Sitting of 7 July 1896

CIVIL LIST PENSIONS.
Paper [presented 6th July] to be printed.—[No. 278.]
NATIONAL DEBT ACT, 1883 (TERMINABLE ANNUITIES).
Paper [presented 6th July] to be printed.—[No. 279.]
MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND.
Account [presented 6th July] to be printed.—[No. 280.]

CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL AND BOARDS OF CONCILIATION (No. 2) BILL.
Leave given to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc., to make a Special Report.
Special Report brought up, and read.
Boards of Conciliation (No. 2) Bill reported, without Amendment.
Conciliation (Trade Disputes) Bill reported; as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 307.]
Special Report and other Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 281.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.—[No. 281.]

LONDON WATER COMPANIES BILLS.
Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 282.]

QUESTIONS.

  GOLD COINAGE.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he would state to the House what is the amount of the light gold coinage still estimated to be outstanding; what is the amount of gold coinage which is estimated now to fall light annually by ordinary wastage; what is at present the annual rate of light gold sent into the Mint for re-coinage; and, whether it is practicable to take any measures in order to accelerate the sending in of light gold by the bankers, so as to clear off the arrears, as well as to repair the annual waste?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH): The amount of light gold coin outstanding on June 30 last was
  922
  estimated at:—Sovereigns, £4,700,000 half-sovereigns, £2,900,000; total. £7,600,000. The amount falling light during the current calendar year by ordinary wear is estimated to be:—Sovereigns, £950,000: half-sovereigns, £750,000; total, £1,700,000. The withdrawals during the current calendar year are estimated at:-Sovereigns £1,360,886; half-sovereigns, £825,170; total, £2,186,056. I had an opportunity a few weeks ago of addressing a large meeting of bankers connected with all parts of the United Kingdom, and I impressed on them strongly the desirability of aiding the Government by sending in the light gold, especially from Scotland and Ireland, where a considerable amount must still be in circulation. I believe the bankers are quite prepared to render assistance in this matter, and I think it probable that I may also take steps for the issue of a circular on the subject.

  AGED POOR COMMISSION (OUT-DOOR RELIEF.)
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been directed to Paragraph 93, and Paragraph 7 in the Summary, of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, which recommended the Local Government Board to call the attention of boards of guardians to the evils of inadequate relief; and, whether he has urged, or will urge, boards of guardians to give adequate relief to all cases in which outdoor relief is considered desirable?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): Prior to the notice of the Question I had directed that a statement should be prepared as to the duties of relieving officers for the information of those officers and the boards of guardians, and I propose in a circular letter accompanying that statement to remind the guardians of the views of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor as to the importance of the outdoor relief granted being adequate to meet fully the extent of the destitution and other matters connected with the administration of relief. These circulars, I expect, will be issued in the course of the present week.

  MANNING COMMITTEE (EVIDENCE).
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when the evidence taken before the Manning Committee will be in the hands of Members; and, if it would be possible to bring up to date, as a Return, the figures contained in Appendix No. 3 to the Report?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): I have ascertained that the Report of the Manning Committee will probably be circulated on Saturday next, and the evidence and appendices in about three weeks time. The figures given in Appendix A, No. 3, are taken from some Tables which were compiled by the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen and printed for the use of the Department in 1893. I have already decided to have a similar return prepared for the present year, but as the figures have to be extracted from the log and list of each vessel, a considerable period must of necessity elapse before the return can be completed.

  ARMY RESERVE BILL.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he will be able to announce, before the Second Reading of the Army Reserve Bill [Lords], whether Her Majesty's Government has resolved to carry out the recommendation of many Committees and Royal Commissions by equalising the number of battalions at home and abroad, or, if that cannot be done, by establishing in each case where both linked battalions are abroad a depot battalion, 600 strong, to feed them from; and, whether he could shortly explain what means the War Office propose to take to prevent the increased liabilities to service abroad from acting prejudicially on the recruiting of the Army, by checking the engagement by civil employers of soldiers of the reserve during their first year of reserve service?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): My hon. and gallant Friend is, I think, aware that the question of equalising the number of
  924
  battalions at home and abroad does not in any way depend on the decision of the House respecting the Army Reserve Bill. The War Department is fully alive to the desirability of taking steps to meet the present disproportion. I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is not being lost sight of, but I am not yet able to make any announcement on the subject. It is one which involves large considerations of Imperial and financial policy. The occasions upon which Army Reservists might be recalled to the colours under circumstances such as those contemplated by the Bill have been of very rare occurrence. No such occasion, indeed, arose between 1885 and 1895. The military authorities anticipate no difficulty in respect of recruiting from the adoption of the measure.

  DISEASED MEAT (CITY OF LONDON).
  MR. T. J. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he has seen reported a statement made by the Medical Officer of Health for the City of London, to the effect that the seizures of diseased meat in the markets and slaughter-houses of the City during the month of May last were the largest ever known; whether, in the Return of such alleged seizures, meat voluntarily surrendered by the owners before being offered for sale was included; and, if such is the case, will he make it an instruction to the Medical Officer of Health that in future Returns the quantities actually seized and those surrendered will be separately shown?
  MR. CHAPLIN: I am informed that the largest seizure of unsound meat in the City of London in any one month was during the four weeks ended 27th June last. The greater portion of this meat was putrid, and not necessarily diseased. I am told that there is no such thing known as meat being voluntarily surrendered by the owners before being offered for sale, but that the salesmen to whom the meat is consigned frequently call the attention of the Inspectors to meat after the same becomes unfit for food.

  EDUCATION (DEAF AND DUMB CHILDREN.)
  MR. JOHN DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been directed to the statement made on Friday last by the Archbishop of Dublin with reference to the neglect of the Government to make proper provision for the education of the deaf and dumb and other afflicted children; and whether the Government will undertake to introduce legislation on the subject at an early date?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): My attention has been directed to the recent observations of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin on the subject of providing State aid towards the education of the deaf, dumb, and other afflicted children in Ireland. I have already stated that this matter was one that has my sympathetic consideration, and that I hope to be able at some time to introduce legislation dealing with it.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any more definite answer than that?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I should have thought it must have been obvious to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite impossible to introduce legislation on the subject during the present Session.
  MR. DILLON: Well, next Session?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot say what it may be possible for the Government to do during the coming Session.

  GIANTS' CAUSEWAY.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, (1) if he has seen a Resolution passed in Dublin, on Friday last, by the Council of the Irish Tourists' Association, condemnatory of the attempt now being made to exclude the public from the right of way to the Giants' Causeway; (2) whether the Causeway comes within the law for the protection of ancient monuments; and (3) whether, in the event of this being so, he will advise the Crown to step in and stop the preparations now in progress by a syndicate of speculators to interfere with the right of access to this great natural wonder?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): My attention has been called to the Resolution mentioned in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question. There has been much speculation as to the Giants' Causeway and to what it owes its present formation; but I am not aware that it has ever been suggested that it is the work of man, and it cannot, therefore, be an ancient monument within the statute. [Laughter.] As regards the last paragraph, the Executive have no power whatever to take the course suggested.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Attorney General if he was aware that it was claimed to have protection of the law for buildings to be erected at the Causeway; and, if it was public property, would he see that no grabbers were allowed to take it from the public?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Yes, Sir; but, unfortunately, it is not public property.
  MR. VESEY KNOXasked, as to that part which was below high-water mark, if it was not public property and could not, therefore, be protected from the syndicate?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: All below high-water mark is, of course, the property of the Crown; but that does not entitle the Executive to prevent access over the dry land.

  UGANDA RAILWAY.
  MR. R. W. PERKS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there is any agreement between the promoters of the Mombaza and Uganda Railway and the Crown Agents for the Colonies, under which the Crown Agents undertake to purchase materials, stores, and rolling stock for the railway; if so, whether he will cause a copy of any such agreement to be presented to Parliament?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There are no promoters of the railway in question. The superintendence of the work is intrusted to a Committee, whose names were given in a Paper on the Uganda Railway Bill recently presented to Parliament. Sir Montagu Ommanney, one of the Crown Agents for the Colonies, is a member of

  927
  the Committee, and the necessary purchases are being made through his office; but there is no formal agreement.
  MR. PERKS: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any agreement?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; Sir Montagu Ommanney acts under the authority of the Committee.
  MR. PERKS: Are the Crown Agents acting gratuitously?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir Montagu Ommanney is.

  WREATHS ON GRAVES (DIOCESE OF WORCESTER).
  MR. PERKS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that the Bishop of Worcester states he has made no order prohibiting the placing of wreaths, whether of artificial or natural flowers, upon graves in parochial churchyards in his diocese; whether he is aware that at the same time that the Reverend Robert Rice ordered Mrs. Lynes to remove the wreath from her husband's grave, he also instructed the sexton at Priors Marston to remove the wreath from the grave of another Wesley an Methodist, Mr. Ellison, leaving the wreaths upon four graves belonging to members of the Established Church who had been buried by Mr. Rice; and, whether he will obtain further information on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,): I endeavoured to satisfy the inquiries of the hon. Member when he put a Question to me on this subject on a previous occasion, by asking the vicar for his explanation of the facts alleged, and communicating the substance of his reply to the House. As I have no authority whatever to interfere in these matters, or any power to institute an Inquiry, I am afraid I must say that I cannot undertake to obtain further information on the subject.

  2ND ROYAL BERKSHIRE REGIMENT.
  MR. EDWARD MORTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary
  928
  of State for War, whether he is aware that Mr. Sayers, until recently a sergeant in the 2nd Royal Berkshire Regiment now stationed at Devonport, was, on the 1st of June last, in charge of the guard, and arranged with a corporal to exchange with him their hours of duty, and handed over the guard to him, in order to see a solicitor with regard to affording legal assistance to sergeants about to be tried by court-martial; whether he is aware that Sayers was tried by court-martial for this, convicted, and degraded to the ranks; whether he is aware that such an exchange of hours of duty is frequently effected without any objection on the part of the officers in command; and, whether he will take steps to reinstate Mr. Sayers in his rank?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The circumstances have not yet been reported to the War Office; but assuming the facts to be as stated in the Question, the sergeant was properly brought to trial. It is perfectly well known to every sergeant in the Army that no man detailed for a duty can exchange it with another man without permission. It does not seem to Lord Lansdowne that he is called upon in a case of this kind to interfere with regimental discipline.

  WRECK OF STEAMSHIP "DRUMMOND CASTLE."
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of the Drummond Castle Inquiry, the relatives or representatives of deceased passengers will be allowed to present persons, papers and documents connected with the circumstances of the command, and with other causes leading to the disaster; whether a full report of each day's evidence and proceedings will be taken and printed, so as to be available at the commencement of each succeeding day's sitting of the court; and, if this be not undertaken by the Board of Trade, whether the relatives or representatives of deceased passengers will be allowed to make provision for such a report for their assistance in the Inquiry?
  MR. RITCHIE: The relatives or representatives of deceased passengers will be allowed to take part in the Drummond Castle Inquiry, to call witnesses, and to produce evidence, either

  929
  documentary or otherwise, connected with the circumstances of the command and other causes leading to the disaster. A full report of each day's evidence will be taken by a shorthand writer, but it is not proposed to print the evidence. The relatives or representatives of deceased passengers will be allowed to make provision for such a report.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Drummond Castle Inquiry, whether, in addition to the logs of ships which the owners have been requested to produce, he will also request owners to produce the engineer's logs of all such vessels; and, whether, in particular, he will request that the log of the engineer of the Doune Castle, for the time between 1st December 1890, and 1st March 1891, shall be produced at the Inquiry?
  MR. RITCHIE: The owners have been requested to produce at the Inquiry the engineer's logs for all voyages of vessels in which the late master and chief officer of the Drummond Castle have served since 1891, together with the engineer's log of the Doune Castle between the 1st December 1890, and the 1st March 1891.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British South Africa Company has revoked the power of attorney with plenary powers given to Mr. Cecil Rhodes by the Company to manage its affairs in South Africa, and for that purpose to do all such acts as he may in his absolute discretion deem expedient; and, if not, whether he will communicate with the Company on the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I understand that the directors of the British South Africa Company have the subject under consideration, and I expect to hear from them shortly about it.

