the claim of the taxpayer for relief from some of his burdens. [Cheers.] At the present moment there is no Income Tax. The Income Tax has come to an end, and the Committee is now about to settle at what rate it is going to impose the Income Tax for next year. The proposition of the Government is that the Income Tax should be imposed at the rate of 8d. in the pound. Now, is 8d. to be taken as the normal rate of Income Tax in this country in time of peace, and is the Income Tax payer to have no relief? I would recall to the mind of the Committee what has been the rate of Income Tax ever since it was imposed. Prom the imposition of the tax in 1841 to the time of the Crimean War the rate was 7d.; during the war it was raised to a very high figure, but immediately the war was over it was reduced to various figures. There was an increase in 1859, if my recollection is right, owing to a naval scare of that year, over which four or five millions were expended, and the Income Tax was raised to 9d. or l0d.; but, at all events, in 1864 it came back to its original level of 7d. In 1865 it was 6d.; 1866, 4d.; 1867, 4d.; 1868, 5d.; and in 1869, 6d. In 1879 and 1880 it was 5d.; 1881, 6d.; 1882, 5d.; 1883, 6½d.; 1884, 5d.; and in 1885, 6d. From 1888 to 1893 it stood at 6d. My right hon. Friend behind me in 1894 raised it to 7d., and in 1895, which is the year we are now dealing with, in order to give relief to small payers of Income Tax and also some relief to owners and occupiers of land, which he assumed at 1½ million, he put the tax at 8d. The House will see that 8d. has never been the normal place rate of the Income Tax. It was estimated to produce £15,500,000; it has produced considerably more this year, notwithstanding the losses by recent allowances. In these circumstances, when taxation allows of an increase of £2,250,000 in expenditure—that is the increase of expenditure in this year which the Chancellor of the Exchequer provides for—I think that the Income Tax payer has a claim for some relief. ["Hear, hear!"] I put it on this ground.
    1546
    The Income Tax is a reserve in time of war and difficulty; it is a power of reserve for special expenditure. I appreciate what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said as to the great reserve of the Sinking Fund, and I think that he did not speak at all too strongly with reference to that. My right hon. Friend behind me (Sir W. Harcourt) pointed out that two years ago in his Budget statement. But we want a tax on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer can immediately put his hand and which will at once respond to pressure, which requires no fresh machinery; and the Income Tax in a country like ours must be regarded as the great reserve fund for special emergencies. Sixpence in the pound is a very fair peace rate for the Income Tax, and if it is fixed at that amount then you are in a position in time of special difficulty to make a rapid increase of our revenue. But this year the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to leave it at 8d. It may be asked if this so, "Why do you not move its reduction in order to test the opinion of the House on the question? I am aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not take off a penny in the pound, but it is clear that he could take off a half-penny; and there have been precedents for an Income Tax being fixed at the odd figure. My reason for not making this proposal is because I do not see that there is the available margin of £1,750,000 for us to deal with even if we wished to apply it to the purposes of the Income Tax. I may say in passing that I do not like the mode in which the Budget statement is presented to the Committee by the Treasury as the final Budget sheet. If it is to be introduced in our permanent returns or statistical abstract, we shall be deceived and the basis of our calculations will be disturbed as to what our financial Estimate is. In his final Estimate the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the income next year, based on the taxation of this, at £101,750,000, but in what is called the final balance-sheet the revenue next year is £100,500,000. How is that done? It is done in this way. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to deal with the Death Duties this balance-sheet deducts £200,000 in respect of proposed alterations in the

    1547
    law; therefore he will have so much less income. But the next item of deduction is this:—
    "Amount required for the Agricultural Rates Bill in England, and for proportionate grants to Scotland and Ireland £1,175,000."
    You might as well deduct from that side of the account the item for the Army, the Navy, or the Civil Service. It is a transfer no doubt, but the revenue is raised out of the taxes of the people. It would be a very great dislocation of the mode of keeping accounts if, when there is raised from taxation £101,750,000, it is put down as £100,480,000. But that is a small criticism which I make in passing, because I shall proceed to argue, not on the revenue being £100,500,000, but £101,750,000. The first question I put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, ''Is there a surplus?'' First, take the Navy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer puts the Navy amount required at £21,823,000, and the Estimate for last year was £18,701,000, which would show an increase of £3,122,000. Now, the payment for the Navy last year was £19,724,000, but £1,000,000 of that sum was charged in the shape of a Supplementary Estimate. That £1,000,000 really formed part of the naval expenditure for this year; so far as shipbuilding, armour plates, and stores were concerned it really was a sum in aid of the expenditure of the present year. This year the expenditure is put down at £21,000,000, but if there had not been the Supplementary Estimate of £1,000,000 it would have been £22,000,000, and that sum is provided for out of last year's surplus and taxation. Therefore if the right hon. Gentleman had had to provide the whole Naval expenditure out of this year's revenue he would not have had this surplus of £1,750,000, for £1,000,000 of it would be gone. I put the same question to the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Army. The Army Vote this year shows a saving of a small amount, but a Supplementary Estimate was presented for the Army in respect of the Volunteer capitalisation grant. It states in a footnote, I think, that £496,300 was voted last year, half of this is in respect of this year's expenditure; and therefore this year's expenditure will be £250,000 less,
    1548
    because that £250,000 less has been anticipated and paid for in the preceding year. I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman this—that the Navy is apparently £1,000,000 less than it really is, and the Army £250,000 less than it really is. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "No."] The right hon. Gentleman has had the advantage of last year's surplus; he has £1,250,000 provided for out of last year's income. I do not find fault with anything that has been done, but I say, looking at the financial position of the country as a whole, we really have not this year, however much we may be disposed to think we have, defrayed our expenditure; if we defrayed the whole year's expenditure out of the year's income we should be £1,250,000 worse off than we are. Therefore, when we are talking about the surplus, I say that it ought to be reduced by that sum. I think that the expenditure was wise, just, and prudent, and it was quite right for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Admiralty to do what they did. I am not criticising their action in any way, but I am looking at our position as a whole. No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer may say with truth, ''I have got enough of money to meet the demands made on me this year, and at the end of this year, if I have no other demands made, I should have that surplus." But we have to deal with the finances of the country as a whole, and I say that our expenditure is not as put in this balance-sheet as a smaller sum, but the larger sum to which I have called attention. Next year we have to deal with a considerable increase in our expenditure. I will tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer where I expect his increase will be. I have been led to believe that the second year of a Naval programme is much more expensive than the first, and the third year more expensive than the second. Assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer carries out his programme without diminution, there must be an increase of several hundreds of thousands of pounds next year in order to carry out the programme of Naval expenditure to which the Committee is already committed. I am also told that there will be an increase in wages next year.

    1549
    Some 5,000 men are to be added to the Navy, and a great part of their wages will come upon next year's Votes. Then, with respect to the Army, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not deny that £250,000 will have to be provided next year when there will be the full capitation grant. There is also the necessary automatic increase of the Army and Navy. These facts ought to make the Committee pause before they sanction an extra expenditure next year of something like £2,000,000 under the Agricultural Land Rating Bill. The new Education Vote must be increased by several hundred thousand pounds next year; and the existing Education Vote involves annually an increase of several hundred thousand pounds. Therefore, whether I am right or wrong with reference to last year, I say that the right hon. Gentleman can barely provide for half the additional expenditure to which he asks the Committee to assent, and he has made no provision for the automatic increase of the expenditure of the Army, Navy, and Civil Service. The Income Tax will have to be increased in order to meet this expenditure. But this is not the whole story. There is to be expenditure in yet another direction this year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has assumed that we are to be in a state of perfect peace, that there is no trouble in any part of the world, and nothing likely to cause us trouble in Egypt or the Soudan, for example. ["Hear, hear!"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have a lively recollection of what took place 12 years ago. In 1884 Mr. Childers brought in his Budget in April, and put the Income Tax at 5d. In August we had a Vote of Credit for the Soudan of £300,000 and in November another for the Army of £1,000,000 and a third for the Navy of £324,000. What was then the state of things? Parliament had to be called together in November, and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had to propose that the Income Tax should be increased to 6½d. in order to meet these exceptional charges. That was what occurred when we last took part in operations in the Soudan. The Committee must not forget the history of the past. If history repeats itself in regard to policy it will repeat itself in
    1550
    regard to cost. But that was not the end of the business. Early in 1885 Mr. Gladstone came to the House and asked for the celebrated Vote of Credit of 11 millions. Six millions and a half out of that sum were wanted for special military preparations in connection with the Russian advance towards Afghanistan, and four millions and a half were wanted for the Soudan. Although I believe that sum was not ultimately spent, and that the amount was brought down to a fraction over 10 millions, yet Mr. Childers in his Budget had to deal with a deficit of 14 millions, with the result that the Sinking Fund had to be suspended and other expedients adopted in order to provide the money. The country ought to be told now what the Government are going to do. In a time of peace enormous military preparations are going on, and if the Committee think that Egypt is going to pay for all that is done they will be very greatly disappointed. Sooner or later England will have to pay, for the policy that has been adopted is hers, and the initiative has been hers. Then what is the position in South Africa? Is no money going to be spent there? Some hon. Members seem to think that the Chartered Company will defray everything, and I hope they may, but my belief is that there will be some considerable addition to our expenditure in that part of the world. The figures I have given show that at the end of the year you will have to meet an expenditure of at least £104,000,000 when your income is only £101,750,000, which is to be reduced by £300,000 under the arrangements respecting the Land Tax and the Estate Duty. The Government are proposing by Act of Parliament to make permanent additions to the expenditure of the country, and if their proposals are carried the Chancellor of the Exchequer, independently of any sum which may have to be found for unexpected contingencies, will have to face this time next year an expenditure of something near £104,000,000. That is why I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to make any reduction of the Income Tax. In the present position of affairs we cannot afford to reduce taxation, nor can we afford to increase our expenditure. ["Hear, hear!"] There is one other matter to which I desire to refer—

    1551
    namely, the financial gravity of the situation if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is paying off debt at 12, 13, or 14 per cent. premium. The fact that Consols have risen to 114 is a very serious matter as far as the position of the National Debt is concerned. My opinion, which is shared by more competent authorities, is that there has been an artificial rise in Consols as against Chancellor of the Exchequer. No Chancellor of the Exchequer has a right without the consent of Parliament and without its full knowledge to be redeeming the National Debt at such a premium as 12, 13, or 14 per cent. The national creditor is entitled to 2¾ per cent. until 1903, when he becomes entitled to an annuity of £2 10s. which the Government will subsequently have a right to redeem with a hundred sovereigns. It would be an act of extravagance and folly for us to assist in any way in keeping up fictitious prices as against ourselves. I do not suggest any suspension of the National Debt, for I think that the resources of finance are not exhausted and that we can keep the sinking fund in a state of efficiency without continuing operations which encourage those who are, I believe, making clever speculations upon the financial position of the Government and selling us these stocks at high prices.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I am very much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the observations with which he commenced his speech and for the remarks he made with regard to the question he last alluded to. I can assure him that that question is receiving my anxious consideration. I am no more fond than is the right hon. Gentleman of purchasing Consols at 113 or 114 by way of redemption of debt, and I have given instructions which, I think, certainly have not placed the Government lately as a competitor in the market for Consols. [Cheers.] What else I may be able to do is a matter on which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to reserve my opinion. I feel the difficulty of the situation, and I wish to be allowed not to say anything further on the subject. [Hear, hear! "] The right
    1552
    hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech, mainly upon the subject of the Income Tax. I think I can remember the day when my right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Admiralty was able to reduce the Income Tax to 6d., and was criticised by the right hon. Gentleman on that account for having produced a rich man's Budget. [Laughter.] I think I remember only the other night, when I ventured to call the attention of the Committee to the great advance that had been made in the amount the Income Tax payers have to bear of the burdens of the country since the year 1875, as compared with the payers of indirect taxation, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire ejaculated, "Yes, that is equalisation of taxation." I am very glad to hear from the Front Bench opposite a plea for the Income Tax payers. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not at all agree with the opinion which the right hon. Gentleman rather suggested to me as my own opinion that 8d. should be the normal figure for the Income Tax. ["Hear, hear!"] I agree rather with what has been said— that when we are able to reduce it in time of peace we should do so in order to secure a more powerful engine in the time of war. ["Hear, hear!"] But the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that, looking to the position of our Revenue and expenditure as disclosed in the present Budget, no reduction of the Income Tax was possible; indeed, he went on to argue that the figures which I gave the other night to the Committee did not really represent accurately the financial situation of the year, and that I was too optimistic in the view I took of the expenditure as compared with the Revenue. I do not at all admit the justice of the first part of the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. He seemed to think that for some reason which he did not give, the supplementary Estimates, of last year were normal supplementary Estimates, and that, although our Naval Vote, for example, had increased to an amount of more than £21,000,000, we should have a supplementary Estimate of £1,100,000 again next February, as we had this year. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no reason