  CRETE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
  930
  whether the demands made by the Powers to the Porte for the pacification of Crete included the withdrawal of the Turkish troops recently imported into the island; and, whether he has any further information to give the House as to the attitude of the Cretan Revolutionary Committee towards the proposals of the Powers, and as to the position of affairs in the island?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The withdrawal of Turkish troops was not one of the four points demanded by the Powers. In consequence, however, of the representations made by the latter at Constantinople, orders have been sent to the military authorities in Crete to suspend all military operations unless attacked. Her Majesty's Consul at Canea has reported that the action taken by his colleagues and himself has had a favourable effect. At a meeting held on the 3rd instant, the insurgents authorised the deputies to attend the Assembly; and it is believed that a general opinion was expressed that attention should be paid to the wishes of the Powers.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL (RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS).
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to give the names of the Railway Commissioners appointed under the Light Railways Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Commissioners will be:—

  Lord Jersey, Chairman.

  Mr. Gerald FitzGerald, Barrister-at-Law.

  Colonel G. F. O. Boughey, C.S.L.R.E.

  ROYAL CANAL HARBOUR, LONGFORD.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangement, if any, has been come to for the protection of life from the dangerous condition of the Royal Canal Harbour at Longford?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Board of Trade have urged the railway company to provide a fence round the harbour, but as

  931
  at present advised they decline to do so. I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the correspondence with the railway company. The Board of Trade have, however, no power to compel them to fence the harbour.

  COCOA BUTTER.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state what was the quantity of cocoa butter imported into the United Kingdom during each of the last three years?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As cocoa butter is not chargeable with duty on importation into the United Kingdom, it is not required to be described in import entries under any other denomination than that of "oil unenumerated." Consequently the extent of the importation of this particular article is not officially known.

  SALE OF INTOXICANTS (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT).
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(1) whether the sale of intoxicating liquor in the Law Courts is carried on under a licence, while such sale in the Court of Parliament is carried on without any licence having been paid for or granted; and (2), if so, whether he can give any reason for the different procedure in the two cases?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is Yes. As to the second, I know of no reason unless Parliament is considered as a club.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give orders to the authorities of the Inland Revenue to see that liquor is not sold without a licence?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should prefer to have some authority from the House first. [Laughter.]
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is not this Palace of Westminster a Royal palace, and is it not one of the privileges of Royal palaces to supply liquor without a licence. [Laughter.]
  [No answer was given.]

  ARMY PENSIONS (COLONEL MITCHELL).
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the case of Colonel Edward Mitchell (Mitchell v. Regina, Petition of Right, 1890) was tried and decided on its merits, moral or equitable, or stopped on demurrer to the right of contractual claim on the part of Military Officers as against the Crown; and whether the case of Regina v. the Secretary of State for War (Mandamus) on the prosecution of Colonel Edward Mitchell, 1891, was tried and decided on its merits, moral or equitable, or on the ground of want of jurisdiction?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): The Question of the hon. Member is framed under a misapprehension of the facts. On the hearing of the Petition of Right, Mr. Justice Mathew decided, in accordance with previous decisions, that the Royal Warrant as to the amount of pension due to officers of the Army was conclusive and could not be questioned in any Court. The subsequent case of "The Queen against the Secretary of State for War" was an attempt to raise again the same point, and it was naturally decided that the Court could not go into the question.

  GOVERNMENT BILLS.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the Committee stage of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill will be resumed; and, when the Irish Light Railways Bill will be introduced?
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state on what day the Committee on the Irish Land Bill will be resumed?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. Balfour,): In answer to the hon. Gentleman, and also in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for East Mayo, as well as to a Question put to me yesterday by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, I have to say that, so far as I can foresee the course of public business, we shall take the Finance Bill until the Committee stage is finished. I have every reason to believe that that will be finished on

  933
  Thursday. If that is so, I shall take the Second Reading of the Scotch Rating Bill on Monday. I have made such inquiries as I could with regard to the general wishes of the Gentlemen interested in the Irish Land Bill, and I believe the best plan would be to take that on Monday week, the 20th, for the whole of the week, and, of course, in that week I will make Friday a day for Irish Supply. With regard to the Light Railways Bill, that could be introduced under the Standing Order at the beginning of business on any day that would suit hon. Gentlemen. They might, perhaps, prefer to wait until after the Irish Land Bill. I shall be glad to consult their convenience on the subject.
  MR. DILLONsaid that with reference to the Irish Land Bill, no inquiry had reached him in reference to the date at which it should be taken. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whom he consulted about fixing the date of the Land Bill. He should also like to ask the Chief Secretary whether he proposed to put down any other Government Amendments to the Land Bill in addition to those already on the Paper. If so, would the right hon. Gentleman put them down soon, so that hon. Members might have an opportunity of considering them?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYstated that he said originally that the Bill would be brought on about the middle of the month. It could possibly be brought on on Thursday; but it could only be taken that night in the week, because Friday was devoted to Supply. He had been informed that three nights would be sufficient for the Committee stage, but he proposed to devote four—Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.
  MR. DILLONasked that the Committee stage of the Bill might be commenced on Thursday next week, the Irish Votes in Supply be taken the following day, and the rest of the Committee stage of the Bill the following week.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he would consider the matter, and let hon. Members know on the adjournment of the House.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR, referring to Mr. Dillon's Question as to the Government Amendments to the Bill,
  934
  said there were a few Government Amendments, and he would endeavosur to have them put down in full time to allow of their being considered by hon. Members from Ireland.
  MR. KNOXasked if the Leader of the House was aware that there was a general feeling amongst Irish Members that the sooner the Light Railways Bill was disposed of the better?
  MR. W. REDMONDasked whether, if the Committee stage of the Irish Land Bill was commenced on Thursday week, the Light Railways Bill would be put down for the same day?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that he thought it could be taken sooner.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the proximity of the date fixed for the prorogation, and to the congested state of Government business, he can state, for the convenience of Members, what Bills the Government intend to press forward with a view to passing into law; and whether he will discharge the rest from the Order Paper?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that it was premature to make a statement on the subject at present; but at no distant date he would have to ask the House to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule for the rest of the Session, and he might then be able to give further information.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEasked whether the Education Estimates would be taken on Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes.

  BENEFICES BILL.
  COLONEL MILWARD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the fact that upon the Report stage of the Benefices Bill 99 Amendments were placed upon the Notice Paper, and 49 speeches were made by Members of the Grand Committee who had had previous opportunities of considering the Bill in Committee; and also to the fact that 52 Amendments upon the Report stage of the Agricultural Rating Bill were identical with Amendments in Committee

  935
  upon the Bill; and whether, under these circumstances he will consider the desirability of an alteration in the procedure of the House?
  THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURYsaid he was aware that a certain amount of abuse had crept in in using the facilities for Debate afforded on the Report stage of Bills in the House, and the figures the hon. Member had given as to the Amendments to the Benefices Bill and the Agricultural Rating Bill at the Report stage amply proved that such abuse had taken place. But he was not prepared at that moment to suggest a remedy.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee,
  [Progress, 11th May.]
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, Chairman of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  Clause 1,—

  FINANCE BILL.

    CUSTOMS DUTY ON TEA.
    (1.) The duty of Customs now payable on tea shall continue to he charged, levied, and paid, on and after the first day of August one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six until the first day of August One thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven on the importation thereof into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say)—Tea, the pound, 4d.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS, on behalf of Mr. LLOYDGEOKGE, asked that the latter might withdraw an Amendment standing in his name, excepting from the payment of Customs duty "tea grown in any of Her Majesty's dominions."
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he did not know with what object the Amendment was proposed. He accepted it as a serious proposal submitted to the judgment of the House of Commons, and in this spirit he should briefly treat it. The principle involved in the Amendment was one of enormous importance. It involved the differential treatment of goods imported into this
    936
    country from within the limits of the Empire. That was a subject which deserved rather more than the somewhat casual consideration which appeared to have been bestowed upon it. He himself had on the Paper an Amendment which raised in another form the same principle as that involved. It would be in order to raise the question of principle upon every dutiable article mentioned in the Bill, but it would be more convenient to discuss the question as it affected them all upon the present Amendment.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANSsaid he had no power to allow a general discussion upon this or any Amendment. The discussion on this Amendment must be confined to tea.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he was afraid that adherence to that rule would involve the Committee in some inconvenience; but, for the present, he would confine his remarks to the article of tea mentioned in the clause and the Amendment. The subject deserved careful attention now. There was a time when it might have been said that the question of giving a preferential advantage to British-grown tea was a question outside the range of practical politics, but that could not be said now after the Resolution passed by the Colonial Conference at Ottawa, after the representations made to Her Majesty's Government by the responsible authorities of self-governing colonies, and after the recent statesmanlike utterances of the Secretary for the Colonies on cognate questions, while the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, had admitted the difficulty of meeting the financial needs of the country with our present fiscal system. At present 12 per cent. of our tea came from foreign countries, and 88 per cent. from within the limits of the British Empire; and he would suggest, not the abolition of the duty on British tea, but the reduction of the duty from 4d. to 3d. For a means of making up the deficit, he would point to the 1s. duty on imported corn imprudently cast to the winds by Mr. Lowe. Another profligate abandonment of revenue was made by Sir Stafford Northcote in dealing with the Sugar Duties. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in distinguishing

    937
    between direct and indirect taxation, spoke of the consuming and the propertied classes, but excisable articles were largely consumed by what were thus designated the propertied classes. The payers of Income Tax contributed, roundly speaking, half the revenue, and the class who did not pay Income Tax—assisted in an extremely large manner by the Income Tax payers—paid the other half. The whole of the Wine Duties, for instance, were paid by the Income Tax payers.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with a matter that could properly be raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, but which is not applicable to this particular Amendment.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid there was one thing which he thought was strictly within the scope of the Amendment before the Committee, and to which he felt bound to refer. The existing finance system revolved upon the pivot of the Tea Duties. [Laughter.] His right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, in his recent speech before the Cobden Club, referred with pride to the fact that we received so much of our indirect taxation from articles we did not produce in this country. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider the levying of duty upon tea which we did not produce was more meritorious than raising revenue by duties on our own products. But he would not enter upon the subject from that point of view. He desired to approach it from the point of view of revenue rather than from the point of view of the indirect advantages which would be derived by following another course. It was to be regretted that Members like himself, who wished to place their views before the House were open to the attack that they shirked discussion. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Monmouthshire, stated in the last Parliament that he (Mr. James Lowther) was fond of laying his views before partisan audiences in the country, but that did not give the House the opportunity of judging of the merits or demerits of his proposals. On the contrary, he put down an Amendment to the Address which had been ruled out of order. [Laughter.] His hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Sir Howard Vincent) put down a Resolution in the
    938
    same sense, but the Government took all the days of private Members, and that Resolution fell to the ground; and now, when he was endeavouring to lay his views before the Committee, the Chairman very properly made a ruling under which he could only touch the fringe of the subject. [Laughter.] Therefore, he hoped he and his Friends would not be charged with shirking the raising of the issue in the House. He wished to say that this question of raising duty on tea, of making tea the basis of indirect taxation, was repudiated by every other nation under the sun. His right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, in the speech to which he had already referred, had to administer, not for the first time, a douche of cold water to some of his political Friends. [Laughter.] His right hon. Friend, as a man of courage and of a just and impartial mind, was unable to console his Friends with the assurance that the Tea Duty was the acme of wisdom.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The whole question of the Tea Duty is not raised by this Amendment. [Laughter.] The only question is whether any differentiation should be made between tea from Her Majesty's dominions and tea from foreign countries, and I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to confine himself to that question. [Laughter.]
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he was about, in conclusion, to refer to the strong feeling in the colonies in favour of the adoption of some such course as that proposed by the Amendment. The Colonial Conference at Ottawa, which was composed of representatives of all the Colonies within the Empire—adopted a resolution declaring the advisability of a Customs arrangement between Great Britain and the Colonies, by which trade within the Empire might be placed on a more favourable footing than trade outside the Empire. That, substantially, was the proposal now before the Committee. But if the hon. Gentleman who moved it had not by deputy suggested its withdrawal, he himself would have advised him not to press it to a Division, because the Government had not, he was happy to say, shown themselves insensible to the importance of the question raised by the Amendment. It was true that the late Government turned