    1553
    to anticipate this. He went on to say that the Navy Estimates of this year of more than £21,000,000 would lead to higher Navy Estimates next year. I believe that to be contrary to the fact. I believe that, to the advantage of the country, my right hon. friend the First Lord of the Admiralty has so arranged his programme of shipbuilding, which, as the right hon. Gentleman very well knows, forms a very important part of the Navy Estimates, that the sum borne on the Estimates on that account for the current year will be very considerably larger than that required for next year. ["Hear, hear!"] That is, I think, an answer to what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the Navy Estimates. I admit that on one point, with regard to the Army Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman was right. Last year we took a supplementary Estimate of nearly half-a-million for paying the Volunteer capitation grant up to date, and that relieved the present year of £250,000—a sum which next year will have to bear. But we expect to make a far larger saving than that amount on the Navy Estimates. ["Hear, hear!"] But the right hon. Gentleman went on from these minor criticisms to accuse me of not having provided in my estimate of expenditure for the year for similar expenditure to that which was incurred between the year 1884 and the year 1885 by the Government of Mr. Gladstone in the Soudan. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in saying that I have a very lively recollection of that time, as I have no doubt he has also. [Cheers.] But I can assure him that we do not intend to imitate a policy which led to an expenditure of £7,000,000 in the Soudan and, I think, £11,000,000 subsequently under a Vote of Credit, which, if reasonable skill had been exercised in our diplomacy, never ought to have been wanted at all, for matters connected with the dispute with Russia with regard to the Afghan frontier. [Cheers.] I have not calculated upon the expenditure of any great amount in the current year in military operations, as I believe they used to be called— [cheers]—either in the Soudan or in South Africa. The right hon. Gentleman himself dismissed the question of South Africa, for he felt that he could not make any reasonable charge against me on that ground. ["Hear,
    1554
    hear!"] It is not at all probable that any charge beyond a charge for the movement of some additional force from England to the Cape can come upon this country in respect of South Africa, for the cost of the troops sent to the territories of the Chartered Company is to be borne by the Chartered Company. ["Hear, hear!"] But with regard to Egypt the right hon. Gentleman spoke of enormous military preparations. I do not know of any enormous military preparations in this country. [Cheers.] Where does the right hon. Gentleman get his information from? He said there were enormous military preparations going on. There is no such thing. The Egyptian Government have undertaken this expedition with their own forces and at their own cost, and there is no necessity for military preparations here and no obligation upon mo to provide for any large expenditure on that account. ["Hear, hear! "] It is probable that some charge may be imposed on us in connection with the dispatch of special service officers or the movement of the British troops now in Egypt, but I, at any rate, have no reason to anticipate that any of the terrible prognostications of the right hon. Gentleman will be fulfilled, and I can assure him I have gone into this question with a full and lively recollection of the follies perpetrated in 1884 and 1885. [Cheers.] I think I have now dealt with the arguments that have been put before the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman, and I do not wish to detain the Committee; any further, but of course I should be prepared to answer any matter he may think I have omitted. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: With regard to the question which my right hon. Friend behind me has raised on the payment of the National debt, I should have been more satisfied if he had told us what his own plan was for paying off the National Debt if not by the purchase of Consols. [Laughter.] No doubt it is a disadvantage to buy Consols at a high price, but with the large stock of Consols which the Government already hold for Savings Bank and other purposes, which were purchased at a low price, they of course had the benefit of the enhanced value. I know some

    1555
    people who desire that other things should be bought besides Consols, but, first of all that does not diminish the National Debt, and as regards the Savings Bank, I should always oppose any security except Consols being held, because sometimes people raise an alarm as to what would happen if there was a large run on the Savings Bank and a desire on the part of the investors to take out their investments. Everybody knows that in a time of panic the only really saleable security is Consols— ["Hear, hear!"]—and therefore, if you invest in any other security, you place yourselves in a position of peril with reference to a very large sum of money at call, amounting to nearly £150,000,000. Bankers are always casting it in the teeth of the Government that they hold no reserve against their deposits, and the least the Government can do is to hold their deposits in the highest class of security. ["Hear, hear!"] That ought to be the rule in reference to this department. ["Hear, hear!"] I believe with my right hon. Friend that the price of Consols is not normal. It arises from exceptional circumstances, and I am perfectly satisfied with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will consider what should be done during such an exceptional period. I hope that nothing that has been said or done will deter the present Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Chancellor of the Exchequer from devoting a moderate sum of money annually to the discharge of the National Debt, whatever may be the price of Consols. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the First Lord of the Admiralty in the last Administration but one having reduced the Income Tax to 6d. Well, Sir, there are two ways of reducing the tax. You may reduce the tax when you have got a surplus; but if you make a surplus by cutting off £2,000,000 from the permanent fund for the reduction of the National Debt, that, in my judgment, is not the proper method of reducing the Income Tax. I now come to the objections of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, who said that the apparent expenditure of this year is not the true expenditure. That is to say, that the Government have supplemented and anticipated what was to be
    1556
    their real and natural expenditure this year by borrowing from the surplus of last year. In the previous Budget, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I knew that there would be some difficulty in meeting expenditure, and, having got a reasonable surplus, we spent upon stores and materials £200,000 out of it. But, of course, that was anticipating the expenditure of the next year, because we were spending more in the expiring year that we might expend less in the coming year. That my right hon. Friend says is done to a considerable extent in the present Budget, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that it has been done to the amount of £250,000 in the Volunteer Votes. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has started a number of new ships, and I was extremely astonished when I was told that they were to cost less in the second and in the third years than in the first. [Cries of "No."] Then we ought to have the matter explained. ["Hear, hear!"] I remember that in 1894, when we began upon the building programme, I was told that I had only provided for the first year, but that in the second and third years the expenditure upon the ships would be much larger. I met that point by the answer that in the Death Duties I had introduced a new tax which in the next and third years would yield more money to meet any increased expenditure on the Navy in those years. But where are the present provisions to meet the increased expenditure in future years? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made none. ["Hear, hear!"] He has given the whole of his money away to the hon. Gentlemen who sit behind him. [Cheers and laughter.] The point is this. The expenditure of this year is really more than it appears to be, so far as the right hon. Gentleman has borrowed out of the surplus of last year—admittedly to the amount of a quarter of a million. We shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer why his shipbuilding programme is to cost less in each succeeding year. It is an extraordinary proposition to me and very much in contradiction to all that we have been told before. However, at

    1557
    present I am assured that, notwithstanding the immense addition to the shipbuilding programme the expenditure will be less in the year 1897–98 than it will be in the year 1896–7. There is no denying the truth of the old Scotch saying that "bachelors' bairns are all good children because they are not born." ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] I am afraid that the Budget of 1897–98 will not show so large a surplus as that of 1896–97 upon which we can draw for our naval expenditure. The first point is that the expenditure of 1896–97 is less than it appears to be by the amount which has been borrowed from the surplus of 1895–96. The second point is that in the provisions made this year the expenditure of 1897–98 must be very much larger than that of 1896–97. That cannot be denied. ["Hear, hear!"] We have been told that as regards the agricultural rates the expenditure next year will be a million more than in this year. Where is the money for that additional expenditure to come from? We have been told that with reference to education the expenditure will be very little more this year, but that next year it will be some £500,000 or £600,000 more. Thus we have a million and a half additional expenditure in 1897–98 for which no provision has been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving away his money, and yet by the legislation of this year the Government are to incur an additional expenditure in the year 1897–98, for which no provision whatever has been made. ["Hear, hear!"] But besides that we have the automatic growth of expenditure, which I know to my cost amounts to some £300,000 or£400,000 a year on education alone. Unless the Government succeed in lowering the standard, and so effect a decrease of expenditure, there is certain to be an automatic growth of expenditure under that head which will bring the increased expenditure of 1897–98 to at least two millions. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that we are to expect that no Imperial money is to be spent in South Africa. ["Hear, hear!"] He assures us that we shall have no Imperial expenditure in South Africa because the Chartered Company are to pay the whole of the
    1558
    costs. For my part I confess I do not like the security. ["Hear, hear!"] I have very grave doubts about the financial position of the Chartered Company in regard to the matter. After what has happened in Matabeleland and Mashonaland, where is the Chartered Company to get its income from? All the capital of those persons who are shut up in Buluwayo which has been invested in the land will have gone. [Cries of "No."] How much do you suppose of that capital will remain after the land has been harried by the Matabele? Why, nothing at all. ["Hear, hear," and cries of "Oh!"] Therefore, the assurance the right hon. Gentleman gives us that the Chartered Company will be able to pay the costs of what has happened in their territory does not appear to me to amount to a satisfactory security. ["Hear, hear!"] However, I do take a considerable comfort from the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, as far as he is concerned, there is to be no Imperial expenditure in South Africa. That is a declaration which I hope will be adhered to. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man who does not say things without the determination to adhere to them, and we may therefore take his statement as a declaration on the part of the Government through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman that no Imperial money is to be spent upon the present state of things in South Africa. I am not speaking of Metabeleland only, but of the Transvaal also. ["Hear, hear!"] Beyond the small expenditure to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, we hear with satisfaction the assurance that there is to be no Imperial expenditure in South Africa arising out of the present condition of things in that part of the world. ["Hear, hear!"] I accept, also, with satisfaction the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that there is to be nothing but a trifling expenditure of Imperial money in Egypt or on the Nile. ["Hear, hear!"] That, again, is a declaration which we may note with satisfaction. ["Hear, hear!"] I hope that it will go forth to what I may call the Jingo Press of this country that at last we have got a declaration of policy on the part of the Government

    1559
    which is a tangible one, and which we can lay hold of. ["Hear, hear!"] All that we have heard before in relation, to this question has been slippery enough. [Cheers and cries of "Oh!"] If the word "slippery" is considered offensive, I will withdraw it, and will substitute the word "vague" for it. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Up to this time we have heard nothing that we could lay hold of as to what are the intentions of the Government, but now at all events we have it that the conquest of the Soudan is to be done for half a million of Egyptian money.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not say anything about the conquest of the Soudan. [Cheers.]
    *SIR W. HARCOURT: Well, then, that is still more satisfactory. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] At all events, what I will call the "advance limited by resistance" will cost not more than £500,000, and that is to be Egyptian money alone. [Cheers.] That is a satisfactory declaration. I hope that the delusion of those who talk of the reconquest of the Soudan and of our having fleets and battalions on the Nile will be dispelled by the satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. ["Hear, hear!"] At all events, I am very happy to hear from the right hon. Gentleman a disclaimer of any notion that the Government intend to carry out the rash and foolish, and, I will add, wicked policy with which people had credited—or rather discredited — the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] I do think, from that point of view, that we have obtained a declaration from Her Majesty's Government which will give great satisfaction throughout the country. [Cheers.]
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,)said, that he thought he might at once clear up the point with regard to the Navy, as some confusion had arisen with regard to it. There were two reasons why the result foreshadowed by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would happen with regard to future years. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken as if the Government had suddenly started a new shipbuilding programme without having an earlier
    1560
    programme to complete. If in this year they had started to build new vessels they at the same time relieved 1896–97 and still more 1897–98 from the shipbuilding programme of Lord Spencer— from the expense of the construction of seven battleships that he laid down, including the ships now in hand. This year the expenditure for naval construction was heavy, but next year it would be considerably reduced. The programme of construction which the Government had initiated contained not only battleships, but a large number of torpedo-boats and third-class cruisers. The torpedo-boats were almost entirely paid for in the present year, leaving only a small margin for the years to follow, and the Government also hoped to pay a large portion of the cost of the third-class cruisers—which were not expensive ships—in the present year. The matter had been carefully considered by the Government. They had put together Lord Spencer's programme and their own programme to see how the expenditure would be spread over future years, and they had come to the conclusion that this year would be the heaviest year of the two united programmes.
    SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid, the Debate was one of the most important of the Session, because it had brought out clear and emphatic declarations of policy by the Government in regard to three questions of the highest moment. The Leader of the Opposition had expressed the satisfaction they all felt on that side of the House in regard to the declarations of the Government with respect to South Africa and the Soudan. But there was a third question in regard to which he could not join in the satisfaction that had been expressed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking the other night, mentioned the strong hope he entertained that the demands of the Navy next year might be less than they had been in the present year, and, in view of the statement the Committee had just heard, it was clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken after consultation with the First Lord of the Admiralty. He therefore desired to utter a word of protest against it being supposed that the present year's programme of shipbuilding, men, and wages could be regarded as sufficient for next year, or

    1561
    that by merely going on completing the work of naval construction begun in previous years we should be able to keep our place in the world. We could not now, as in the old days, make up for deficiencies in time of peace by lavish expenditure in time of war. With the Navy with which we began the next war we would have to fight that war, for we should not be able to make up afterwards any deficiencies which then existed. He thought the country was not in a position to look forward to a diminution in naval expenditure, and he was therefore sorry that at a time when the country was prosperous as was shown by the Budget statement—the Government should contemplate a decrease instead of an increase of expenditure for the defence of the Empire.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he did not dispute the necessity for preparing for war in time of peace, but nevertheless he thought the Committee should thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolver-hampton for the declaration that while an increase in the Income Tax in time of war was justifiable, it should be severely criticised in time of peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, uttered some, words of warning which well deserved consideration. The right hon. Gentleman said that if our expenditure went on increasing at the rate it had increased during the last 20 years, and if the revenue showed no greater elasticity, the great danger would arise that a future Chancellor of the Exchequer would find a difficulty in meeting the requirements of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman hinted that some other impost, to which the element of elasticity would be more applicable, should be introduced into our financial system; but he concluded his very able speech without enlightening the country as to the source from which relief would come. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that under the present system the indirect taxpayer was very moderately burdened if he neither drank or smoked. He shared in that benefit in regard to the latter practice. [Laughter.] He presumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant, in regard to the former practice, those who did not drink anything but water, because tea, cocoa, and such drinks, were still largely taxed.
    1562
    The right hon. Gentleman then asked a question which deserved the most careful attention of Parliament and of the country —whether, if the demands on the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on increasing, our present financial policy could be maintained? They were told that the Income Tax could be indefinitely raised in time of war, but he doubted that an indefinite addition to the Income Tax was a thing to be contemplated without grave alarm. Each penny of the Income Tax produced about £2,000,000, and he thought he was justified in asking the Committee whether it was fair to rely solely upon this plan of raising revenue under all conditions and in all circumstances. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the distinction between the consuming classes and the propertied classes in regard to their contribution to the revenue of the State. His right hon. Friend had made use of the expressions the propertied classes and the consuming classes. He should like to know what was meant by those terms, and whether the consuming classes meant the non payers of Income Tax.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I suppose we all belong to the consuming classes. ["Hear, hear!"] Some are foolish enough to consume tobacco, and others are wiser. [Laughter.]
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, that when the right hon. Gentleman told them that 48 per cent. of the revenues of the State was contributed by the propertied classes, and 52 per cent. by what he called the consuming classes, he was making the former do duty as a stage army, for the propertied classes in their capacity as consumers contributed a very large proportion of the 52 per cent. which was allocated to the non-Income Tax paying class. The non-Income Tax paying class did not contribute anything like half the revenue. Most of the critics of the Budget were crying for more money, but he, on the contrary, would make an offer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of millions if he was only willing to accept them. The House of Commons was distinctly invited by the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider our entire financial system, and he must obviously have had it in his mind that at some future time they

    1563
    must have recourse to some other source of revenue. That source, he unhesitatingly maintained, must be indirect taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] The sum of two million pounds, which a penny in the pound on the Income Tax produced, might be obtained by the restoration of the small 1s. registration fee upon corn of all kinds, which had been most foolishly abandoned by a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was aware that in times past any suggestion that a recourse should be had to indirect taxation had always been scouted as a reactionary and impossible proposal. But at a time in the future when more money might be wanted, did they intend to draw on the Income Tax, or to have recourse to the wise principle of indirect taxation which had been so wantonly abandoned? He had not hesitated to suggest corn, because when the suggestion of indirect taxation was made it was said by some that if this was adopted it might lead to an imposition of a tax on corn. He therefore put corn first, corn of all kinds—barley, wheat, oats, etc. That was a source to which they ought to look for an augmentation of the revenue. In taxing barley they would not be taxing what they were told in clap-trap phraseology was the food of the people. Ground flour ought in the interests of the community to be subjected to an impost duty on entering this country, for the importation of ground flour had added considerably to the want of employment in the country. [Cries of "No, no!"] He ventured to say that the introduction into this country of millions of hundredweights of ground flour had obviously displaced a vast amount of labour which had been engaged in the milling industry. It might be a matter of opinion whether there had been compensating advantages, but the diminution of employment could not be gainsaid. There was another source ready for the Chancellor of the Exchequer any time he wanted eight or nine millions. He would point out that 87 millions' worth of foreign manufactured goods was brought into this country, which, if subjected to the moderate average impost of only 10 per cent. would produce eight or nine millions sterling per annum. The proposals of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government
    1564
    Board for the relief of the agricultural interest to the extent of 1½ million were proposals to ask the non-agricultural taxpayer to contribute something towards an industry in the prosperity of which he had so great an interest. He would point out that by the imposition of a reasonable duty upon food stuffs the relief of agriculture would be immediate, and the whole community would share in the advantages which would thereby be secured. If they were told that the people of this country would never stand a tax on the articles necessary for their daily consumption, he would reply that at the present moment in this Budget it was proposed to levy between four and five millions of taxation in the shape of Tea Duty, and duties on coffee, chicory, preserved fruits, and so forth. He cordially agreed with what was said as to the necessity of obtaining from all classes of the community a fair proportion of the taxes required. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that it was a dangerous policy to rely upon taxation to which the majority of the people did not contribute. It was for that reason he had not associated with the demand for the abolition of the tea duties. The bulk of our revenue ought to be derived from all classes of the community, so that all might be equally interested in sound Government. As matters now stood, we derived too much of our indirect revenue in a manner which too little affected the daily consumption of the people. He would transfer some duties to imported articles such as were produced in this country. He would not take any more money out of the pockets of consumers, but he would seek to benefit producers. The idea that the taxation of corn involved pressure upon the people would not bear argument. When cross-road orators spoke of starvation prices in the earlier years of the century, they forgot to say that those high prices were due to the difficulty of obtaining supplies in war time. That state of things might exist again, if we became dependent upon contraband cargoes for our main food supplies. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to devise a fresh financial policy, let him consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies rather than any other colleague, for he had just delivered an admirable speech indicating

    1565
    the direction of a new policy in preferential arrangements with our colonies. The idea of Free Trade within the Empire was impracticable, seeing that so many colonial governments depended upon indirect taxes, and we must contemplate their difficulties as well as our own. On that account he looked forward to a natural revision of our one-sided and untenable fiscal system.
    SIR JOHN BRUNTNTERsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had warned us that our expenditure was in many particulars automatic in its growth. There were two fields in which this automatic growth could be stopped if the policy of Her Majesty's Government were to be adopted. There had been a continually growing loss on the Post Office Savings Banks. The interest we were able to obtain for money was continually diminishing, while the deposits were increasing. If we determined that this loss should be reduced by diminishing the interest allowed, we might have the satisfaction of knowing that we had a little more money to give to other classes of the community than the depositors. The Chancellor of the Exchequer doubted whether they belonged to the working-classes, because he found deposits of £50 and £100 a year; but the experience offered by a savings bank for the men employed by his own firm showed that such deposits were not uncommon with the best of working-men in the North of England, It might be right to reduce the interest allowed to Post Office Savings Bank depositors, but to do so would run the risk of discouraging thrift just where the encouragement was valuable. Then it was said we might limit the amount to be spent on education out of Imperial funds as well as out of local funds; but this was certainly not one of the ways in which this country ought to secure money. A Report from our Consul at Wurtemburg stated that one per cent. of the population passed through a course of agricultural instruction. If that proportion obtained in Cheshire, the number of pupils receiving such instruction would be 7,500, whereas the actual number was 230. They were giving over two millions, but he was convinced that if they persevered in their efforts to educate their people until they
    1566
    came up to the level of the German people they would be doing more for true economy.
    *MR. DISRAELIsaid, he happened to represent a part of one county and to live in another county, and he could inform the hon. Member that the giving of the two millions had been hailed with the greatest delight. They had, perhaps, an exaggerated idea of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did for them—["hear, hear!"]—but they had that feeling of encouragement which, he thought, would do more for them than anything that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give them. They had had a very interesting speech from the Member for Thanet, with the old-fashioned ring, and which appealed to his own heart. [Laughter.] it was curious that after exactly 50 years after the repeal of the Corn Duties they should be considering the fiscal policy of the country, whether it had been a failure or a success. They found the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after his most eloquent speech, confronted by his right hon. Friend asking whether our present system of financial policy could be maintained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had had a fat year. He wondered whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever considered where he would have been if he had not had a fat year. If, in the next two or three years—and he hoped his right hon. Friend would continue to be Chancellor of the Exchequer—he found the expenditure increased and the income not so, where was he to go to for increased taxation, and how was he to get it? He had given them an interesting summary showing that the increase in the population in 10 years was 20 per cent., and the increase in the expenditure 80 per cent. That had been entirely borne by the Income Tax and the Stamp Duties. Those were facts plain to all, and he thought it would be an advantage to broaden the basis of taxation. That, in his opinion, was one of the questions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to meet, and which he hoped he would consider in the next Budget. He thought in a time like this, when they had not been for many years so near war, and certainly when there were rumours of war, it was a wonderful spectacle, showing the soundness of the

    1567
    national character and trade that the millions had come rolling into the pockets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer without any diminution. He thought that must be very satisfactory. He wished next to refer to the food supply in connection with the national defence. He did not agree with Lord Wolseley on this point. If other countries were not willing to send their corn, it did not matter how large their Army or Navy might be. They could not compel them to send it.
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member could only refer to the food supply from a financial point.
    *MR. DISRAELIsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the increase in the volume of trade, but what they should like to know was whether their trade was increasing in proportion to that of other foreign European countries. The increase there was much larger than here, and this he attributed to the system of bounties, which were undermining some of the flourishing industries here. As to the relief given to the agricultural population, he believed the benefit would be felt throughout the country and filter through the small villages. Other trades might have them but the land never would, and it was the duty of the Government to tend and foster it as much as possible. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) always had a panacea for every evil, namely, protective duty upon the food supply to the people; but for himself he did not believe in raising the price of the necessaries of life. He held that part of the surplus ought to be devoted to removing the duties from articles such as tea. He should like, in his humble way, to congratulate the Government on having produced, at all events, a simple Budget which they could understand. When the last Tory Government was in power they had Budgets introduced which were complicated by Barrack and Naval Defence Acts, mortgaging Suez Canal shares, by charging annuities on the Consolidated Fund, and by Imperial subventions—all making it difficult to comprehend what was proposed. Even expert financiers were unable to explain to a popular audience what was the actual
    1568
    expenditure and revenue of the Government of the day. It seemed to him that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was not justified in handing over a surplus of nearly six millions-supplementary estimates of nearly £2,000,000 and the surplus £4,210,000-in the way he had done. It appeared to him that the money had been stolen from the liquidation of the National Debt. It was an old constitutional tradition that the money should be devoted to the liquidation of the Debt, and nothing could justify, in his view, the departure from that rule. This was a dangerous precedent to set. Instead of devoting it to the liquidation of the National Debt in times of peace, any Chancellor of the Exchequer who might subsequently possess a surplus would be tempted to hand it over for the relief of taxation, or any other purpose he might think fit. The appropriation of the money had been justified on the ground that the necessities of the Navy required it. He believed that the policy produced a constantly increasing Army and Navy expenditure, and would not be necessary if they took proper steps to promote an international arrangement for the gradual reduction of expenditure of this character. He should like to criticise the Budget from another point of view. A large proportion of the Probate Duty, a few years ago, was devoted to the relief of local taxation Since then a large portion of the Estate Duty was devoted to that same object. He held that both these ways of raising money were matters connected with Imperial Revenue, and, though paid to local taxation accounts, they were nothing less than Imperial expenditure. For the year ending 1895–6, the expenditure, as communicated by a Parliamentary Paper recently presented to the House showed an expenditure of something like £97,764,000. To that ought to have been added £6,634,000, making the expenditure for the past year £105,000,000. For the coming year, 1896–7, the estimated expenditure was £100,480,000, and the amount to be handed over to local taxation was £7,310,000. Therefore, the expenditure of the country was going to be £108,000,000 during the current year, and the people of the country ought not to be blinded by a figure of £100,000,000 on the Balance Sheet presented to the