    939
    a cold shoulder to the unanimous representations of the Colonial Conference at Ottawa. The late Government did not appear to think that colonial tea ought to be permitted to enter the Kingdom on preferential terms compared with tea from China, but the present Government had adopted a different line of conduct, as the recent speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies showed, and for that reason he certainly could not advise the Committee to divide upon the Amendment. The idea seemed to prevail that whenever we wished to admit colonial tea on terms of preference, the colonies would always be very happy to accept our proposals. Undoubtedly, this offer of preferential treatment on the part of the colonies was open at the present time, but hon. Members who thought that opportunity would be always at our command made a mistake. Already, many of the colonies were considering the advisability of entering into exceptional arrangements with other countries if we did not rise to the occasion. He was glad to know that the matter was being considered in a statesmanlike manner by the present Government. Any candidate for office in France or the United States who came forward only with the Tea Duties as his remedy, would stand a poor chance of election. But if he came forward as a determined opponent of our fiscal system, he would have every chance of finding himself Prime Minister or President Elect. He hoped the Committee would consider the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this question seriously. The right hon. Gentleman had asked where he would stand if he had only the Tea Duties to rely upon on an emergency, when direct taxation had reached the point beyond which it could not be pushed. He hoped the mass of the people would support the statesmanlike views of the Colonial Secretary.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that no one would charge his right hon. Friend with any want of courage in ventilating his views, or with not bringing them forward in season and out of season—["Hear, hear!" and laughter]—but he must make some complaint of his right hon. Friend's action on the present occasion. The Amendment raised the question of a
    940
    differential rate in respect of tea; but no sooner was the Committee stage begun than the hon. Member intimated his intention of withdrawing the Amendment; and the right hon. Gentleman, who did not intend to support the Amendment or press it to a Division, had occupied an hour in discussing it. ["Hear, hear!"]
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that he did not think they ought to part with the right hon. Member for Thanet at once. [Laughter.] It was some satisfaction to him to know that his right hon. Friend, who had had such a long experience, had succeeded in making a Second Reading speech. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman had said a great deal about the statesmanlike views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of differential duties. He could not be alluding to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and therefore they were led to ask, why is the Statesman not here? [Cheers and laughter.] Some doubts had been expressed as to the unity of the Unionist Party; but, as to fiscal policy, it was possible to look forward to the day when the right hon. Gentleman and the Colonial Secretary would tell together at the Table in favour of differential duties. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] As to the statesmanlike view of the present Government, he wished to know exactly what it was. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Ottawa Conference, but he did not allude to the much more important conference which took place the other day in London when the Colonial Secretary, no doubt after due deliberation with the Cabinet, announced his adhesion to the principle of the Zollverein. [Cheers and laughter.] The hon. Member for the Central. Division of Sheffield—who, together with the Colonial Secretary and the right hon. Member for Thanet, made up the trio who were to reform our fiscal system—[laughter]—was present at that Conference. The Amendment contained the policy of the Zollverein, and if the hon. Gentleman who moved it wished to withdraw the Amendment, and the right hon. Member for Thanet did not feel disposed to press it, why did not the Colonial Secretary take it up? [Cheers and laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman said it was not necessary to talk about Crown Colonies in this matter,

    941
    because they were not represented at Ottawa; but he did not observe that it was only in the Crown Colonies that tea was grown. [Laughter.] At the Ottawa conference there was proposed a differential duty on everything produced in the British Empire and even in India, for the Government could not suppress the voice of India unless it was in military matters. [Cheers and laughter.] Every great commercial body in England pronounced against that proposal; and at the Zollverein Conference, the Montreal Resolution fell to the ground because it received no support. In every Australian colony Her Majesty's Government's grand scheme of a Zollverein was laughed at and repudiated. ["Hear, hear!"] It involved the doctrine of reciprocity, and the Australian colonies were not prepared to take in our goods free. In India, on the other hand, there was already Free Trade. He characterised that policy as the most absurd ever propounded; it received no support anywhere; and he should certainly vote against an Amendment which embodied it. [Cheers.]
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that in a fit of generosity to the British colonies, the hon. Member for Carnarvon had put down this Amendment when he read in the papers a speech of the Colonial Secretary showing that he was in favour of the principle of the Amendment. [Laughter.] Then the hon. Member had withdrawn his Amendment in order to allow his Leader to make the speech to which the Committee had just listened against the Colonial Secretary. [Laughter.] The main effect of the Amendment would be a reduction in the Customs Duties, and he thought it was high time that such a reduction should be made. Tea would be a good thing to begin on. Of course he did not think it proper to discuss this question of differential duties now, but he felt that one of these days the House would have to discuss it in the fullest detail. ["Hear, hear!"] They would have to take into account that their colonies and dependencies not only produced, but sent to us a considerable portion of the six or seven great articles of import—corn, cotton, wool, wood, sugar, tea, and meat alive and dead. The principle of the differential duties might have to be applied to corn and other articles,
    942
    as well as to tea. They must remember that though they claimed to be the only Free Trade country in Europe they levied at their ports a larger amount of Customs Duties than any other country in Europe.
    MR. JOHN DILLONsaid he did not think it was treating the House of Commons fairly that the Secretary for the Colonies was not present to tell them whether he stood by the remarkable statement he recently made on the question of differential duties for the colonies. A Member of the House had characterised that speech as an epoch-marking speech. It was a great pronouncement on behalf of the Government of the country, because it was not to be believed that so prominent a Member of the Cabinet as the Secretary of State for the Colonies would deliver a great speech opening up a new chapter in the financial policy of this country, unless he spoke with some authority on behalf of his colleagues in the Cabinet. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had most carefully avoided giving his opinion on this question. That, too, was not fair dealing towards the Committee. A great financial policy had been launched upon the country, a policy which had for its object a Zollverein, to include all parts of the British Empire, and to build up a protection around it against all the other natives of the world. The present Amendment was a proposal to carry out that policy, in reference to that portion of the Empire over which this Parliament had complete control. If they wanted the Australian and the Canadian Colonies to believe that they desired to make the Empire one commercial and trading whole as against the rest of the world—and he certainly would not support that policy—then they should show that they were prepared to extend the principle to such countries as India and Ceylon, over which this Parliament had complete control. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. T. LOUGHchallenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say whether he would support the Amendment. If he did not, he could not say whether he gave adhesion to the Zollverein, as proposed by the Secretary for the Colonies. He supported the statement that with regard to India and Ceylon it would give them the opportunity of testing the necessity of the

    943
    Government proposal. The fact was, that India and Ceylon did not require anything of the kind, as their trade was mainly confined to tea. How was it that there was nothing in the Resolution about coffee or cocoa?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that that would come later on.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEagreed with the Member for Mayo, that if the Government wished to put the Zollverein into operation here was an opening ready to their hand in India and China. He was sorry to observe that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was not in his place to support the proposal.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. T. LOUGH MR. T. LOUGH moved to omit the words "or Ireland." He said the effect of his Amendment was that they would not levy the Tea Duty in Ireland. The amount collected by the Tea Duty was £460,000 a year, and this represented something like 2s. 4d. or 2s. 5d. per head of the population of Ireland. He would like that to be the commencement of a series of reliefs which the House ought to give to the taxpayer in Ireland, but he believed that on this Amendment he would not be in order in referring to anything but the question of tea. There was no question that he was more satisfied that he was doing his duty in pressing upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer as strongly as he could asking him to consider whether it would not be a very acceptable means of relieving some of the strain that had pressed upon Ireland by means of indirect taxation for many years. When they were discussing the question of financial reform, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave them some figures which would enable the House to consider the matter very simply. The Chancellor of the Exchequer challenged him to say whether he approved of the system of direct taxation as levied in Ireland, because he had criticised in the House the statement the right hon. Gentleman himself had made as to the weight of direct and indirect taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed his attention to the fact that only 7s. per head was paid in direct taxation by the inhabitants of Ireland, while in indirect
    944
    taxation there was levied something like 31s. 6d., and the corresponding figures for England were 22s. 6d. for each form of taxation. He said at the time that he thought of the two systems of taxation direct taxation was the safer for the country to adopt, and they had this singular fact, that while the direct and indirect taxation almost exactly balanced in Great Britain, in Ireland the direct taxation was only one-fourth of the indirect taxation. He desired to move the Amendment as the first step towards approximating the system in Ireland to that which existed in Great Britain. If they were to choose which of the two systems of taxation afforded the best means of measuring the taxable capacity of the people, he thought they must admit that the justest was direct taxation. They could not levy direct taxation unless there was property, and therefore there could be no serious oppression in that form of taxation. But when indirect taxation pressed heavily on the necessities of life, and he claimed that in Ireland tea was one of the necessities of life, they might wring a quite unfair burden out of a poor, indeed, a starving people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he could not bring forward a question of that kind at a more inopportune time. On the only three occasions on which he had been present at a Budget discussion, he had been most anxious to take the step that he was now taking, but there were particular reasons why he did not do so. The Royal Commission on the financial relations between the two countries had now completed its labours, and although its Report had not been formally presented to the House, yet it had been published.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No.
    MR. LOUGHsaid that it had been published in Dublin, though the right hon. Gentleman might be right in saying that on authoritative statement of the Report had not been published. There was practical unanimity that too much had been wrung out of Ireland every year, and he therefore ventured to think that the time was not now inappropriate for him to press upon the House the grievance and the burden of this tax upon the people of Ireland. He felt that human life was to a large extent

    945
    impossible over there because of the weight of the taxes which the House insisted upon levying upon the Irish people, and the way in which it was levied. He believed that for every £100 of indirect taxation which was levied in Ireland—and they levied £460,000 by the Tea Tax—they made human life impossible to one inhabitant, and therefore if they remitted that tax, it would enable 4,600 more people to live in Ireland than if they continued to exact the tax from them. If they accepted the standard which the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed to when introducing the Budget, that of making the direst and indirect taxation balance each other as they did in Great Britain, why should not that be done in Ireland too? If that were done they could afford to take off the Tea Duty, and the Tobacco Duty and other duties amounting to 14s. per head in Ireland, and they could not make a better beginning in that most excellent work than by relieving them of the Tea Duty, which would give a relief of 2s. 6d. per head to every person, for tea was used in every house. It might be urged that they were not doing worse this year than last year, but the fact was that every year the burden was getting worse. This was the worst year that they had had in Ireland, for the reason that there was a larger amount of money collected in Ireland to pay the tax, and a smaller number to pay it, and the people were poorer and less able to pay it to-day than ever they were before. Within the last 15 years the burden of taxation had increased by £2,000,000, while the population diminished by 600,000. He therefore asked that something in the way of relief should be given, and nothing could be more acceptable and nothing would more carry it with certainty to every house inhabited by the Irish people, than the acceptance of this particular Amendment. In connection with that matter he wanted to point attention to one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, agreed to by 11 out of the 13 Members.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss a Report not yet presented to the House.
    MR. LOUGHsaid he was only going to quote it as an authority for what he
    946
    was urging, but he would urge his point without the, authority. It was assumed that in order to adjust the system of taxation, they must have equal rates in all these duties. He thought there might be differences in the conditions of two peoples which would make an equal rate on an article like tea more oppressive to one than to the other. Tea was a greater necessity to the Irish people than to the English people, and therefore an equal tax wrung an unjust contribution out of the Irish people. He was asked why should it be a greater necessity for the Irishman? For the simple reason that the dietary of the bulk of the population of Ireland was more limited than the dietary of the people of England, and there were fewer alternative foods. Tea, therefore, occupied a much more prominent place in the dietary of the Irish than it did in the dietary of the English people. He did not see that there would be any difficulty in taking off the tax. All these burdens heaped upon Ireland had been imposed during the last 40 or 50 years, and it should be just as easy to take them off and do justice to Ireland as it was to persist in the cruel and oppressive policy that had been adopted towards that country. They had different rates of duty levied under their Customs at the present time—in the Isle of Man for instance—and therefore, some arrangement could easily be made with regard to Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might ask if this duty were taken off what were they to do for the money? His reply was that they did not want it. They were collecting this £460,000 not because they wanted it, but simply because they were collecting it in Great Britain. The necessity for the money was lessening every day in Ireland where the population was diminishing. In asking for this relief to Ireland he did not want a single burden to be laid on the English taxpayer, but what he wanted was economy in the Irish establishment. He contended that the money was not required, that there was no particular difficulty in regard to the question of Customs, that the remission of the duty would be a most welcome relief in Ireland, and a wholesome recognition of the fact that duties levied in Ireland, even although the same as those imposed in England

    947
    might press with most unfair incidence in the poorer country. For these reasons he moved the Amendment.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that the hon. Member estimated the loss of revenue which would be caused by the acceptance of his proposal at £460,000. In his opinion, neither the hon. Member nor any one else could really tell what the exact loss might be. It would, at any rate, be a loss of the duty of 4d. in the pound upon the tea that was drunk in Ireland. He did not quite see why the consumer of tea in Ireland should escape the duty any more than the consumer in Great Britain. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member spoke of the poverty of many consumers of tea in Ireland. He could also speak of the poverty of many consumers of tea in Great Britain, and when the hon. Member referred to the humble cottagers in the west of Ireland and the relief which this remission of duty would afford to them, he confessed he had heard very often from persons well acquainted with the condition of the peasantry in that part that it was questionable whether the modern substitution of tea and bread had really been conducive to the well being of that population as compared with their old dietary of potatoes and buttermilk. However, he did not want to go into that question. What did the hon. Member propose? What he proposed was that there should be a Custom-house between England and Ireland, in order to apply a system of differential duties to other articles besides tea, for which at present he could see no reason. If the proposal were adopted they would have to institute a Customs examination on arrivals from Ireland all round the coast of Great Britain in order to prevent tea which had been imported into Ireland without paying duty from being smuggled into England. That was an entire reversal of the commercial union between the two kingdoms, and whatever the Commission on the financial relations of the two countries might recommend, he ventured to say that such a proposal would not be found among their recommendations. He hoped the hon. Member would be content with having again raised the question, which had been previously debated on this Bill, and would not
    948
    think it necessary to press the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. VESEY KNOXobserved that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman did not surprise him. He was perfectly aware that every time this question of over-taxation was raised, whatever Government might be in office——
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not wish at all to prejudge the question as to whether In the matter of taxation Ireland deserves or requires relief as compared with Great Britain. This is a particular proposal, and I had dealt with it apart from the other question.
    MR. KNOXsaid it was the duty and the business of the right hon. Gentleman, for which he was paid, to see that he did not overtax a part of the United Kingdom. He was there to see that this tax was fairly applied and fairly levied as between the different parts of the United Kingdom in proportion to their taxable capacity. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not wish to prejudice the question, but had he no opinion about it? The somewhat humorous view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was characteristic of the view every Chancellor of the Exchequer would always take when dealing with Ireland. They laid down general principles, but when it came to doing justice in pounds, shillings and pence, the money could not be got out of them. He ventured to say that if, some day, the British Empire should be broken up, the Treasury and their spokesmen in that House, would be more responsible for such break up than any other human being. He would not go back to the preferential treatment of the Colonies. That was only one of the many questions in which the Treasury was a stumbling block that prevented anything like a fair and equitable treatment of the different parts of such as would be likely to contribute to the continued maintenance and unity of the Empire. The principle that those who supported this Amendment asked should be adopted was that there should be, to the limited extent proposed by the hon. Member for Islington, some approach to justice made in the case of the taxation of Ireland. A Commission appointed by the English Government, mainly consisting of

    949
    Englishmen, with some of its most experienced Members trained in the service of English Departments, had agreed to a Report——
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! It is out of order to discuss a Report that has not yet been presented to the House.
    MR. KNOXremarked that the evidence had been published and it conclusively proved that Ireland was enormously over-taxed—a view which had not been disproved by a single witness on behalf of the Treasury. That being the case what was asked by the Amendment was that some attempt should be made to do justice to Ireland in the fiscal arrangements for the coming year. The Treasury were not asked by it to disgorge what they had wrongfully taken in the past, but were only asked not to repeat the act of theft and highway robbery this year. Surely that was a moderate request to prefer. His hon. Friend took the Tea Duty as an example, and it was a good example too. Our system of taxation involved more pressure of indirect taxation upon the poor than, with the possible exception of the Corn Laws, could be devised under any other system. In other countries the greater proportion of indirect taxation was levied upon luxuries; a reference to the tariffs of Canada and the United States showed how large a part of taxation was derived from that source, but in this country indirect taxation was levied on necessaries of life. He could go through the list and show how largely this was the case. True, there were articles some persons could do without; there were those who did not take spirits, and probably among this class there was more consumption of tea, for it was matter of common observation that stimulants in some form were well nigh a necessity for the human race. There were persons who took spirits, others who took tea, and some, he was told, took quinine. Tea might not be good for all, but still it was recognised as a cheap and effective form of stimulant. It had become practically a necessity of life for a large proportion of the poorer population, and he protested against the incorporation of this part of the Budget proposals in the Bill, because, in fact, it was a proposal to raise a large proportion of the taxa-
    950
    tion upon articles of necessity consumed by the poorest part of the population of Ireland. It might, of course, be said that the argument applied to some extent as between the richer and poorer classes of Great Britain, but inasmuch as Ireland, in proportion to her population, contained a far larger number of the poorer classes, so was the pressure of the present fiscal system more oppressive in Ireland. The tax upon tea was felt with much greater force in Ireland than in England, and people were not prepared to accept the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and substitute butter-milk and potatoes for bread and tea. He did not know that it would be possible for them to do so, and he did think that for the Minister responsible for the fiscal system of the country to suggest that the Irish peasantry should go back to the diet of butter-milk and potatoes as being quite good enough for them, was a statement which threw some light on the question, and the amount of consideration the Irish people would be likely to secure in any rearrangement of financial relations between the two countries.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is not what I said.
    MR. KNOXdid not pretend to quote the actual words, but this was the natural inference from the words used. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not a beneficial change from butter-milk and potatoes to tea and bread, but everybody knew that this last had become the common diet of the poorer classes; they had advanced beyond the stage of butter-milk and potatoes, and the natural inference from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks was that the people should return to the diet of their fathers. If there was to be a rearrangement of the fiscal system with any justice as applied between the two countries, then the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at least open to some modification in the interests of humanity. As his hon. Friend had argued correctly, the abolition of the Tea Duty in Ireland, while it still continued to be levied in England, should present no serious difficulty in the trading relations between the countries, there was no reason to suppose that there would be any large attempt to smuggle tea from Ireland into England.

    951
    Certainly there would be no more difficulty in preventing such smuggling than there was in preventing smuggling from France into Great Britain. It was a Treasury alarm without any foundation. As a matter of fact, although there was nominally a financial union between Ireland and Great Britain in 1817 or 1818, separate duties were levied down to 1853–4, and duties were not equalised until 1860, so that the present proposal was simply to revert to a system which obtained before 1860, or some 35 years ago, and not to go back to the anti-Free Trade condition of things, and at that period before 1860 Ireland formed a larger and more important part of the United Kingdom than she does now after the experience of uniform customs and excise. The proposal of his hon. Friend was perfectly practical, feasible, and just, and in some form or other there would have to be differentiation in customs and excise duties between the two countries, or there would never be justice done. If it was to be understood that it was to be laid down as a principle that whatever a Commission might report as to the proportion of taxation that should be levied in Ireland, yet to keep up the mere name of Free Trade the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resist any proposal that would make a difference in the customs and excise duties, then the outlook in this connection was hopeless. Without dealing with indirect taxation the injustice could not be remedied; it was quite impossible to do it in any other way. The whole direct taxation of Ireland might be swept away, and there would not be a remedy; the only remedy was by means of a different customs and excise duty. No matter how long the House considered the Reports of Commissions on this subject, this position must be returned to. Ireland was overtaxed. Speaking for himself, he was not in favour of continuing to levy the same duties and then returning wasteful grants in order to preserve an appearance of justice. That was bad in principle, and what he wanted was a change that would leave the hard-earned money in the cottages of the West, where it would be far more useful than if manipulated by-organising boards in Dublin, or used in developing railway systems. Because the proposal of his hon. Friend would do
    952
    this, he gave the Amendment his hearty support.
    MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREsaid that for once he found himself in entire agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Admitting that Ireland was over-taxed, it did not follow that they ought to meet the difficulty by raising Custom-houses between England and Ireland. That seemed a monstrous proposal. ["Hear, hear!"] It was contrary to the spirit of the age and the tendency of modern civilisation. In Austria-Hungary there were Custom-houses between Hungary and Austria, and they had been done away with, to the great advantage of the empire. He could remember when there was a Custom-house on the frontier of every State in Germany. These had been done away with and a Zollverein established. In Italy, among the nuisances and troubles were Customhouses on the frontier of every little State, which destroyed the commerce and industry of the country. The hon. Member for Islington pointed out that there were Custom-houses against the Island of Man where differential duties against England existed. Well, the sooner they did away with them the better. Fiat justitia ruat—the Island of Man. [Laughter.] His hon. Friend said that Ireland should have this exemption because it was poorer than England. How far might they not carry that principle? Because the Highlands of Scotland were poorer than the county of Middlesex was it to be said that the Tea Duty was to be levied in Middlesex and not in the Highlands of Scotland or the poorer counties of England? With all his love and respect for Ireland he must say the thing was preposterous. ["Hear, hear!"] It was said no one would smuggle tea; but he had that respect for Irishmen that he believed they would go into the smuggling business at once. [Laughter.]
    MR. KNOX: There are many articles which could be more profitably smuggled.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes; pigs. [Laughter.] Who ever heard of any one's trying to smuggle a pig? [Renewed laughter.] A pig soon gave evidence of its existence, and, if an Irishman went into the smuggling business, he would do better not to attempt to smuggle live