    1569
    House of Commons. The anticipated balance was, he understood, to he devoted partly to education purposes. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that £433,000 would be devoted to educational purposes and other contingencies. He himself approved of a certain amount of that expenditure going towards the purposes of education. For instance, he thoroughly agreed in the necessity for abolishing the 17s. 6d. limit, especially in the poorer schools of the country, such as the Roman Catholic Schools, where grievous hardship had been felt, and the people connected with the schools were poor. He believed that ignorance was more expensive than knowledge, and he did not take any exception to the expenditure of money for education, provided it went to promote progress, and not retard it. But it seemed to him that the greater portion of the £433,000 proposed to be spent by the Bill was for the preferential treatment of a certain class, and would not promote education, but rather retard it. With regard to the Land Tax, he admitted that real property seemed, under our present system to pay rather more than personal property. If the revision of the Land Tax would redress that small grievance he would accept it. With regard to the relief of local rates, he took the greatest exception to the method adopted by the Government. It seemed to him to be nothing else than a barefaced contribution to a class. The principle of Imperial subventions was bad. The ratepayers gained at the expense of the taxpayer. Imperial revenue was derived from commodities consumed by us all; therefore, we all contributed to what would be handed over to the ratepayers for the benefit of that class. The taxes, on the whole, were paid by the poorer portion of the community, the rates by the richer. Dr. Hunter, the cause of whose absence now from the House must be a matter of regret, proved in an article in the Contemporary Review a few months ago, that Imperial subventions meant that every occupier below an average rental of £48 was a loser, and above that sum a gainer, and the poorer a man was, so much the more did he lose by these contributions from Imperial funds, and out of the then £6,000,000 paid to local authorities by the Treasury, the poorer classes lost
    1570
    £5,000,000, the lower middle £1,000,000, by these contributions to the richer portions of the community. It was nothing but robbery for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hand over money collected for Imperial purposes to the relief of merely one class. He objected to the system of constantly increased Imperial subventions. They promoted extravagance. In his own county he had seen the greatest difficulty in the expenditure of the money. They had, for instance, upwards of £16,000 to spend in the county on technical education, and it was very difficult for the Technical Education Committee to see that they got a proper return for that money when they spent it. In every parish were people who thought they ought to have a share of the money, whether they were going to take advantage of the educational advantages put before them or not. The bestowal of money of the kind tended to increase the demands made on the Chancellor of the Exchequer by different sections of the community year by year, and it was most difficult for the Government to resist the appeals made. But the Government were asked at the last General Election to relieve the depression of agriculture. The price of wheat to-day was about 25s. a quarter; whereas a year ago it was about 20s. In his own district agriculture was more prosperous than almost any other industry. No farms were left uncultivated. If anything rents had been increasing, and he did not think that, on the whole, the farmer had much to complain of. Certainly, rents were well paid. But in the iron trade and in the colliery districts wages had gone down, there had been no profits for two or three years, and if any industries should receive relief, it was these rather than the farmers, who followed a profitable in dustry. Farmers would get the benefit temporarily, but they could not permanently if they held their farms on a yearly lease, for the landlord, either by increasing his rents or refusing abatements or improvements in times of depression, would take advantage of this Imperial contribution. The President of the Board of Agriculture had expressed sympathy with the agricultural labourer who was the worst paid individual in this country. But he himself did not see how this Imperial

    1571
    subvention of £975,000 would help the labourer. But who contributed that? It was, to a large extent, contributed by the labouring classes of this country. There were 7,000,000 wage-earners, and these men who drank the beer and smoked the tobacco were largely those who contributed to the revenue of the State. He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deny that.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do. This grant will come out of the Death Duty on personal property.
    *MR. PEASEsubmitted that it came out of the surplus the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have in anticipation of the revenue of the coming year. He said there was a balance of £1,710,000 to deal with. Out of that £443,000 would go towards education; £200,000 was to go to the relief of the Land Tax; £100,000 for another purpose connected with the Estate Duty, and there would be £975,000 left. That sum was simply the balance out of the total revenue of the country, a large proportion of which came from the working classes of the country, who contributed directly or indirectly to the revenue. Assuming, however, the agricultural labourer would derive benefit from the proposal, it appeared to him that it was proposed to tax 7,000,000 of labourers for the benefit of 1,000,000. He did not believe the agricultural labourer would get a penny of this money. The greater part of it would go into the pockets of the farmers temporarily, but permanently into the pockets of the landlords. For these reasons he objected to the proposals of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he was alarmed to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer threaten to increase the Navy Estimates next year, and he was further concerned when the First Lord of the Admiralty made himself an accessory after the fact to the declaration. He thought this would have to be reconsidered. His belief was that, although the expenditure next year on the Navy might not be required in the same direction, there would be little if any possibility of diminution. His only consolation with regard to the matter was that it would have to be reconsidered next year, and he strongly suspected that the right hon. Gentleman himself
    1572
    would find that he could not alter the Naval Estimates. He was pleased to hear the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to Akasoheh, Dongola, and Khartoum. He said the Egyptian Government was making the expedition with their own troops and at their own cost. He, who looked with distrust on the expedition, who believed that it would lead us further than anybody had any idea of at present, was delighted to hear that declaration. They were told originally by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that this was not an Egyptian, but a British expedition, which would go to Akasheh, then if the heat was too great, would stay there, but if not, would go on to Dongola, and he said, in reply to some queries addressed to him by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean that he did not wish to publish the plan of campaign beforehand. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, prepared them for a large expedition to Akasheh, probably to Dongola, and possibly to Khartoum. Again the Colonial Secretary said, "We are doing this in order to show our sympathy with the Italians——"
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing the whole question of the expedition up the Nile. So far as it has any financial bearing upon the Budget, it would be in order, but the general policy clearly would not be in order.
    *MR. BOWLESbowed to the Chairman's ruling, and observed that he had made the contrast he wished to make with regard to the financial aspect. Since the final and improved policy now announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be adopted, of course they might make themselves easy with regard to the financial results of the expedition. Had the old policy, as announced by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary for the Colonies, been persisted in of making it a British expedition, then he thought the effects would have been most serious on the finances of this year, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undoubtedly have had to reconsider his Budget. He was glad to know there was no possibility of that, and consequently that they should not be called together in November for a Vote on Account for a further advance in the direction of Khartoum. There was

    1573
    only one other subject to which he wished to allude. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been a little unfair with regard to the Death Duties — in fact, he did not truly appreciate all he got. The right hon. Gentleman said the increase was £1,460,000, but he left out of his calculation the increase that had arisen in that part of these duties which was to be devoted to local taxation. There had been an increase there of £50,000, so that instead of the increase being £1,460,000, it was really £1,510,000. He must say he considered it was unfair that this part of the Death Duties due to local taxation should be left out as if it did not exist. It did exist, it had to be levied, and it was an important part of the tax. Inasmuch as the Death Duties had produced £1,500,000 more than was expected, the Death Duties had really the first claim for consideration in the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman, however, only allocated the small sum of £200,000 to redress the injustices with which the Act bristled, and he hoped when the Bill was laid before the House some consideration would be given to some extremely modest suggestions he should be prepared to make in favour of alterations which would improve the working of the Act. He only desired to add that he had listened with the greatest satisfaction and relief to the declaration of policy with regard to the Soudan which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made that evening.
    On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval.
    *MR. FREDERICK CAWLEYsaid he rose to protest against any portion of the present surplus going to one particular industry. He absolutely denied there was that amount of depression of the agricultural interest that some hon. Gentlemen opposite endeavoured to make out. He could name many industries in which no profit had been derived for years past, and, therefore, he contended that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had money at his disposal he ought not to hand it over to one industry only. It had been said that all this money would go into the pockets of the tenants. That
    1574
    he thought would not be the case. At the present time many landlords were negotiating with tenants in respect to reductions of rent. Would they not when negotiating take the proposed subvention or allowance in the rates into consideration; landlords were not different to other men, but they would be more than human if in making fresh agreements they did not tell their tenants that they would now have some relief from local rating. It was alleged, too, that the labourer would be benefited under the Rating Bill. The agricultural labourer was distinctly better off than he had ever been. The fall in prices both of food and clothing had been of the greatest advantage to the agricultural labourer, as well as to every other labourer in the country. Some hon. Members opposite spoke as though there was a deficiency instead of a surplus. They spoke in doleful terms of all other interests as well as agricultural. As a matter of fact, the Budget clearly proved that the working classes of the country were never so well off. He would like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell them where this subvention policy was to stop. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to give relief to every industry affected by foreign competition, because, if so, one industry after another would come to him and claim relief. He had some connection with works in Lancashire employing 2,000 hands. Those works had to be stopped owing entirely to foreign competition, the Belgian people were able to produce the article cheaper than the Lancashire people could. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer prepared to see 2,000 people thrown out of work on account of foreign competition and not give them relief, while he gave relief to the agricultural labourer, tenant, and landlord? If the policy of protection advocated by the right hon. Member for Thanet and by other hon. Members opposite were to extend, he could foresee the time when there would be a very large socialistic element in the House, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say to the landlord class—
    "When you had the predominating influence in the House, you gave relief to landlords, you gave funds belonging to the country, to the landed interest, now we, in other interests, are willing to abide by your precedent."
    MR. A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWENsaid, that before he came to the special point which he wished to bring before the Committee he desired to associate himself entirely with the hon. Gentlemen who had thanked the Government for the substantial relief they proposed to give to agriculture. So far from regarding the relief proposed as a gift to one class, he held it to be a matter of national importance that something should be done for agriculture at the present time, because he could conceive nothing more calculated to injure the country than that that great interest should be destroyed, as it was being rapidly destroyed, and that the agricultural population should be massed in the towns and urban districts. He, however, rose specially to ask that something should be done for another class who had expected to receive some crumb of comfort from the present Budget—he meant the clergy. He and other hon. Members had received letters from the clergy, and especially from those who held small benefices, complaining of the extremely heavy incidence of rates and taxes. The clergyman paid rates not on his net annual value but his gross annual value, and therefore he thought a strong case could be made out for asking that some relief should be given in the Rating Bill to the clergy. However, he recognised to the full that that was not possible at the present time, and he did not want to press the point, but he did ask the Government whether they could not give some relief to the clergy in a different direction. He admitted that the clergy would benefit by the reduction of the Land Tax, but he wished to see something more done, particularly for those clergy who were possessors of very small benefices. By a series of Acts of Parliament passed between 1807 and 1816 those who held benefices of less than £150 a year were exempted from Land Tax. That was done by a Commission appointed under several Acts of Parliament. In consequence of the decline of value since that period, a large number of livings had dropped below the £150 a year limit; but, owing to the fact that the operations of the Commission came to an end in 1820, the exemption, which was clearly intended to apply not only to livings which at that time were under that value, but to those which should
    1576
    subsequently fall below £150 a year, did not apply to the latter class of livings, and they still paid Land Tax. He was at present not in possession of any exact statistics, though he was trying to obtain them. But he thought that the principle which had been observed in the early part of the century might be extended to the present time, and those benefices totally exempted from the Land Tax where the annual value would be exempt from Income Tax if the holders had no other incomes. He should put down a new clause dealing with this point, and he hoped it would receive the favourable consideration of the Government.
    MR. W. ALLANsaid he was surprised to hear the First Lord say that the Naval Vote would be less next year than this.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Shipbuilding Vote.
    MR. W. ALLANsaid that that was practically the Naval Vote, because the Navy was not a Navy without ships. The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that nations were very jealous of each other's success. The commercial success of Great Britain had undoubtedly created a feeling of jealousy among other nations, and the key of all commercial greatness was the command of the sea. He wished to look at this from a practical rather than a cheese-paring point of view, and he failed to see how any reduction in the Shipbuilding Vote could be looked for. Our increasing commerce demanded an increasing Navy; and scientific progress was continually productive of new designs and new requirements. Men-of-war and merchant ships were virtually old-fashioned in less than 10 years. For example, some 10 years ago, the French built some torpedo-boats to make 15 and 20 knots; and we followed by building other torpedo - boats, some of which could make 24 knots. Where were those boats now? They were lying in the basins at Sheerness, Chatham, and Portsmouth, and would never go to sea; because they had been supplanted by the torpedo-boat destroyer, which had come to the front within the last six years. In the last Navy Estimates there was provision for building boats which would make 32 knots, and the inference was that in a short time the torpedo boat destroyers would be things of the past.

    1577
    It was contrary to the nature and spirit of the Empire that the Naval Vote should be reduced. A reduction could follow only from one cause—loss of commerce, command of the sea, and the colonies. He, did not like to hear such words from right hon. Gentlemen opposite; for he looked to them as the great upholders of the strength and dignity of this Empire, and he was thoroughly with them when they asked for a big Navy. As for the Army, he could dispense with that to-morrow. He would go further and show that his proposition was correct. The expenditure under the Naval Works Bill would increase the total amount of the Naval Vote. He did not see how the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to reduce that next year. A further item which must be taken into account was the necessity of having another fleet altogether; and by that he meant a coaling fleet. We had no means of coaling our fleet whatever——
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is clearly a question of naval policy and not of finance.
    MR. ALLAN: It seems to me I am to-night on the wrong tack as Jack says. In conclusion, he should only say that he demurred entirely from the statement that the Navy Vote could be reduced. It could only be reduced on one ground, and that was the weakening of the right arm of Great Britain. Personally, he was convinced that the future would be marked by still greater expenditure for the Navy.
    *MR. W. F. LAWRENCEas representing a commercial port, thanked the hon. Member who had just spoken for the manner in which he wanted to protect the commerce of the country. He desired, on the present occasion to recall to the House what he had once before stated with regard to the question of the Stamp Duty on marine insurance policies. While fire insurance was exempted from that duty, marine assurance was placed under the disadvantage of being subject to a three-penny ad valorem duty on every premium above 2s. 6d. per cent. There was the further disadvantage to English companies that neither American nor German companies had to pay such a duty. Every large risk taken
    1578
    by a company was spread over other insuring companies, and every separate transaction was liable to that threepenny ad valorem duty. The Committee would, therefore, see that a very appreciable tax was put on this particular line of business. The grievance was not of such magnitude that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not deal with it. It had reference to only £140,000 a year, and it was a great disappointment to those whom he represented to find that on the occasion of this year's Budget, their legitimate grievance had been overlooked. Another point in connection with this matter was that as an insurance company did not always know the actual amount of the insurance, they could not at once arrive at the amount of the duty to be assessed. The consequence was that they were obliged to have recourse to a covering note, which was not a legal document, and could not be produced in court, hut simply rested upon the honour of the parties. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not remove the duty altogether, it would be desirable that there should be one fixed stamp which might be attached to the document he had referred to and make it produceable in a court of law. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. T. LOUGH,stated that he had had the honour to introduce to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a deputation representing the coffee trade, who preferred a request that he would take off the duty on coffee. He believed consumers generally would welcome that concession, it would cost only about £160,000 or £170,000, and it would be a step towards the consummation of the free breakfast table. He suggested, too, that something ought to be done about the Hackney Carriage Tax. In the report of the Departmental Committee on cabs, it was unanimously agreed that this tax of 15s. a year, which was a heavy tax on a poor industry now suffering from the competition of bicycles and omnibuses and trams, should be abolished so far as the Metropolis was concerned. He believed that it would cost the right hon. Gentleman very little to do it. He next drew attention to one or two very interesting remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on the course that our finances

    1579
    were taking. No statement made by him interested the House more than that dealing with the progress of indirect taxation. The right hon. Gentleman said that indirect taxation was only 52 per cent. of the taxes levied in this country, and that it might be needful for him to reconsider the change in this respect which had come over the financial circumstances of the country. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would pause before he took any such step. He was in favour of direct taxation. He believed that it pressed much less hardly on the poor than indirect taxation, and he believed that direct taxation was also more capable of adjustment than indirect taxation. Once they had fixed an indirect tax on a commodity everyone, however poor, had to pay the tax, and this was a strong argument against it. He congratulated the country on the progress made towards equalising direct and indirect taxation. There was a question, however, which ought to interest the Committee in connection with this matter, and it was this: "Is this progress equal?" He did not mean equal as between individuals, but as between the two parts of the United Kingdom—Great Britain and Ireland. The pressure of indirect taxation on Ireland was inquired into by the Financial Relations Commission which had presented two volumes of evidence. From it they saw that indirect taxation in Ireland this year had not been 52 but 76 per cent. of the whole burden. Therefore they had this extraordinary fact that, while in one country the indirect taxation was only 50 per cent., in the other country it was 76 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman, however, went back to 50 years ago, and showed that in Great Britain in 1841 the indirect taxation was £1 7s. 3d. per head, while to-day it had fallen to £1 4s. The corresponding figures with regard to Ireland were that in 1841 indirect taxation was 11s. 1d. per head; in 1895 it was £1 2s. 2d. per
    1580
    head. While, therefore, in one part of the United Kingdom a healthy progress was going on, in the other portion the burden of indirect taxation had been doubled in amount per head of the population during the last 50 years. In 184 the population in this country was 18,500,000; to-day it was 35,000,000; so that as the indirect taxation decreased the population increased. In Ireland, in 1841, the population was 8,250,000; to-day it was 4,500,000, so that while indirect taxation had been doubled the numbers of the people had been cut down by a half. In Great Britain 1841 was the highest year which indirect taxation ever reached since the Battle of Waterloo. It amounted in that year to 73 per cent., but to-day in Ireland it amounted to 76 per cent.; so that the circumstances with regard to indirect taxation in Ireland were worse than they ever were in Great Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed the question whether in this country we were not reaching the limit of expenditure which the nation was able to bear. He said that during the last 20 years the population had increased 1 per cent., the taxes by 17 per cent., and expenditure by 68 per cent., and argued generally that our expenditure was increasing more rapidly than our capacity to bear it. He suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that some of those arguments were a little antiquated. If those taxes which the right hon. Gentleman summarised pressed equally on all the sources of wealth in the country the calculation would be sound. But they had not pressed equally, and there were sources of wealth in this country not yet tapped. The Budget contained hints that there was at present in our system of taxation some points which showed that the wealth of this country was not really taxed in proportion to what it could bear. In the first place there were the Death Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not altered them materially, and found no injustice

    1581
    in them. The suggestion, therefore, was that a great vein of wealth had been tapped here, and that the nation could bear all the burdens placed upon it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned the case of stamps in connection with Stock Exchange transactions, and the amount of champagne drunk over the bargains. But a nation that was poor would not consume champagne and spend so much on stamps. The tremendous productivity of those taxes showed that there was a quantity of wealth in Great Britain not yet tapped by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he suggested, before the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that we had reached the limit of taxation, that he must take into account the whole question of national income. The question of National income had been considered lately. In the first place there was the Income Tax, and it was found that other sections of the community, taking them in the gross, had about the same amount of income as the Income Tax payers. The total annual income of Great Britain was at least between £1,500,000,000 and £1,600,000,000 a year. An allowance of £12 per head for living being made, there remained a taxable income of £1,100,000,000, and the whole of the taxes, local and Imperial, amounted only to £130,000,000. We were, therefore, in Great Britain only using one-ninth of our taxable income. In Ireland the gross income of the country was £70,000,000. Deducting £12 per head of the population for living purposes, there remained a taxable income of £15,000,000, and the total amount of taxes, local and Imperial, was; £12,000,000. So in Ireland there was only a margin of £3,000,000 after the payment of the taxes, while in England there was a margin of nearly £1,000,000,000. In Ireland we were using five-sixths of our available taxable income. We were, in. fact, using up nearly every available £1. The Chancellor of the
    1582
    Exchequer had told them that he had a surplus of £6,000,000, and that the past year had been a wonderful year, and hon. Members fingered the gold in their pockets and thought how prosperous we were. He held that they ought to think of Ireland where there was no surplus, and precious little balance in anybody's banking account. The increased expenditure which had been provided for this country was not required in Ireland. The Naval Works Bill afforded a good illustration of the difference in necessary expenditure between the two islands. £14,000,000 had been provided for the purpose of protecting this island, but not a penny was to go to Ireland for that purpose. He did not blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that, because Ireland did not want protection. The sure defence of the Irish people was their poverty. What he did blame the Government for was for spreading the burden of this expenditure between the two islands. He had asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would try to find out how much was exacted from Ireland each year, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that as he had not heard from the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between the two countries, he could not supply the necessary information. That he considered an unsatisfactory answer. Since 1818 no account had been kept of how much money had been exacted from the unfortunate sister isle. The. Treasury had made a calculation upon the subject, but upon what was it based? It was based upon figures relating to the last four months of a recent financial year, and upon information of the flimsiest character. It was a disgraceful state of things that full authentic information could not be obtained on the subject. He regretted that the Royal Commission had not yet been able to issue a Report. Thirty or forty thousand people were done to death, or exiled from Ireland every year as a consequence of the continuance of the present most

    1583
    infamous system. Why should they wait for the Report of the Commission before they did something to remedy the evil? This had been described as a Landlords' Budget. He would consider for a moment the question of the financial relations of the two countries from the landlords' point of view. He suggested that the landlords would do well if they united with the representatives of the people of Ireland in asking that this question of Ireland's taxation should be favourably considered by that House. Governments were constantly appealing to the landlords to reduce their rents, and during the last 40 years £2,000,000 had been taken off the rent-roll of Ireland through the action of Parliament. But what had Governments done? For every £1 taken off rent, they had imposed £2 in taxes. Thus £2,000,000 had come off the rents and £4,000,000 had gone on to the taxes. The Land Bill of the Government would have no meaning if it did not reduce further the landlords' receipts, but ought they not to ask the Government to reduce taxation at the same time? Old taxes which were too high were being continued and four new taxes had been laid on Ireland in the last four years—the tax on beer and the tax on whisky as indirect taxation, and the Death Duties and increased Income Tax as direct taxation. The taxes were constantly increasing, and the population was constantly diminishing. From the English taxpayer's point of view, it was also desirable that the taxation of Ireland should be reduced. He did not suggest that Ireland should pay less and that England should pay more. As the representative of an English contituency, he should think it monstrous that his constituents should have to pay anything to relieve Ireland from payment. Ireland ought to pay her own way in the world, and she would be willing and able to do so if a proper system of Government, suitable to the needs of the country, were established. England reaped no profit out of her
    1584
    financial oppression of Ireland. Long ago she did reap a profit, but circumstances had changed, and to-day the balance was on the wrong side. £200,000 a year was probably lost by England in her transactions with Ireland, regard being paid to the cost of maintaining the Army in Ireland. In 1860 there was a balance of £5,500,000 which Great Britain got out of Ireland, but since that time the Irish civil expenditure had gone up, and now the balance was only £1,750,000, as against which a payment of £2,000,000 was made for the Army. The fact was that the Irish people paid large taxes, and that the money was all fuddled away. Therefore, from the English taxpayer's point of view there was good reason why this question should be considered. In future years, unless a change was made, the English taxpayer would probably have to contribute £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 a year towards Irish taxation. It was all very well to tax a country as long as one got something out of it, but it was no use to go on doing so when the goose was dead that laid the golden egg. Why not discontinue these burdens, which were the curse of the people of Ireland, and which did no good to this country? It would probably be said that good was done in Ireland by the expenditure there of part of the money raised in taxes. Well, while 4s. 3d. were spent on education per head in Ireland, 15s. 4d. per head were spent on the armed forces. That, surely, was too little on education and too much on the military. As for levying a tax of 15s. 4d. on the unfortunate people for the maintenance of soldiers and police in their country, he did not think anything more tyrannous or corrupt was ever done in a civilised country. He had not mentioned these figures without giving them the closest study. They were not calculations of his own, but they were given in evidence before the Royal Commission. He would close by asking whether it was not fair to ask the right hon. Gentleman to

    1585
    take into consideration the situation of the unfortunate country. The contrast would grow greater every year, and he appealed to the Government—and he recognised that the present Government were no worse than previous Governments of either Party—to consider this matter in accordance with the nobler and broader traditions of English finance, and to do justice to the people of Ireland.
    *MR. A. K. LOYDsaid he wished to call attention to two points in connection with the incidence of the Death Duties. The first case was that of an estate being left to a widow absolutely. The present state of the law was that she paid Estate Duty as any other person. To his mind that was a great injustice, because, in the normal condition of things, an estate would probably pay duty only once in a generation. The average disparity of age between husband and wife he took at five or six years, and, that being so, the estate had to pay a severe duty at an interval only about one-sixth or one-fifth of the normal interval. Might not she therefore be excused from paying more than, say, one-sixth or one-fifth of the normal Estate Duty? He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would be consulting the interest of every household in the country if he could make some alteration in this direction. The other case was that of an estate left by will or settlement to the widow for life, and remainder to the children. In this case the widow paid Estate Duty, but no further duty was payable on her death. He suggested that it might be possible to postpone the payment of the duty during the life of the widow. The result would be that the estate would be left intact during the period when the children were being brought up and educated. He begged to submit these two points to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. F. S. STEVENSONcontended that the provision with regard to the Land Tax would certainly operate beneficially for the poorer clergy. While, of course, he sympathised with their position owing to the fall in tithes, it was impossible to deny that the loss the tithe-payers had incurred, owing to the fall in the price of agricultural produce, had been greater in proportion.
    1586
    His hon. Friend the Member for Islington had suggested new sources of revenue which were still untouched, and he agreed with him that, if the necessity for further expenditure increased, it would be necessary to tap new sources of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet had trotted out his familiar hobby-horse of Protection, but he would not follow him in that. His object in rising was to call attention to a particular point in connection with the Land Tax. He was very glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had escaped the toils of two distinct classes of tempters on this question. Some were in favour of abolishing the tax altogether, and others were in favour of handing it over to the County Councils. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had not given in to either. If the right hon. Gentleman had abolished the tax it would have involved a grave injustice to those who had redeemed the tax. If, on the other hand, he had handed the tax over to the County Councils he would not have met the grievance of the small payers of the tax. The special grievance of the small payer of Land Tax was that, owing to the fall in prices of agricultural produce which affected large estates, the fixed quota which the district had to pay fell more heavily upon them. In his opinion, the landlords would obtain the greater benefit of the reduction of the Land Tax from 4s. to 1s. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the reduction of the Land Tax from 4s. to 1s. would be automatic.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the reduction would be automatic in the quota payable by the parish.
    MR. STEVENSONsaid, that that would facilitate matters greatly. He had always taken a keen interest in this subject, which he had shown by asking in 1893 that there should be a revision of the Land Tax all over the country. He was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made this concession. With regard to the other subject which affected the agricultural interest, namely, the payment by the State of half the rates on agricultural land, he was entirely in