    953
    animals that squeaked. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, if he had to choose between tea with dry bread and skimmed milk with potatoes, he should prefer the latter as more nourishing. If the Irish had not to pay duty on tea, they would not favour the abolition of the tea duties; and, therefore, in the general interests of the United Kingdom, the tea duties ought to be levied equally in all parts, in order that all who believe in Free Trade might make united efforts to do away with them.
    MR. DILLONsaid that while it might be to the advantage of the human race that Custom houses should disappear, and while the question was one which would ere long engage the attention of all nations, what he preferred immediately was that the financial injustice between Ireland and England should in some way be removed. He would greatly prefer potatoes and milk to tea and dry bread; but no one could deny that the drinking of more tea was a sign of improvement; and there was a strong case for the release of the Irish from the taxation upon tea. He admitted it was not the most convenient way in which relief could be given to the Irish people; but it was one way in which it could be given; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to the adoption of this method it rested with him to suggest another. At any rate, it was monstrous that the Irish people should be compelled from year to year to bear an undue proportion of the burdens of the British Empire. Long after the Union, through the twenties, a great number of articles paid in the Irish Custom House a different duty from that levied in the English Custom House. It was not until 1860, he believed, that the duties on all articles were equalised in the two countries; and one of the last duties to be equalised was that on spirits. Spirits, of course, lent themselves easily to smuggling; and up to the second half of this century there was a substantial difference between the Irish and the English duties on them—a difference far greater than the difference it was now proposed to create between the respective duties on teas. The difference would be accepted temporarily as an expedient pending the readjustment of the financial relations
    954
    between the two countries. In order tempt people to engage in the dangerous trade of smuggling there must be a good profit to be made by evading the payment of duties, but with the duties on tea one conviction might easily swallow up the possible profits of years. Although the profit would not tempt people to smuggle, the injustice was great enough to justify the people in asking for this relief unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer could offer it in another form.
    MR. LOUGHsaid there was no antagonism between his proposal and Free Trade principles, and he could support his position by the authority of Sir R. Peel, Mr. Pitt, and all the Chancellors of the Exchequer of the first half of the century. The tendency of our Budgets had been to reduce the taxation per head in Great Britain, and to raise it per head in Ireland. In 1830, in England, the Tea Duty per head was 3s. 7d., to-day it was 1s. 10d.; in Ireland, in 1830, it was 1s. 2½d., and to-day it was 2s. 2½d.: while it had fallen one-half in England, it had doubled in Ireland. In one case it had risen with the increase of the population; in the other it had doubled with the reduction of the population by one-half. There was all the difference in this question between a country and a county; the whole of Ireland was a very different entity from any English county. There was the highest authority for looking at a question from a national point of view. If hon. Members realised how much Ireland suffered under a tyrannous fiscal system, they would not treat the matter so lightly as they did. He did not think that Gentlemen on his own side were prepared to support him, and as for the Irish Members they were not present in any numbers. As he did not see any good in pushing the matter further, he would be satisfied with the discussion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS MR. HERBERT LEWIS moved, after the word "tea," to insert the words "valued over one shilling" a pound. He said his object was to lighten the burdens that fell upon the poor, whether in Great Britain or in Ireland, by continuing the Customs duties upon the higher priced teas. It

    955
    was stated some time ago by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield that a large quantity of tea was sold to the poorer classes in London at 6d. per lb. That meant—the duty on tea being 4d. in the lb.—that the poor paid 400 per cent. in duty, while the rich, who paid 3s. per lb. for their tea, paid only 10 per cent. The present Government had to take an interest in his proposal, because at the General Election he had heard nothing in his constituency but talk of the social legislation which the Tories were going to propose. The Government had now an excellent opportunity of carrying their pledges and promises into practice. They had the opportunity of relieving the poorer classes of an oppressive tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably say he had not the money to do it this year. But that was not the fault of the Opposition. It was the fault of the Government, who had spent the money in various objectionable ways. The money spent for the relief of landlords from agricultural rating would have been much better employed in relieving the community from a portion of this tax on tea. He ventured to put forward the Amendment as a test of the sincerity of the Government in professing to desire to pass social legislation.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the speech of the hon. Member showed that he believed, from such information as he had been able to obtain, that there was a very large difference between the prices of tea of different kinds sold in the wholesale market. In fact, the hon. Member suggested that some kinds of tea were sold at 3s. and 4s. per lb., while stuff not deserving the name of tea was sold at 6d. per lb. That impression was altogether erroneous, and on it was possibly based the feeling which prevailed on the part of some hon. Members in favour of an ad valorem duty on tea by which the cheaper kinds of tea, which were supposed to be bought by the poor, might pay a smaller duty than tea of higher prices. He had been able to ascertain the result of 12 months' sales of tea in the wholesale London market, and taking it month by month from May 1895, the average wholesale monthly price for tea was never more than 9¼d. per lb. and never less than 7¾d. per lb., and out of the whole amount of
    956
    tea sold—or the bulk of the tea sold in the kingdom—1·7 per cent. was sold at the wholesale price of over 1s. per lb. Practically the ordinary price of tea in the wholesale market was about 9d. or 10d. per lb. The differences in the price of tea were therefore so minute that it would be practically impossible to apply an ad valorem, duty, and besides such a duty would necessarily involve a good deal of inquisitorial action on the part of the Customs, which would be extremely inconvenient and distasteful to the trade. ["Hear, hear!"] The effect of the Amendment would be practically to get rid of the duty on tea altogether, for 95 per cent. of the duty on tea was derived from tea sold under a shilling per lb. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine also that the cheaper teas were invariably consumed by the poorer classes. But the fact was the working men, especially of the artisan class, were apt to purchase more expensive; teas than better-to-do people. ["Hear, hear!"] The effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would not, therefore, be to exempt from duty the poor man whom he desired to benefit. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that as the effect of the Amendment would practically be the abolition of the duty on tea altogether, he suggested to his hon. Friend that he should withdraw his Amendment, and support the Amendment which stood in his name.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid he had always strongly objected to the removal of any indirect tax whatever except a sufficient substitute for it was provided; and he had always suggested that duties might reasonably be taken off articles not produced in this country provided duties were put on articles we do produce. But what the hon. Gentleman proposed in his Amendment was that a large majority of the voters of the kingdom who were not alcoholic drinkers, and who only contributed to the revenue through the duty on tea, should be exempt altogether from taxation. That, in his opinion, was unsound finance. He should always oppose the abolition of, or any material reduction in, the Tea Duties until some substitute was provided that would insure that tea-drinkers contributed their fair share to the revenue.
    MR. H. LEWISsaid that in view of the difficulties in the way of the Amendment, which the Chancellor of the; Exchequer had pointed out, he would ask to withdraw it, though he was in favour of the abolition of the Tea Duty.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the word "fourpence," and to insert instead thereof the word "twopence." The effect of the Amendment was to reduce the duty on tea from 4d. per lb. to 2d. per lb. He said that it was desirable that this Tea Duty should be gradually abolished, and, unlike most other taxes, a reduction in which specially benefited a small class only, the Tea Duty was an impost on all classes, and the benefit of any reduction in it was shared by almost every individual in the community. Further, the reduction would be a great boon to the industrial classes of India and Ceylon.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that it might be reserved for some future year to see a reduction in the Tea Duty, but he could not consent to such a reduction at present. To reduce the duty by one-half would leave him with a deficiency of about £1,800,000.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: There is the Rating Bill. [Cheers.]
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that the hon. Member was quite mistaken in supposing that that was the amount required for the Rating Bill in the present year. The Amendment would deprive the Exchequer, not only of £975,000, which was about the amount required for the three Rating Bills, but also of a part of the surplus which, with the almost unanimous consent of the House, had been allocated to the increase of the Navy. Moreover, the House had sanctioned the Rating Bill; it was bound to make provision for the expenditure, and it was impossible at this period of the Session to make the provision in any other way. Therefore he could not accept the hon. Member's Amendment.
    MR. HERBERT LEWISasked in what year the Chancellor of the Exchequer could expect to make this reduction
    958
    if not in the present, when he had such an enormous surplus. The reduction would benefit almost everybody in the community, and it would be an immense boon to India and Ceylon, from which countries 88 per cent. of the total amount of tea consumed in this country was imported.
    Question put, "That the word 'four-pence' stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 263; Noes, 96.—(Division List, No. 313.)
    On the question that the clause stand part of the Bill,
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that with regard to the increasing expenditure, he had protested against it over and over again, and so long as the country approved of the present rate of expenditure a reduction of taxation was impossible. He confessed that the prospect was of an increase, not a reduction, of expenditure. He mentioned this because he had seen in the public Press references to the result of the recent quarter, and to the large increase of revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew as well as he did that this was owing to exceptional circumstances, and that it would not be well to endeavour at this early stage of the financial year to attempt any prediction as to the revenue. The notion that the increase of revenue in the quarter which had just expired was to be taken as a test of the expectations of the revenue for the year would be an entirely erroneous conception. As long as the expenditure of the country remained on its present footing he would not feel himself justified in voting for any reduction of taxation, however desirable it might be. He only hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resist all proposals for reducing the revenue of this year by a diminution of taxation under any head, because he was quite sure that neither he nor the country could afford it. So long as the right hon. Gentleman took the line of standing by the revenue—for he was sure he would want every penny of it, and probably a good many pennies more—he could, at all events, count upon his support.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid the Leader of the Opposition had again addressed a timely warning to the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that their fiscal system, as embodied in that clause, had failed in maintaining the capacity of the country to pay its way. [Cries of "No!"] The right hon. Gentleman said so, and added that he looked forward to the time, and that no distant time, when, so far from removing taxation, the question would be whether new taxation should not be imposed.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I said that, unless the House of Commons became wiser and refused to sanction this expenditure—
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid the right hon. Gentleman did not tell them what direction the increase of taxation was going to take, but he hoped he would, at any rate, get rid of some of his prejudices when he had that condition of things to face. He had not found the right hon. Gentleman a very strenuous advocate of retrenchment in the only direction which was practicable in this country—that of the Civil Service Estimates. Under his own auspices they rose by leaps and bounds.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the only question now before the Committee is whether the duty of 4d. on tea should be reimposed or not.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid that, so far from being a party to any reduction of the Tea Duty, he thought it should be maintained.
    MR. T. P. WHITTAKERsaid it was quite true that they must meet the expenditure that had been incurred, but that was no reason why they should not adjust the taxation to meet it. The surplus would have permitted a reduction in the Tea Duty, but it had been frittered away in other directions, to which some of them very strongly objected. It was, however, quite within the capacity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide the money required in those directions in some other way. They would come later to a clause under which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might put another penny on the Income Tax and provide for the Rating Bill out of the classes who had done so much to
    960
    support it. As it was, they wanted to bring home more and more to the minds of the people that that Rating Bill involved this 2d. they were trying to get off the Tea Duty, and that if it had not been for that Bill there would have been a surplus left which would have enabled them to reduce the duty on tea. Therefore, for all practical purposes, it was this duty on tea which was required to meet the expenditure which this House was incurring to relieve the landlords.
    MR. T. R. LEUTYsaid he looked upon this duty as a wicked and cruel one. He thought that when the country was in such a state of prosperity that the surplus was counted by millions, it was a cruel thing to continue to impose this duty upon what was becoming now a prime necessity among the very poorest in the land. The duty was all the more vicious because it was imposed to the same amount per pound on the tea which these people used and on the most valuable tea. Such an oppressive duty was absolutely indefensible. He could not follow the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the duty of that House in reimposing this tax. It was a very difficult thing to get an assembly like that to select certain items of expenditure and say they would not sanction them. It was a very easy thing for permanent officials and heads of Departments to reduce expenditure, and his opinion was that they would begin to do it when that House refused the money they needed. He took it that those who had the control of the expenditure of the country would only need to exercise more reasonable care, and if they saw that that House was not prepared to follow them in imposing duties of this character, it might possibly not be so difficult to get the expenditure reduced.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid they had had plenty of evidence produced as to the noxious character of tea. The hon. Member for West Islington proved conclusively that the more per head the Irish drank tea the more the population diminished.
    MR. LOUGHsaid what he stated was that, owing to the oppression which had diminished the population, the only comfort they had was tea.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman also gave figures showing that