    1587
    favour of the scheme, because it was the only way—though, perhaps, a roundabout and cumbrous way—by which personal property could be made to pay its share of the rates. It must not be forgotten that the small tradesmen in small country towns had suffered greatly from agricultural depression owing to an increase in the burden of local rates, and he was sorry that they were not to have a share in the relief afforded by the grants in aid. He should have thought that it was possible to have extended the benefits of these grants in aid not only to the large landowners and farmers, but to the smaller classes who had suffered during the late and present depression of agriculture.
    MR. C. T. MURDOCHsaid, that he rose for the purpose of making a few observations on the peculiarly interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. The right hon. Gentleman had addressed himself largely to the subject of the Income Tax, and he rather made an attack on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer because, having a surplus of one million and three-quarters at his disposal, he had not taken off a portion of the Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, however, had been obliged to confess that even with a surplus of a million and three-quarters the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to take off 1d. in the pound of the tax. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have taken off a halfpenny, but at the same time admitted that the question was not a very urgent one. He, however, could not help thinking that to take off merely a halfpenny of the Income Tax would not be a very satisfactory course of proceeding, because it would be extremely difficult as a matter of calculation, and would not afford any really substantial relief to those who paid the
    1588
    tax. Although he was not a landowner to any great extent, was not the possessor of any valuable heirlooms, and had no life interest to come back to him, he might be allowed to say that in taking off the taxes in the way the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done, he had exercised a very wise discretion, and had disposed of his surplus in the best possible manner. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton had made a very strong point with regard to the fact that the Supplementary Estimates of last year had not been included in the Budget or in the Estimates for the present year. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer framed his Financial Statement for the year, he depended to a great extent on the Estimates submitted to him by the heads of the Spending Departments, who in their turn based their Estimates, not only on what was required by the Departments for the year to come, but also on what had been spent in the previous year, including the Supplementary Estimates. He therefore held that in the Budget these Supplementary Estimates were themselves considered. The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been purchasing Consols in the market at their present high price. If he remembered rightly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a great point in his Budget Statement of having paid off a considerable amount of the Floating Debt. That in itself was a considerable reduction in the indebtedness of the nation. In reality, that Floating Debt represented to a great extent what was formerly the old Three per Cents. At the time when the present First Lord of the Admiralty, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, converted the Three per Cents., there were a certain number of holders who would not come into the scheme; and the right hon. Gentleman, instead of issuing new stock in substitution of the amount which those holders would not receive, allowed the Floating

    1589
    Debt to be represented by that amount, something like £35,000,000, which had gradually been paid off, and which, in his opinion, had during the past year been laid considerable hold of. That was really the very best way of paying off the National Debt. The right hon. Gentleman did not go into the market and buy Consols at their exorbitant prices, but he continued to buy off the indebtedness of the nation in the very best way that could possibly be adopted. In his humble opinion, the high price to which Consols had been run up was due, not only to the purchases on account of the amount in the Post Office Savings Banks, but also because Consols had become a luxury, and because most banks thought it necessary to hold a large amount in Consols which they did not part with, which did not come into the market, but which appeared as ornamental items in the balance sheets, and which consequently added to the scarcity of Consols. In regard to the question of deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks, he desired to call attention to a practice which was now being pursued, and which, in his opinion, amounted to fraud. There were several instances of well-to-do persons who held large amounts in those Savings Banks by depositing in several places under different names, and who thereby obtained that comparatively high rate of interest which was intended by the Government as an encouragement to thrift amongst the poorer classes. That was a matter which, he thought, should have the attention of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"] As a banker himself, he objected to the Government competing with the bankers of the, country, especially as the Government did so upon bad financial terms. If any banking institution took money on deposit upon a higher rate of interest than it could obtain itself, it would soon find that that was not only a risky but a fatal class of business. The depositors whom the Government
    1590
    encouraged to come in received such a rate of interest as the Government in its banking capacity could not afford to give its depositors, and it was a monstrous injustice that the bankers of this country should be competed with by the Government, who were trusting to the taxpayer to make up the deficit in the interest which they could not pay on their deposits. He did not believe that the sources of taxation were by any means exhausted, and he could not believe that men of the consummate ability of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire, would not have many means at their disposal for increasing the revenue if it were necessary. In financial circles in the country there was a growing feeling that direct taxation had gone almost as far as it should go at the present time, and that the attention of Chancellors of the Exchequer should be now turned to indirect taxation. He would remind the hon. Member for Islington that the principal source of taxation in Ireland was from the duty upon whisky made in Ireland, but drunk in Great Britain— [Nationalist cries of "No!"]—and that therefore the taxes which had been complained of as unjust were borne by Englishmen, and others abroad, as well as by those living in Ireland. He believed that the agricultural classes in Ireland were in many respects much better off than the similar classes in Great Britain.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid, the most striking and, he thought, the most saddening part of the whole discussion on the Budget was in reference to the enormous increase of annual expenditure. He thought the Committee was hardly aware that the round figures given them in the Budget Speech did not, as compared with previous years, really represent the national expenditure of this country. No less than five or six

    1591
    millions of our annual expenditure had been transferred from our national to our local accounts, and the 100 millions of the Budget meant something like 107 millions. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would see fit to alter his account and bring it more in accordance with previous accounts. An item was put down on the revenue side which was really a new source of expenditure. One of the great defects in arriving at any conclusion on the expenditure of revenue was the extraordinary discrepancy between the public accounts of the Treasury and the other Departments.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, what the hon. Member alluded to was no doubt that in all previous accounts that part of the Death Duties and of the revenue from beer and spirits which went to the local taxation account had not been included in the Budget Estimate for the year. He followed that precedent precisely in making up the official figures of his Budget Estimate this year by deducting the sum which was to go towards the local taxation account in future years from the Budget Estimate of Revenue.
    MR. BUXTONsaid they had no desire to question any expenditure or revenue, it was only a question of the confusion of accounts, and he thought that what the right hon. Gentleman had said confirmed his view that here was a distinct item of expenditure which was put down on the revenue side in our national account. That certainly was not the way in which any business man would keep his ordinary accounts. Questions of such great importance as education of course required attention, and, looking to the state of Europe at the present moment, he supposed they could not, unfortunately, regret our expenditure on the Navy; but the worst of it was that successive Chancellors of the Exchequer had all expressed their great regret at this expenditure, but always produced increased Estimates. Satisfaction had been expressed with the
    1592
    statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his Estimates of expenditure did cover all the proposals of the Government with regard to the Army and Navy; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be justified in what he had said with regard to both North Africa and South Africa, and that there would be no demand for panic stricken expenditure in either. The First Lord of the Admiralty had given a clear exposition as to the position of the Navy; but unfortunately it had been found by experience that as soon as the expenditure on one programme began to diminish, a new programme involved an increase of expenditure. The Estimates of the revenue seemed to be taken in a most cautious spirit, and he believed that the revenue would be larger than the Estimate. The advantage of the Income Tax was that it could be raised and lowered as required, and it was well that it remained an integral portion of our National finance. But, as the yield of a. penny in the pound was now two millions, it was possible to contemplate making changes either way by a halfpenny in the pound, and he did not see that any difficulties of calculation need stand in the way. No one had objected to the course that had been pursued in gradually diminishing indirect and increasing direct taxation until they were brought to almost equal proportions, and looking round our whole financial position he did not see where it would be possible to impose any additional indirect taxation on any articles of consumption. There was no article of common consumption that would stand a great amount of taxation without diminishing the consumption of it so as to affect our whole home and international trade. Although it might be regarded as rather heterodox on himself, he must say he concurred in one remark made by the right hon. Member for Thanet; he thought the abolition of the registration duty on corn was in some sense a misfortune, but it was

    1593
    abolished because Mr. Lowe had more money than he knew what to do with; and, although it brought in a little more than a million, it in no sense raised the price of corn to the consumer. If Mr. Lowe could have foreseen the stupendous expenditure of the present time— almost double what he had to deal with—he would have left the registration duty as a basis of taxation. The hon. Gentleman referred to the subject of direct taxation. He did not want to weary the Committee by going into the question of the way in which direct or indirect taxation fell on different classes in the community. It was a subject on which a good deal could be said on both sides. He did not think that they could lay down a general proposition that direct taxation fell on the rich and indirect entirely on the poor. That was, perhaps, not the way in which, in the ultimate result, taxation fell. They had to remember the great matters of the consumption of such articles as tea, tobacco, spirits, wine, etc., and it was an absolutely unquestionable fact that in consequence of their fiscal system, the burden fell infinitely heavier on the poorer than on the richer classes. ["Hear, hear!"] It was found that it was absolutely impossible to levy the taxes as the law intended. He should not pursue that point, but he thought it was a good thing, for their system of taxation enabled them to reduce a vast number of taxes, and that it was based on a broad principle. He wanted to say a few words as to the Death Duties, in which he took an interest some few years ago. He thought it was remarkable that the increase in the Death Duties fully justified all the assurances and expectations of his right hon. Friend. It was a fact that realty had been able to pay the Death Duties without any great burden or inconvenience. The right hon. Gentleman did not propose to interfere with the settlement. As he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to make some slight altera-
    1594
    tions in matters with regard to which grievances had arisen, but he trusted he would not give way to the arguments used by the hon. Member just now. He wanted to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question in regard to one of his proposals, because he understood him to say that his proposals were made in no way with a view to the derogation of the principle of the Death Duties. The only point that struck him somewhat was that dealing with the question of life interest. He understood that he proposed, where the owner had parted with his property, but retained a life interest until the property came back to him again, he would only pay one Death Duty.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: He will not pay on what is called the enlargement of his interest.
    MR. BUXTONsaid, then, in conclusion, he would only say that he entirely agreed in the hope that, even though the National Debt might have risen to a high figure, they should not relax their efforts in reducing that Debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer prided himself, or rather the nation, on the fact that in the last 15 years they had reduced the Debt by £100,000,000. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman ought to recollect that the National Debt still amounted to the tremendous figure of £660,000,000. While they had decreased the National Debt, they had increased their local indebtedness by over £100,000,000. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman would continue the excellent system under which they were gradually reducing the Debt.
    SIR A. B. FORWOODsaid it was difficult to prophecy in regard to naval expenditure, which must be regulated by the shipbuilding programme of other nations. He thought the First Lord of the Admiralty would be able next year to reduce the naval expenditure if the expenditure of Foreign Powers remained what