    961
    the more tea per head they drank the more the population diminished, and that now the population had diminished to the lowest point they drank more per head than they ever did before. He thought it would be an unfortunate thing if they did anything which tended to encourage the consumption of tea beyond its present limits. Consider what the result would be. If they took off the whole duty upon tea they would have the country flooded with tea-drinkers, and the spirit-drinkers, who gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer £4,000,000 a year, and the wine-drinkers, who gave him £1,000,000 a year, would proportionately diminish. That might be well from the temperance point of view, but it would be very bad from the fiscal point of view. He did not suppose the Amendment was a serious one. It was an attempt to deprive the Chancellor of the Exchequer of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 a year without any suggestion as to the source from which he was to supply the deficiency, and that at a time when, as the Leader of the Opposition had pointed out, all the Departments were extending their demands—demands which were aggravated by further demands out-of-doors. He trusted the hon. Member would not really go to a Division.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he really did not see why they should not go to a Division. ["Hear, hear!"] He entirely agreed with the Leader of the Opposition in his complaint about the expenditure of the country, but it appeared to him that one of the best ways to stop that expenditure was not to give Ministers the money to spend. [Laughter and cheers.] All the Estimates had not yet been voted, and if they were to cut off some of the money, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to alter, to a certain extent, the Estimates which had not yet been passed and reduce them.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Education Vote?
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he was not thinking of the Education Vote for a moment. He was thinking of the bloated armaments which Mr. Gladstone had justly described as wanton, reckless, and perilous. [Cheers.] Under those circumstances it appeared to him they might reasonably vote against this tax
    962
    on tea. He did not know of any duty more unjust and unfair. He was opposed to all indirect taxation, because he thought it weighed unfairly upon the poor as against the rich, but this tax was the most unjust of all indirect taxation, because it was not an ad valorem tax. He supposed they could get a reasonable tea for 8d. a pound.
    MR. LOUGH: No.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid his hon. Friend was in the trade and, he supposed, ought to know—[laughter]—but he had seen it advertised in the shops at that price. [Laughter,] Perhaps he spent a little more himself upon his tea—["Hear, hear!" and laughter]—but he knew that for 8d. they could get tea, and upon that they paid a duty of 4d.—that was to say 50 per cent.
    MR. LOUGHsaid they could not get tea for 8d.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid his hon. Friend would perhaps say what was a fair price for a really good tea. [Laughter.] His hon. Friend said he could not sell it to a customer under 2s. a pound. [Laughter.] But still the duty was 4d. a lb., so that, whereas the poor man out of his expenditure on tea paid 40 per cent. in duty, the percentage paid by the rich man was only something like 18. Therefore the poor paid in regard to their tea twice as much as the rich. Tea was a most comforting beverage. They had only to go down to the Terrace below to see how pleased a large portion of the female population were by the cup which cheered but did not inebriate. [Laughter.] Whenever the tax on tea was brought forward hon. Members on his side of the House ought to accentuate their opposition to it by dividing against its imposition.
    DR. CLARKobserved that, though he and his hon. Friend below him had changed sides in the House, they had not changed their attitude or opinion as to this duty. When hon. Members who were now sitting on the Government Benches proposed that the tax should be repealed, he and his hon. Friend supported them by both vote and voice. They had always opposed the imposition of the Tea Duty on the ground that it bore too heavily on the poor and too lightly on the rich. If his hon. Friend wont to a Division he should be glad to support him—as he supported

    963
    hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House when they proposed a similar Amendment—so that they might compel the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the amount of revenue paid by non-earning and wealthy classes rather than by the poorer members of the community.
    MR. J. W. LOGANcontended that the class who suffered by this most iniquitous imposition was the poorest of the poor. There were really so many means in which taxation could be raised without taxing the very poorest, that it was high time the statesmen of the country set themselves to work to see if it was not possible to allow the poor of this country to enjoy the necessaries of life—such as their cup of tea—free from taxation. The right hon. Member for Thanet had said that if the Tea Duty were abolished the bulk of the revenue of the country would have to be found by the Income Tax paying class. But who was it who enabled them to pay the Income Tax if not the working class? It was the men who worked for him (Mr. Logan) who enabled him to pay the Income Tax. The whole of the expenditure of this country, whether local or Imperial, was found by the working classes, and by no other people, and the least they could do for them, whilst so many of them were suffering from starvation, was to free their breakfast table, and to allow them to enjoy the bare necessaries of life free from taxation. Let the right hon. Gentleman substitute for this tax and the paltry sum it yielded, the taxation of land values, which would have the advantage of being a tax to which every man, woman, and child in the land must contribute.
    Question put "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill:"—
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 228; Noes, 87.—(Division List, No. 314.)
    Clause 2,—

    ADDITION TO CUSTOMS DUTIES ON SPECIAL KINDS OF BEER.
    (1.) In addition to the duties of customs payable on and after the first day of July one thousand eight hundred and ninety six, on beer of the descriptions called mum, spruce, or black
    964
    beer, imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall be charged, levied, and paid, on and after that day, the duties following (that is to say):—

    £

    s.

    d.

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

    Not exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees

    0

    2

    0

    Exceeding one thousand two hundred and fifteen degrees

    0

    2

    4

    (2.) This section shall extend to Berlin white beer, and other preparations, whether fermented or not fermented, of a character similar to mum, spruce, or black beer.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to leave out the words "of the descriptions called mum, spruce, or black beer." He said the Amendment was intended to raise the question whether duties ought not to be taken off light beers. He suggested that the same policy should be pursued in regard to beers that had been so successful with regard to light wines. The cheapening of light wines had led to their becoming more popular, and in the interests of temperance he thought light beers should be made cheaper and more popular. A man might spend a whole evening drinking lager beer and not be much the worse for it.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERpointed out that the Amendment would not effect what the hon. Member desired. The term "lager" beer was unknown as far as English beers were concerned, and as regarded foreign beers "lager" was only a beer of a particular kind. The effect of adopting the Amendment would be to differentiate duties in favour of lager beer and not to exempt the lighter kinds of beer brewed in England which were entitled to equally favourable consideration. Lager beer was already more lightly taxed than heavier beers, the duty varying according to the specific gravity, which was the rule on which all beer duties were paid. He would consider whether anything further could be done in favour of light beers.
    Mr. LABOUCHEREsaid he was glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would further consider the subject. Like his hon. Friend the mover of the Amendment, he had always been interested in the cause of temperance

    965
    [laughter], and he had always thought that one of the great things to promote temperance was to lower the capacity for causing drunkenness of the beer drunk. In Germany it was the habit to drink lager, and he believed it was impossible to get drunk on lager. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER signified dissent.] Had the right hon. Gentleman ever tried it? [Laughter.] Perhaps he would try it when he came to further consider the matter. [Renewed laughter.] He had frequently seen a student in. Germany consume 15 quarts of lager beer and walk home perfectly well. In the music gardens in Germany they would see whole families collected round a table drinking lager, and yet in the agricultural districts where beer was mostly drunk would they see people drunk? It was the same in Munich. There was drunkenness in Berlin and some other towns where a largo amount of spirits was consumed. There was not the slightest question about it, that one of the first steps towards preventing drunkenness in this country, which ran to such an unfortunate height, was to reduce the capacity for drunkenness of the liquor drunk. If a substantial distinction were made between the cost of light and heavy beers, the public would soon drink light beers. The brewers said London people would not drink light beer "because they like something they can bite in it." [Laughter.] The taste for heavy beers was an acquired taste, and the public would soon acquire a taste for light beers. The difference was not alone in the specific gravity, but there was a great difference in the way of brewing German and English beer. Hops were used more largely in the brewing of the former. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look further into this matter, and that next year he would suggest some plan to carry out what would be an excellent reform. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he was informed by the Customs Authorities that the lager beer imported was in point of alcohol very nearly as strong as English beer.
    MR. DISRAELIsaid they ought to know what was meant by the lager beer the mover of the Amendment spoke of.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERsaid the meaning of the word "lager" was unimportant. The words "light beer" might be inserted in the Amendment, leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide what light beer was. What was wanted was some relief to the lighter beer, which was of a comparatively harmless character, and was a great luxury to the working classes. Anything that could be done to induce the working men to drink the light rather than the heavy beer or spirits, would be productive of great public good. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out the suggestion that had been made. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. WHITTAKERsaid the Amendment was based on a fallacy, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be influenced by it. It was founded on the same fallacy which led to the Beer Act of 1830, through which the country was flooded with beerhouses on the ground that, if the people were provided with beer, they would not drink spirits, and that in that way temperance would be promoted. But so unsatisfactory was the operation of that Act that a Parliamentary Committee was appointed to inquire into the matter, and the result of their investigation was that further legislation was passed to counteract the evils caused by the previous Measure. The legislation of Mr. Gladstone, by increasing the facilities to obtain the lighter intoxicating drinks had been most disastrous to the cause of temperance in this country. ["Hear, hear!"] Facilities for obtaining cheap liquor did not lead people to give up the use of stronger drinks, but rather induced them to drink more. Beer begat the desire for stronger drinks, and in Gothenburg drunkenness was far worse than in any town in this country. He trusted the Inland Revenue would be stricter in regard to their supervision of their lighter liquors. Some of those liquors were made of herbs, and were not temperance drinks, though they were sold as such. They were in fact intoxicating, and led to drinking because they were cheap. He only hoped that the Inland Revenue Authorities would take notice of the fact. ["Hear, hear?"]
    MR. LABOUCHBREsaid he would remind the hon. Member for the Spen Valley of Yorkshire that the question before the Committee was of a fiscal and not a temperance character. As to the drinking of light beers leading persons on to take heavy beers, and from heavy beers to spirits, the experience of more than one country on the Continent disproved the contention.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he was satisfied with the assurance on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would consider the matter and see if anything could be made out of the suggestions which had emanated from both sides of the House.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the Question, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill,"
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid: I cannot allow this clause to pass without calling the attention of the Committee to the very different aspect presented to-night on the subject of the Beer Duty from that which I remember occurred two years ago. Then the whole Unionist Party were ready to resist the imposition of the 6d. duty on beer. It was, they alleged, a proposal which was inspired by a malignant disposition on the part of a Liberal Government for the purpose of injuring the agricultural interest. The additional 6d. on beer, they represented, was a duty which amounted to 4s. a quarter on barley, and hence it meant ruin to the unfortunate and distressed agriculturist. An hon. Member on the other side pointed out how mischievous and wicked was the proposal, even for a single twelvemonth, to put an additional 6d. on beer. "We remember all these arguments, and how by a very narrow majority upon that subject the Liberal Government survived for a time. [Laughter.] One of the leading Members of the Conservative Party who denounced that wicked proposal was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Cheers and laughter.] That appeal induced me to make the imposition temporary, and I feel sure that it was only because, in his financial conscience, he wished to reserve for himself the right of making the duty a permanent one. [Cheers and laughter]. I remember that at the time
    968
    I said that the exigencies of the public service and the great additional Votes for the Navy made it necessary for me to find the money required, and that if there was a surplus I should be only too willing to remit the 6d. duty on beer. Now, the right hon. Gentleman has inherited a surplus of five or six millions, and he took the opportunity of making the 6d. duty on beer permanent, notwithstanding the possession of that surplus. [Cheers.] At the former time we were the atrocious people who were robbing the poor man of his beer. That was the cry raised at the Election which gave you your great majority [cheers], and that, together with bimetallism, the Voluntary Schools, and many other things, helped to swell your majority. [Cheers.] In order that the House and the country might not forget the different manner in which things were dealt with at the last Election and the manner in which they are dealt with now, I have made these observations upon the second clause of the Bill, which I assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer I shall be quite prepared to support. [Cheers.]
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not quite see what bimetallism and the Voluntary Schools have to do with the Beer Duty. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not begrudge the right hon. Gentleman his congratulations upon the fact that I have felt able not only to continue, but also to make permanent, the additional duty of 6d. on beer. I will only venture to remind him that there is not an unimportant difference in the circumstances between this year and the last. The additional Beer Duty was resisted by the representatives of the agricultural constituencies, especially of those agricultural constituencies where the barley-growing interests largely prevailed, for obvious reasons upon which I need not dwell. However, the right hon. Gentleman proposed the additional Beer Duty without paying the slightest heed to the remonstrances, the arguments, and the objections of these agriculturists who were deeply affected by the agricultural depression of the time. We, Sir, have not followed that example. We have availed ourselves of the surplus at our disposal, and, whether the right hon. Gentleman approves of it or not, we believe the course we have pursued will be a substantial relief to agriculture, and

    969
    therefore we have felt justified, with universal assent, in continuing and making permanent this duty. [Cheers.]
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reminded them of some of the circumstances connected with the additional duty on beer. There was another circumstance. It was pleaded on behalf of the additional 6d., that it would be paid by the brewer and not by the consumer, and that, therefore, the consumer would be no worse off after the imposition of 6d. than before. If that were a sound doctrine then, it was a sound one now, and therefore the arguments adduced in favour of a reduction on certain kinds of beer were of little avail.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 6,—

    AMENDMENT OF 26 & 27 VICT. C. 7. AS TO TOBACCO MANUFACTURED IN BOND, AND DRAWBACK ON TOBACCO.
    (1.) Section one of the Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863, shall be construed as if the word "cases" used therein included "packages," and the words "weighing not less than eighty pounds gross weight" were substituted for the words "containing not less than eighty pounds net weight of such tobacco," and the words "fourteen pounds" were substituted for "thirteen pounds" and "eighty-six pounds" were substituted for "eighty-seven pounds."
    (2.) The limitations in respect of inorganic matter and sand governing the payment of drawback under the said section, may he relaxed by the Commissioners of Customs where, in their opinion, having regard to the character of the tobacco tendered for drawback, there has been no artificial increase of inorganic matter or sand during the process of manufacture.
    (3.) The drawback payable under section one of the same Act on the exportation or deposit of tobacco shall be also allowed in respect of snuff deposited by a licensed manufacturer in a bonded warehouse approved by the Commissioners of Customs for the purpose of being either converted into sheep-wash, hop-powder, or other similar compounds for exportation under bond, or of being mixed with such substance or combination of substances as the Commissioners of Customs may prescribe, so as to render the snuff no longer capable of being used as such, or as tobacco in any manner, and snuff so denatured shall be exempt from duty.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved to add:—
    "(4.) The prohibition contained in Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, on the
    970
    importation of snuff work, tobacco stalks, whether manufactured or not, and tobacco stalk Hour, may be removed or modified by special permission of the Commissioners of Customs."
    These articles, which some years ago were worthless, had recently been found of considerable value in the manufacture of insecticide powders, and the Amendment was intended to enable the Commissioners of Customs to deal with them.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought they would run considerable risk unless they took care there should be some provision similar to that relating to the methylisation of spirits.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think any risk would be run.
    MR. WARNERsaid that, to a great extent, the Amendment referred to substitutes for tobacco grown in gardens, which did not pay duty and which was used for insecticide powders. The Amendment would prevent the practice of growing a certain amount of tobacco in gardens.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdoubted the accuracy of the information of the hon. Member that tobacco grown in gardens was used for the manufacture of insecticide powders.
    MR. WARNERsaid the products were largely used for smoking conservatories, and therefore ought to pay duty.
    Amendment agreed to; clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 7, 8, and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 10,—

    PROHIBITION AGAINST POSSESSION OF SUGAR AND OTHER SUBSTANCES BY DEALERS IN AND RETAILERS OF BEER.
    (1.) A dealer in or retailer of beer shall not receive or have in his custody or possession any sugar, saccharine substance, extract, or syrup (except for domestic use, the proof whereof shall lie on him), or any preparation for increasing the gravity of beer.
    (2.) If a dealer in or retailer of beer receives or has in his custody or possession any article in contravention of this section, the article shall be forfeited, and he shall incur a fine of twenty pounds.
    (3) This section shall not apply to sugar and other preparations deposited in conformity with

    971
    section seven of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, in the entered sugar store of a brewer of beer for sale, who carries on upon the same premises the trade or business of a dealer in or retailer of beer.
    SIR J. WOODHOUSEasked whether it was intended to exclude grocers holding retail beer licences from carrying on their business so far as the sale of sugar was concerned? The clause provided that retailers of beer should not receive or have in their possession any sugar or syrup.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQTJERundertook to look into the matter. The clause was intended to refer to publicans.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 13,—

    ESTATE DUTY.

      EXCEPTION TO PASSING OF PROPERTY ON ENLARGEMENT OF INTEREST OF SETTLOR.
      13. Where property is settled by a person on himself for life, and after his death on any other persons with an ultimate reversion of an absolute interest or absolute power of disposition to the settlor, the property shall not be deemed for the purpose of the principal Act to pass to the settlor on the death of any such other person after the commencement of this part of this Act, by reason only that the settlor, being then in possession of the property as tenant for life, becomes, in consequence of such death, entitled to the immediate reversion, or acquires an absolute power to dispose of the whole property.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved after the word "settlor," to insert the words "other than for valuable consideration," on the ground that there ought to be no exemption in a case where property was settled for valuable consideration.
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the insertion of the words would make the clause ineffective in one of the principal cases to which it was intended it should apply.
      SIR ROBERT REIDsaid the general effect of the clause was to cut away a part, though he admitted not a large part, of the
      972
      operation of the Finance Act of 1894. His hon. Friend proposed to insert "other than for valuable consideration." The consequence was the hon. Member would give the benefit of the exemption to voluntary settlement, and deny it to settlement for value. Those persons who had settled their property for valuable consideration would not receive benefit, whereas those who had settled it voluntarily, would receive benefit. That seemed to him to be contrary to the spirit of the Finance Act, and therefore he could not support the Amendment.
      SIR W. HARCOURTasked for some explanation of the object of the clause. He had just said that, in his opinion, in the present state of the revenue, it was extremely dangerous to cut down any of the sources of the revenue. He had supported the Government in maintaining taxation on consumable articles upon that ground, but what he remarked about the Bill was that while the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained the duty on tea as it had existed, and made permanent the duty on beer which had expired, when he came to deal with direct taxation, he set to work to cut down the revenue. He would apply exactly the same rule to direct taxation as to indirect taxation. There were many clauses to which he should feel it necessary to observe that the right hon. Gentleman was opening the door to all that evasion which the hon. Member for King's Lynn had always anticipated. He should like to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the reason why he had deprived himself of this source of taxation and which constituted part of the surplus he had to dispose of. Unless some satisfactory explanation was forthcoming he should object to this unequal method of treating direct and indirect taxation.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that this clause and the next were really intended to effect the reparation of an oversight in the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill. Under the Finance Act of

      973
      1894 a man who settled his own property on successive trusts which failed, so that the property came back to him, was charged with duty upon it. That was entirely inconsistent with any principle of taxation. He referred the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 12 of the Succession Duty Act, by which it was provided that, when property reverted to the settlor, no duty on that property should be payable; but until this clause was passed they would have the strange contradiction that, while in regard to the same property no passing was held to take place and no Succession Duty was leviable, for Estate Duty, there was held to be a passing and duty was levied. He pointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member would have the effect of excluding marriage settlements.
      SIR W. HARCOURTsaid his great difficulty hitherto had been to get the hon. Member to understand the principle of the Estate Duty Act of 1894, and up to the present the hon. Gentleman had not even appreciated the elements of the Act. [Laughter.] The Succession Duty looked at what the person got, but the principle of the Estate Duty was founded on the analogue of the Probate Duty, and looked at what the man left.
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he had already explained the intention of the clause. It was to meet the case where no property actually passed. If a man settled property first on himself for life, and then on his wife and children for their respective lives, as the law stood, if the wife died in the lifetime of the husband, and there were no children, although the man had all along been in the enjoyment of the property himself and would therefore derive no benefit from the death of the wife, there had been a technical passing of the property at the wife's death, and it was liable to Death Duty. But the property was just as much the husband's before his wife's death as it was after.
      SIR W. HARCOURTpointed out, that at present if a man gave property
      974
      to his son, and that property reverted to the father, it had to pay Probate Duty. He cited the case of a Judge who, in his lifetime gave property to his son, but the son died before the father, and in articulo mortis gave the property back to his father, who had to pay double duty. By this clause they were opening the door to evasion in the matter of settlements, and thereby to the probable leakage of money into the Exchequer.
      *MR. CHARLES HARRISONsaid he thought this clause was extremely dangerous in its present form. It tended to destroy the Estate Duty Act of 1894. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had put it forward as applying to a very simple case of a settlement, where by failure or accident, or death of the objects of the trust, the fund reverts to the settlor, and he argued that being his own money originally that it ought not to pay duty on its reverter. But the clause as framed was not limited to that simple case. It applied to all settlements alike. Settlement in the form of that which this clause described, was the common form of settlement adopted as regarded those engaged in mercantile or other pursuits. Under this form the corpus or capital voluntarily, or for valuable consideration, which included marriage, was irrevocably disposed of by the settlor, and because it was so placed out of his power, and because he had ceased to have any control over it, the law gave effect to that object for that reason and to such an extent, that in the event of bankruptcy or financial difficulties overtaking the settlor, the creditors have no interest in the corpus or capital because it no longer belonged to the settlor, who had bonâ fide and out and out parted with it, and had only reserved a life interest. The settlement having done its duty in protecting the capital on the ground he had mentioned and been supported by reason of the settlor having absolutely parted with any interest in the capital, then by accidental circumstances of death at 19

      975
      or under 21 of children, or of the wife, I the capital reverted back to him or to the settlor. This accidental accruer was as much an accruer from a separate source, as if he had taken it under a settlement or document to which he was not a party, and in which case he would have to pay duty, and it ought not to make any difference because originally he had at one time possessed the fund which formed the new accretion and devolution upon him. He had parted with it out and out, and by that bargain, made for his own purposes he ought to be bound, and he ought to pay Estate Duty in the same way as if the money had come from an extraneous source. It would lead to evasion of the duty if the capital were to be in fact and in law at one time to be treated as having been parted with by the settlor, and then subsequently and for obtaining exemption from duty as proposed by this clause as never having been parted with, and as if it were still belonging to and were the moneys of the original settlor. In the case of personalty under such a settlement, devolving, prior to the Finance Act, upon children dying under age, and the settlor succeeding, he would have had to have paid duty on the capital value, and there was no reason now why he should not pay Estate Duty. The Estate Duty and Succession Duty were quite separate in fact and in principle, the one being a charge on capital and the other on income, and as the object of the Act in reference to the Estate Duty was to establish it as a charge upon capital, there was no justification for the exemption now proposed by this clause, which in its terms went far beyond the simple case mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEpointed out that there was a real distinction between the case of settlement for a valuable consideration and other cases which might come under the clause. A case of that kind might occur in which a wife had property with reversion to the husband for life and afterwards to
      976
      the children. If the wife died without issue the result would be that the husband would get a reversion which he would not be entitled to expect if all the conditions of the settlement were carried out. He would have got an equivalent in real value, and in a case of that kind it was very unfair that he should escape Estate Duty absolutely. Supposing that before the death of the wife he went to the market and endeavoured to dispose of his ultimate reversion, what could he get for it? There was always the prospect of issue. He had only got the ultimate reversion in the event of there being no issue; or if there was, in the event of the issue dying. That property had no marketable value at all. But after the death of the wife, without issue, he had got a fee simple in his property, and an accession of interest, which was not merely nominal, but was one which he could sell or dispose of in any market. He would take the case of a gentleman who at 70, under the terms of the settlement, had only got his life interest. Supposing the wife and issue died, he got the ultimate reversion. Before these conditions happened, however, what was the value of his life interest? Afterwards, when he got a full fee simple in the property, that was a vast accession of interest which had a marketable value. He submitted that this was a case for the consideration of the Committee.
      SIR ROBERT REIDpointed out how really dangerous this clause was in the manner in which it was drawn. The case which had been referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one case which might arise, but that was by no means the only case. It was a great pity that the clause was not limited to the case in which there was a passing of property as between husband and wife. Supposing a man settled property on himself for life, and after his death, upon his son for life, with remainder afterwards to whomsoever he chose, that was a perfectly different case.