    1595
    it was at present. Certainly, the amount which was being spent this year was much in excess of what would be found necessary to maintain on a liberal scale the Navy of this country. With respect to the Registration Duty on foreign corn, he shared the regret of the last speaker that it had been removed, and would have preferred to see a small nominal duty of that kind placed on imported corn, as an equivalent to the local rates which home-grown corn had to pay. He was glad that a grant from the Exchequer was to be made to local rating authorities, because it appeared to be the only means of bringing that charge of personalty on to the local rates. It was obviously unfair occupiers should have the burden of the local rates and personalty escape. He was also very glad that this grant was not to be given in lump sums to districts, but in proportion to the rates that districts raised. There was nothing so wasteful as granting public money to district councils. ["Hear, hear!"] He had himself had considerable personal experience of a very large council, which had received in the last few years considerable grants of public money for technical instruction, and he was bound to say that, after careful and close watching, there had not been exercised over the expenditure the same vigilance and care that was exercised over expenditure which was levied by rates by that local authority. He was therefore glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made it a condition of the grant that it was to equal the amount raised locally. He hoped the grant would be only temporary, and that the whole question of local rates would be considered. He hoped and believed there would be ample means in the possession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coming year, out of a reasonable and proper saving on the Navy expenditure, without in any way diminishing the power or efficiency of the country. ["Hear, hear!"]
    DR. CLARKregretted very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not followed the example of his predecessors in reference to carrying out the principle of graduation in the Income Tax. He had, on various occasions in the last Government, pressed this point, and when the First Lord of the Admiralty was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he took Divisions and moved Amendments to his Income Tax in order to carry out two very important changes he considered they ought to have. He also moved an Amendment to the first Budget of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire, who, to a certain extent conceded the point raised. This was not a matter of Party, for he remembered the hon. Member for North Islington acting as his co-teller in an Amendment he had moved to the Budget of the late Government. They had got graduation to a certain extent. It was introduced by Sir Stafford Northcote, and now the late Government had still further modified it by increasing the sum from £150 to £160, so that a person in the receipt of £3 per week escaped the Income Tax altogether. The graduation limit had also been raised from £400 to £500. The principle of graduation was thus carried out to a certain extent. It was carried out fully in the matter of the Death Duties, and the right hon. Gentleman had got this splendid surplus. If it was carried out in interest like it was in capital in the Death Duties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find a large field in which to operate. There were something like 500,000 payers of Income Tax. Three-fourths were under £500, one-fourth were not heavily taxed, but the other three-fourths were, and he did not think there was any class in any country so heavily taxed as the lower middle classes in this country. He pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman in future Budgets to consider the desirability of making this burden fairer on all classes. It was too heavy now on

    1597
    the smaller middle class, and not heavy enough on the richer classes. He felt still more strongly on the question of differentiation. They taxed a man whose income was derived from unearned increment at the same rate as the man whose income depended upon his industry. But the two classes of income were entirely different. A professional man or trader who was making £300 a year was altogether different from a man who had £300 a year from investments. The £300 came to the one whether he was well or not; he did not require to save for any contingencies. But the man whose £300 a year was derived from his own industry had to put by a certain amount for provision against sickness and old age. On the same basis by which there was an allowance for insurance, there should be a certain sum taken off the tax on industrial incomes, because of the conditions under which they were earned, and the necessity for providing for contingencies. There should be a differentiation between in comes derived from investments and those derived from labour.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The discussion we have had to-night has been very general, but there are some points upon which, before the Resolution is taken, I should like to make a few observations. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is very anxious that there should be graduation and differentiation of the Income Tax. With regard to graduation I have only to say that, so long as it is impossible to find out how many different sources of income a man has, and what his total income is, it is not possible to attempt graduation. With regard to differentiation, that is a principle with which many of us will be disposed to sympathise; but, in spite of the authority of the hon. Member, I would observe that every Chancellor of the Exchequer, from the time of Mr. Pitt down to that of Mr. Gladstone and my predecessor, having examined this ques-
    1598
    tion, have found it a practical impossibility. Two very important Committees of this House, sitting in 1851 and 1862, having thoroughly examined it, reported strongly and, I think, conclusively against it on the grounds of impracticability. I would now wish to say a few words upon the remarks made by other hon. Members in the course of the Debate. An hon. Friend behind me put two cases of hardship with reference to the Death Duties, and suggested some alleviation in the manner in which the duty was levied on widows. I cannot absolutely say whether one of the cases would not be to some extent met by one of the Amendments which I named to the Committee the other day, but, if he will be good enough to place the facts of the cases before me, I will look into them and see if anything can be done. The hon. Member for Liverpool spoke of the grievance of his constituents in the matter of the tax upon marine insurance. I know that is an important question, and that the duty on marine insurance does stand on a different footing and is of very different amount to that upon either fire insurance or life insurance. I am afraid I cannot hold out any very definite hopes of being able to deal with it, and certainly I could not do so this year; but it may be my duty, for other reasons, to look into the whole question of stamps, and, if I do so, of course this will be one of the subjects which will occupy my attention. The hon. Member for West Islington spoke first of all on the subject of coffee, and rattier suggested that he was disappointed that I had not been able to abolish the duty on that article. I thought I had given a very conclusive reply, though he may not have thought it a very satisfactory reply, on that subject when he waited upon me with a deputation of those who were interested the trade. I can only repeat what I said then, that I see no ground, so far as the consumer is concerned, for the abolition of that duty. He then spoke

    1599
    on the subject of hackney carriage licences. That is a tax which, I think, goes entirely to local taxation, and I am not much inclined to deal with local taxation licences now. He also dwelt at considerable length on the difference between the position of Ireland and Great Britain with regard to taxation, and I think that, with the zeal of a gentleman who has written a book on the subject, he rather exaggerated the case which he put before the Committee. He went so far as to say, if I heard him rightly, that there were no balances to the credit of anybody in the Banks in Ireland.
    *MR. LOUGH: I did not mean to say that. [Laughter.] I meant to say the balances were not very large.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think the balances are pretty considerable, and I hope and believe they will be considerably increased. Of course, anybody who looks at the statistics, which are annually published, of the relative personal wealth of Ireland and of Great Britain that is subject to Income Tax or to Death Duties, will at once see, as we all know, that Ireland is a poorer county than England ["Hear, hear!"] Whether Ireland is unfairly taxed as compared with England is another, and a very difficult question. As the Committee are well aware, that is now occupying the attention of the Royal Commission on the financial relations between the two countries, and I can only promise that, when that Commission reports, my best attention will be given to the Report and to the evidence laid before the Commission. Until then I should respectfully decline, with all deference to the Committee, to enter into the subject at all. I do not think that any discussion of it would be fruitful of any result. The hon. Member went on to make some suggestion as to the kind of taxation I might propose if, another year, I find myself in the need of revenue. He pointed to the possibility of additional duties upon general
    1600
    stamps. That is a matter which, no doubt, deserves investigation, and possibly something may be found to arise from that investigation. He estimated that the total income of the class who are now below the Income Tax level was as large as that of the class who are above it, and he said that, calculating that everybody wanted £12 to live upon, you should take the whole income of all the people in the country, including those below as well as those above the Income Tax level, except £12 a year, as the taxable income of the country. I should very much like to see what would happen to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who proposed an Income Tax on the income of that part of the population who do not pay Income Tax on the basis that you may tax everybody's income except £12. ["Hear, hear."]
    *MR. LOUGH: You can do it apart from Income Tax, and you do it in Ireland.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think I have now dealt with the main points raised by hon. Members, and I would now venture to ask the Committee to come to a conclusion of this Debate. We have debated these Budget Resolutions now for two nights, and it is very desirable that this Resolution, and the final and general Resolution, on which, I think, there is never any Debate, should be passed this evening in order that we may take the Report to-morrow, and that I may able to introduce the Budget Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The Committee are aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hopes to be able to take the Second Reading of the Bill on Thursday next, when, of course, full opportunity for discussion will arise. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. R.G.WEBSTERsaid, that before they came to a decision, he desired, as a London Member, to say one or two words on this question which materially affected the metropolis. Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches

    1601
    had said that the Income Tax hit particularly the lower middle class. The London constituencies were mainly composed of the lower middle class, and in the Budget that class had been absolutely ignored. Very wisely, as he thought, relief was to be given to the agricultural class, but he regretted that no thought had been given to the lower middle class in London. To a great extent, he agreed with the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet (Mr. James Lowther), who addressed the Committee early in the evening. The right hon. Gentleman said that we rather failed in our modes of indirect taxation. At present indirect taxation was mainly assessed on articles that could not be produced in the United Kingdom or in any of the British possessions—viz., wine, spirits, tea, and tobacco. ["Oh!"] No doubt tea was produced in India and Ceylon, but the larger proportion of tea which was sold in the United Kingdom was brought from China and places other than our dependencies. The fact he wished to lay stress upon was that it was essential in considering the fiscal system of the United Kingdom that they should consider it as a whole. The Budget simply continued an 8d. in the pound Income Tax on the middle class in London and elsewhere, and gave, to some extent, an advantage to the landlords. [Opposition cheers.] He failed to see what else the Budget did.
    MR. J. W. LOGANsaid, he had no intention to trespass at any length upon the attention of the Committee, but he felt very deeply that this Budget was a most unjust Budget, and he would, in the House and in the country, take every opportunity he could to protest against it. No case had been made out for giving the whole of the surplus to one class, and that one of the richest classes in the country. It was said that during the last 20 years the farmers had lost a large amount of capital. If it was the fact that the farmers had lost a large amount of capital during the last 20 years, it was also the fact that during that period the landowners had received in rent no less than £100,000,000, There was no justification for taxing the working classes to subsidise the landlords. Further, he objected to this
    1602
    Measure because the result would be, if this 1½ million a year were made a permanent charge for the benefit of the landlords, to increase the selling value of the property by no less than 30 millions sterling. As to the argument of the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, the labourer clearly understood his position. He knew that under Free Trade he was better off with a wage of 14s. a week, and with wheat at an average price of 28s. a quarter, than under Protection with a wage of 8s. a week and wheat at 72s. a quarter. The Budget this year was a sufficient assurance of the wisdom of a Free-Trade policy for this country. In 1842, just before the Corn Laws were repealed, the London Common Council passed the following Resolution:—
    "The continuous and increasing depression of the manufacturing, commercial and industrial interests of this country, and the wide-spread distress of the working classes, are most alarming. Manufacturers without a market, shipping without freight, capital without investment, trade without profits, and farmers struggling under a system of high rents, with prices falling as the means of consumption by the people fail, a working population rapidly increasing, and a daily decreasing demand for its labour, union houses overflowing as workshops are deserted; Corn Laws to restrain importation, and induce the starving people to regard the laws of the country with a deep sense of in justice."
    If a duty were put on corn and manufactured articles, where would the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet wish to stop? For every pound worth of corn and meal imported, there were two pounds' worth of other agricultural produce imported, all of which could be grown in this country. The right hon. Gentleman argued, if you tax tea, why not corn? The answer was obvious. The tax on tea fell upon all classes alike; but a tax on foreign corn would increase the value of the corn grown at home. He should have liked to have seen this money used for the benefit of the indirect taxpayer. He considered this system of State Aid for the relief of rates as pernicious, and as calculated to lead to extravagance. The indirect taxation fell more heavily on the poorer than on the richer classes—that was to say, the poor man pays a much greater portion of the indirect taxation, and in support of his statement he quoted from an article written by the hon. Member for

    1603
    Aberdeen (Dr. Hunter), whose state of health did not admit of his being here to protest, as he was sure he would have done, against this iniquitous Budget. In conclusion, he gave the Government credit for honestly believing that the Measure they had brought in was a just Measure, but at the same time, in the interests of the poor men whom he represented, he was compelled to protest against it. He said this Budget was not conceived with a notion of filling the hungry with good things and sending the rich empty away—["Oh!"]—it was conceived rather with a desire to give to those who have, so that they may have more abundantly, and taking away from him who hath not even that which he hath. [Laughter and cheers.]
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERappealed to the Committee to allow the Resolutions to be taken now, so that he might bring in the Bill. No Amendment had been moved on the Resolution, nor could an Amendment be moved on the two Resolutions now remaining. The time for expressing opinions like those of the last speaker would be on the Second Reading of the Bill.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid it had been stated, with reference to the increase in the Navy, that the Estimates would not be so large next year. Did this mean that in the dockyards and Government factories a large number of hands would be discharged?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, it does not. [Cheers.]
    Resolution agreed to.

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    3. Resolved,—
    "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    TELEGRAPHS [ADVANCES].
    Considered in Committee:—
    Motion made and Question again proposed,
    "That it is expedient to authorise the issue, out of the Consolidated Fund, of a sum not
    1604
    exceeding £300,000, for the purposes of the Telegraph Acts, and to authorise the Treasury to borrow such sum by means of terminable annuities, payable out of moneys to be provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, and, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund:"—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    SIR JOHN BRUNNERasked whether the Post Office authorities had made up their minds that the telephone trunk lines now put down were to be closed at the same hour as the local post-offices. The Telephone Company now kept the trunk lines open, to the great convenience of the public, and it would be a matter of regret, as well as of inconvenience, if, when a public Department took those lines in hand, the convenience to the public should thereby be reduced.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked for an explanation of the policy of the Government with regard to the telephone service?
    MR. HANBURYsaid that he had already explained the object of this Resolution on more than one occasion. A million of money had been provided by Bill for the purchase of the Trunk lines and for starting new Trunk lines. That million was not sufficient for the purpose, and therefore this additional sum was required. In reply to the hon. Member for the Northwich Division the right hon. Gentleman said that he would see to the matter to which the hon. Member had directed attention.
    DR. TANNERcontended that a financial Resolution of this importance ought not to be hurried through the House in the few minutes that remained before midnight.
    SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hanbury) had not explained adequately the action of the Government with respect to the Trunk lines. The Post Office had taken those lines over——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Any general discussion such as the hon. Member wishes to raise would be out of order. This Resolution simply allows a Bill to brought in, and when the Bill is

    1605
    brought in, that will be the proper time to discuss the question.
    Resolution agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    BOYNE NAVIGATION BILL.
    MR. HANBURY MR. HANBURY moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
    MR. LOUGHasked for an explanation of the Bill.
    MR. DILLONsaid, it was universally desired by the Irish people that this Bill should pass.
    Read a Second time, and committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented Three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.— (Mr. Hanbury.)

    NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. LEWISsaid, it would be convenient if the House could know when the Bill would be taken.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have no objection to putting the Bill off for a fortnight.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 7th May.

  EDUCATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  CABS (LONDON) BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. LOUGHasked when this Bill would be distributed. There was a great desire amongst the cabmen to see the Bill?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,): I hope the Bill will be distributed To-morrow or Saturday.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) [EXPENSES]
  Motion made, and Question proposed:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the acquisition of a Site for Public Offices in Westminster, and for purposes connected therewith."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  SALE OF FOREIGN GOODS (PREVENTION OF FRAUD) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 7th May.
  MILITIA BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday 11th May.

  TROUT PISHING (CLOSE TIME) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  Clause 1:—
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  MINING EASEMENTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 12th May.

  DISPENSARY COMMITTEES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On the Order for Second Reading,
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,)said, this was a Bill of only one clause. He thought it was a very reasonable Measure, and it had the approval of the Government.
  Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT AND IN- CORPORATED BUILDING SOCIETIES (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 1st May.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  FISHERIES ACTS (NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EVICTED TENANTS (IRELAND) REINSTATEMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 12th May.
  WORKING MEN'S DWELLINGS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [4th March] further adjourned till To-morrow.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  COUNTY SURVEYORS AND ASSISTANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday 6th May read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  Adjourned at Ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons, that they have directed the Select Committee appointed by them to join with the Committee appointed by this House on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills to meet the Committee appointed by this House in Committee Room A., on Wednesday the 29th instant, at Twelve o'clock, as proposed by this House.
Moved that the Duke of Norfolk be added to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills for the consideration of the Post Office Consolidation Bill [H. L.] (The Lord Chancellor), agreed to; and a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to add one of their Members to the said Joint Committee for the consideration of the said Bill.

STANNARIES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for abolishing the Court of the Vice-Warden of the Stannaries—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed.—(No. 57.)
WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Wild Birds Protection Acts—Was presented by the Earl of Jersey; read la; and to be printed.—(No. 58.)
PUBLIC HEALTH (SEWERS AND DRAINS) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Public Health Acts with respect to sewers and drains —Was presented by the Lord Ampthill (for the Earl Beauchamp); read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(No. 59.)
DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LANDS (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER HILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order.)

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS BILL [H.L.]
*LORD HARRIS, in moving that this Bill be read a Second time, said, it might have been as well if he had explained, on its introduction, that it was brought in by the Local Government Board, and was a legacy from the late Government. The use of locomotives going at a very fair pace had become common in some countries on the Continent and in America, and it was natural that the subject should have engaged the attention of those who wished to use them and to make them in this country; but they found themselves obstructed by impediments which did not exist elsewhere. Jealous of the public safety, Parliament had passed stringent laws as regarded the use of locomotives, and, while it had been liberal as regarded weight and width, it had been very careful as to the pace at which it might go, The law provided that there were to be a certain number of persons in attendance, and that one was to precede the locomotive at a certain distance with a warning signal; there were also provisions as to the lights to be carried and as to the steam being under proper control. The most serious obstacle, however, arose from the definition of a locomotive as "a locomotive" propelled by steam or other mechanical power, and the Courts had held that the definition was applicable to any vehicle that was not propelled by a man's legs or drawn by a horse's. The Courts had held it to be illegal to ride on a tricycle moved mechanically unless the regulations were observed and there were three men in attendance, one walking 40 yards in advance with a flag in his hand. It was obviously impossible for light locomotives to be manufactured and used

1491
under these conditions of the law. Pressure had been brought to bear upon the late Government and the present one, and, therefore, he, as the mouthpiece of the Local Government Board, had introduced this Bill. There were enthusiasts who believed that as soon as the law was altered, our whole system of conveyance of persons and goods was to be changed; that carriage folk were going to do away with their horses; that the farmer was going to take his produce to the nearest market town on a wagon with a motor of some sort in it; and that in London people were going to ride about on omnibuses with rubber tyres electrically propelled over asphalte. He did not imagine that these improvements would come as rapidly as enthusiasts suggested; but he must admit it would be possible, provided the law admitted of it, within a short time to see electrically-propelled carriages running about the streets of London, at about the same pace as public carriages went now, as comfortable as they were now, and charging about the same fares as at present. He was informed that at this moment there were persons who were prepared to put upon the streets of London, if the law would allow them, electrically-propelled omnibuses which they maintained would be as convenient in every respect as the present popular means of locomotion. The method adopted in the Bill was, first of all, to exclude light locomotives from most of the provisions of the present Acts applying to locomotives, and then to put down a certain number of restrictions which should apply especially to light locomotives. The method was sweeping in some respects, but, on the other hand, it was very careful in others. There was to be a limit of weight to two tons. It was legislating somewhat in the dark, because we had no experience in this country of what would be the best maximum; but, as far as could be ascertained, the limit would cover the majority of the vehicles that were being used on the Continent. On the other hand, the maximum of two tons would, he was informed, entirely exclude electrically-driven omnibuses; but Mr. Chaplin was quite willing to consider any evidence as to what the maximum weight ought to be. Inquiries had been made of various companies using heavy carts,
1492
vans, and wagons for goods traffic. As far as he could make out, the heaviest wagon in ordinary use in the streets of London would weigh 2¼ tons. Our omnibuses weighed 1¾ tons. An instance had been given him of a wagon or cart used for the conveyance of large pieces of metal, not, however, through the streets of London, which weighed seven tons, drawn by horses. The weights he had given of wagons related to the wagons only with absolutely nothing upon them, without the weight of the motor in their ease, that is the horses; and it was a matter for consideration during the discussion of the Bill whether, in imposing a maximum as regarded locomotives which would include the weight of the motor, it would not be fair to take into consideration, as a matter of comparison, the weight of the motor in the case of omnibuses and carts. To a pair-horse omnibus weighing 1¾ ton it would be fair to add 1½ ton for a pair of heavy horses. Another special provision as regarded light locomotives was that they were not to draw any other vehicle. That, it seemed to him, was a wise provision, for it would be observed that there was no limit as regarded pace, further, of course, than the particular provision put into the Bill and the general provision which applied to the driving of carriages. They were to be driven so as not to cause any injury to any person or thing; as the heavy locomotives were limited to four miles an hour, it was obvious that a drastic change had been introduced in favour of light locomotives. It was a wise provision that these locomotives should not draw anything after them, for if there was any danger to be apprehended from a locomotive being allowed to proceed at a rapid pace that danger was far more than doubled if allowed to draw anything after it; in turning corners— for instance, the swaying of the hinder vehicle, if going at a great pace, would cause serious risk of danger to other vehicles passing at the corner. It had been contemplated that the removal of present restrictions on locomotives would result in farmers and other movers of agricultural produce being able to depend on these light locomotives for the carriage of their goods to market, and they would become practically

1493
independent of the light railways, or feeder railways, so much talked of in these days. This was undoubtedly a matter for the consideration of their Lordships. These light locomotives were to be so constructed that no smoke or visible vapour was emitted there from. That was a change from the present law as to the heavier class of locomotive, which provided that they should consume their own smoke. But, as a matter of fact, they did not consume all the vapour emitted from them. This Bill provided that all kinds of vapour coming from the locomotives were to be invisible. A gentleman using these locomotives on the Continent informed him that in certain states of the temperature it was impossible to prevent a certain amount of vapour coming from the locomotive being visible, and he feared that if there was as much as a puff from a cigarette he would be fined. That was a rather exaggerated view, and if it was shown upon undoubted evidence that it was impossible to manufacture one of the machines so as to keep the vapour emitted invisible he was sure the President of the Local Government Board would take that point into consideration and introduce amending words which would remove this disability. Special provision had been made for the keeping and use of petroleum, so that, if the law was not sufficient at the present time to secure the safety of the public as regarded this explosive, regulations might be made by the Secretary of State. In the third clause it had been prominently brought to notice that if any person negligently drove a light locomotive, it rendered him liable to a penalty; and in the fourth clause the Local Government Board reserved to itself the right to make regulations as to light locomotives on highways. As regarded heavy locomotives, it had been complained to the Local Government Board that different regulations existed in counties bordering on one another, and there should be one set of regulations for the whole country. The President of the Local Government Board had introduced a provision to meet this. The method of the Bill was to exclude those provisions of the law which applied to the present class of locomotives, and to impose certain other provisions which should cover these light locomotives;
1494
and it was stated in a proviso in the first clause that "nothing in the section shall affect any power for the general regulation of traffic on highways," and the opinion of the legal advisers of the Board was that, if one of these light locomotives was held to be a carriage, then there were a considerable number of legal regulations and Acts which the owner or driver of a light locomotive would have to comply with if he wished to conform to the law. He did not think he need detain their Lordships any longer on this Bill. He hoped they would give a Second Reading to it. There was not the slightest doubt there was an earnest desire in the country that a Bill of the kind should be passed; and, although the Local Government Board admitted that they had had, perforce, to draft this Bill in the dark as to what were the best provisions to put into it, owing to the fact that they had no experience of these light locomotives in this country, they believed the Bill was well conceived to meet the objections that had been raised to the law as it at present stood and to give an opportunity to manufacturers of experimenting in these machines and improving, perhaps, on those already made in foreign countries, and also giving an opportunity to those who could afford these light locomotives (though they were expensive) to encourage manufacturers, and by degrees produce that experience which at present the Local Government Board lacked. He should be prepared to consider any Amendments their Lordships might suggest, and he would bring them under the notice of the President of the Local Government Board, who would give every attention to them. ["Hear, hear!"]
*LORD CLIFDENsaid, he had no intention of opposing the Bill. Thirty or 40 years ago he saw a good many experiments made in light road engines; in fact, he was once driven down to another place in a light traction engine. But they had ignominiously to retreat because Sir Charles Barry did not make the road wide enough. He was glad the noble Lord had brought this Bill forward. But he was sorry to say that what he laid great stress on was what, to himself, was the great flaw in the Bill—that no carriage or wagon should follow these light machines. On that point the noble

1495
Lord gave the House a reason which he himself did not think sufficient—that they might militate against light railways. He did not believe in light railways, for the simple reason of cost. Of course, they must lay their permanent way for light railways as much as for heavy ones, although not at the same expense. The cost of construction, it was said, would be £3,000 a mile. That, to his mind, would stop the whole thing, and it would be a pity to make a railway which would be nothing but a failure. He did not know if he was over-sanguine, but he thought these light locomotives might be of the very greatest benefit to the farmers. ["Hear, hear!"] They had accommodation lanes from the farms to the main roads, and he did not see why the farmer or his wife or servants should not go down to this lane end to meet the light locomotive drawing that which would take his light produce to the market or nearest railway station. If the Bill facilitated the transit of farm produce from the farm to the market town or railway station it would fill a great void and meet a great want. ["Hear, hear!"]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)desired to ask a question about the Bill. Though turnpikes were abolished, there were still certain bridges and roads where tolls were yet leviable. The only Act by which road locomotives were subjected to toll was that of 1861, Clause 1. But light locomotives were entirely exempted from the operation of that Act, and as all these tolls were measured by the number of horses which were attached to each vehicle they drew, they would be freed from tolls. That was obviously not the intention of the promoters of the Bill, and he had merely called attention to the matter so that his noble Friend could correct the omission if it was required, as he believed it was.
LORD HARRISwould, of course, give consideration to the question of traction raised by the noble Viscount, and would also bring the matter of tolls and bridges to the attention of the Local Government Board. He begged to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.] LORD KENSINGTON moved:—
"That the Lord Reay be discharged from serving on the Select Committee, and that the Earl of Buckinghamshire be added to the Committee in his place."
Question put and agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No 2) BILL.
Read la, and to be read 2a To-morrow. —(The Marquess of Salisbury).

METROPOLITAN COUNTIES WATER BOARD BILL.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHasked the Prime Minister if he could state when the Government proposed to take the Second Reading of the Metropolitan Counties Water Board Bill, a Measure in which the London County Council took a considerable amount of interest?
THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY)understood his noble Friend was prepared to bring it forward on that day week, and if the date was convenient to the House no doubt he would do so.
House adjourned at Five minutes past Five o'clock till To-morrow, a Quarter past Ten o'clock.