      977
      In the event of the son dying first, a benefit, unquestionably, accrued to the father. If the object of the clause, as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was intended to be limited to matrimonial cases, then, he thought, it ought to be so stated. If it was not limited in any way he could not help thinking that it was very dangerous. There were other objections, and he would invite the Attorney General to consider these points between then and the Report stage. He had this further observation to make, namely, that this proposal would give relief to settled property only. In his view it was very inadvisable to interfere with the Finance Act of 1894 in order to give relief in the cases of enormous fortunes, whilst the hard cases of poor men and of widows, who were left with large families and small provision, received no relief at all. He thought that he could clearly detect the hand of the hon. Member for King's Lynn in this proposal, of which he believed he was the parent, because he was familiar with the hon. Gentleman's views on this question.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,)said that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had asked him what was the particular difficulty which it was sought to meet by this clause. The matter had already been explained more than once. It had been pointed out that the question would not often arise, and that the governing principle of the clause was confined to persons who had settled property to themselves for life, then upon others, and who ultimately found themselves, in consequence of the objects of the settlement having failed, again in possession of their own property. In his view this was not a case intended to be dealt with by the Finance Act of 1894. The clause had been very carefully considered by men who were much more competent to deal with it than he was, and it was only intended to apply
      978
      in cases where the settled property reverted to the first settlor, who thus merely regained possession of his own property as though he had never parted with it. In the cases which the clause was intended to meet, the hon. and learned Gentleman had proposed that the words, "other than for valuable consideration," ought to be inserted. The principle which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted in reference to this question was that the property had never ceased to belong to the settlor himself.
      MR. AUGUSTINE BIRRELLsaid that he was sorry to find himself wallowing in this morass again. This clause would affect all marriage settlements, and was, therefore, one of very wide application. He could not understand why a Revenue Bill should show such a tenderness for settlements which were usually made by persons engaged in risky undertakings, and made the settlements practically in their own favour. He wished to ask the Attorney General whether he had perfect confidence in the depth of his own wisdom, that these provisions would only apply in the cases to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred.
      MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid he could not understand why, because all the persons included in a settlement happened to die in the lifetime of the original settlor, neither Probate nor Estate Duty should be paid on the reversion of the settled property to the settlor.
      MR. HERBERT LEWISpointed out that a will, being revocable, was a totally different thing to a settlement, and he ventured to say that the Attorney General had not made any reply to the case made by his hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon. That point appeared to him to be one that ought to have been argued.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question put, "That Clause 13 stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 46.—(Division List, No. 315.)
      On the return of the CHAIRMAN, after the usual interval,
      Clause 14,—

      REVERTER OF PROPERTY TO DISPONER.
      (1.) Where, by a disposition of any property an interest is conferred on any person other than the disponer for the life of such person or determinable on his death, and such person enters into possession of the interest and thenceforward retains possession thereof to the entire exclusion of the disponer or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise, and the only benefit which the disponer retains in the said property, is subject to such life or determinable interest, and no other interest is created by the said disposition, then on the death of such person after the commencement of this Part of this Act, the property shall not be deemed for the purpose of the principal Act to pass by reason only of its reverter to the disponer in his lifetime.
      (2.) Where the deceased person was entitled by law to the rents and profits of real property (as defined by Section one of the Succession Duty Act, 1853) of his wife, and has died in her lifetime, such property shall not be deemed for the purpose of the principal Act to pass on his death by reason of her then becoming entitled to the property in virtue of her former interest.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved to insert at the end of Sub-section (1) the words:—
      "Where by a disposition of any property any such interest as above in this section mentioned is conferred on two or more persons, either severally or jointly, or in succession, this section shall apply in like manner as where the interest is conferred on one person."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he accepted the Amendment.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEthought that some explanation of the Amendment ought to be given to the Committee.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the Amendment did not affect the principle of the clause. Once Clause 14 had been adopted it seemed to him that whether there were several life interests or only one life interest did not matter.
      SIR R. REIDregretted that the Amendment had been accepted by the
      980
      Government. The clause provided that if a man settled property on his son for life, and if the son died in the father's lifetime, the father would not have to pay the Death Duty on the reversion of the property to him. The Amendment proposed to enlarge that exception. It proposed that if an interest was conferred, not on one son only, but on two or three sons, and that if they should all die in the father's lifetime, the Death Duty should not be paid in like manner as if there had been only one settlement. The acceptance of the Amendment was another proof of the aim of the Government to whittle away the effect of the Finance Act of 1894; and significantly enough the hon. Gentleman who proposed it, declared during the discussion on the Act that the object of his life would be to destroy that Act altogether.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not state that it would be his object to destroy the Bill by whittling it away. He certainly did declare that he looked forward to the time when the House of Commons having returned to its right senses would practically repeal the Bill. But be announced publicly also that he particularly desired that no attack should be made upon the essential principles of the Act at this time; that he thought it would be improper to do so, and he did not think his Amendment assailed the principles of the Act.
      SIR R. REIDsaid the spirit which animated the proposal was hostile to the Finance Act. The Government were undoubtedly proposing by this Bill to relieve the wealthy classes from some operations of the Finance Act. There was not a single proposal in the Bill for the relief of those who were poor; and the present Amendment was another proposal for the relief of those who were in the enjoyment, or likely to be in the enjoyment of settled property.
      *MR. HARRISONsaid that settlement meant the placing of property out of the owner's control; and one of the effects of parting with property in that

      981
      way was to protect it against creditors. There could not be a dual possession of property. When property was settled the assumption was that it had been parted with. Under those circumstances he could not conceive the principle of the Estate duty being excepted—why settled property, on unexpectedly reverting to the person to whom it had originally belonged should for that reason be excepted from the operations of the Act.
      *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Order, order! The only question now before the Committee is an Amendment that the benefits of the clause should be extended from one to two or more persons.
      *MR. HARRISONsaid his observations were directed to show that if the principle was bad in the case of one devolution it was still more objectionable in the case of two or more devolutions.
      *MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSONasked whether the Attorney General had considered a point which he had raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, namely, whether this clause did not open a way for the evasion of the Act? Supposing a father wished to enjoy a property for life, and, if possible, to evade the payment of the Death Duty. The father handed the property over he the son, and the son then settled it on the father for life with remainder to himself on the death of his father. By that arrangement, the father could, under the clause, enjoy the property for life, and on his death it would revert to his son free from duty.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid he did not regard the Amendment as in any way an infringement of the principle of the Finance Act. It was confined entirely to the case in which the interest conferred was for the life of another person or terminable upon his death, and it was to meet the case of property settled by the father upon the son for the son's life. It was their view that the Finance Act was not intended to
      982
      deal with temporary dispositions of property.
      MR. LEWISasked in what part of the Act was there protection against the evasion which the hon. Member referred to?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALwas understood to say in no part of the Act.
      SIR R. REIDsaid they had no chance at all on that side unless they could influence the Attorney General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer by reason. They were bound to accept the views of the Attorney General upon a point of law, but he hoped he might be excused for trying to place before him what was a serious apprehension on their part. He would put the concrete case of a father and son; the father had certain property which, in the natural course of nature would come to the son. The father and son both wished to evade the Death Duties. The first step in that transaction was that the father handed over absolutely to the son without any reservation at all the whole of his property. After the conveyance had taken place, the son as the absolute owner of the property, conferred a life interest in that property upon the father. The hon. and learned Member then proceeded to read this case into the section. It was not what the Exchequer ought to encourage, and whatever side of the House they sat on they wanted to prevent persons who could afford to command skilled legal opinion in these matters escaping from taxation.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated the case perfectly fairly, but he would repeat that this section did not touch that case. The vice of that particular transaction rested upon the fact that a man might now give his property away absolutely, and provided he did it more than a year before his death the property on his death would escape taxation altogether. This section did not deal with that particular method whereby Estate Duty would be evaded.

      983
      They had considered the point, and it seemed to them that the section as framed would not in any way alter the existing law in regard to that matter. It might be, however, that the Exchequer ought to go further and endeavour to stop that gap or loop-hole, and in order that there should be no doubt about the matter they were prepared to add these words as a proviso:—
      "Provided that the foregoing sub-section shall not apply where such person or persons taking the said life or determinable interest have at any time prior to the disposition been himself or themselves competent to dispose of the said property."
      SIR R. REIDthought that what the Attorney General had said had been extremely fair, and so far as he could judge it appeared to meet the case. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter with a view to determining whether the legal effect of his language travelled beyond what was intended. If that was the case and the Attorney General and the Solicitor General put any Amendments down, so far as he was concerned he would endeavour to be an honest critic. It was the duty of them all, whether they liked the Finance Act or not, to see that in cutting down any part of it they did not cut away more than was intended, and not to allow any advantage to be taken of it by persons who had access to superior skill, and what he would call legal chicanery, at the expense of the community.
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexpressed his obligation to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the manner in which he had approached these questions. He could assure him that they had been matters of very careful study on the part of himself and his hon. and learned friends. There had been extremely hard cases with which these different sections were intended to deal brought before his notice by the Inland Revenue officials. They had felt themselves bound under the present wording
      984
      of the Finance Act to exact duty in cases where even the souls of the Revenue officials had revolted against the proceedings. They were as anxious as was the hon. and learned Gentleman that these sections should not be utilised for the evasion of the law, and he could assure him that any suggestions would have the most careful consideration of himself and his hon. and learned Friends.
      The proviso suggested by the ATTORNEY GENERAL was then agreed to to the following effect:—
      "Provided that the foregoing sub-section shall not apply where such person or persons, taking the said life interest, or terminable interest, have at any time prior to the disposition been himself, or themselves, competent to dispose of the said property."
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGE MR. LLOYD-GEORGE moved to insert in Sub-section (2) after the word "wife," the following words,—
      "And is not entitled to any other property, real or personal, in his own right which, or part of which, passes on his death to his wife."
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERopposed the Amendment. The words would go far beyond what was contemplated.
      Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 59; Noes, 146.—(Division List, No. 316.)
      On the question "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill,"
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid he objected to the clause on a very broad ground—namely, that it placed no limit on the settlements in the case of personalty. He contended that some limit should be fixed. It was not seldom that one saw persons who were engaged in all sorts of speculative occupations in the Bankruptcy Court to-day, and very shortly afterwards living in luxury and splendour. [Laughter.] How was that done? Why, the men had made settlements of what they had on their wives, living

      985
      upon them. [Laughter.] There ought to be some limit fixed in regard to personalty that would be covered by the clause in question. Let the limit be £500 or any other amount, or if the Attorney General preferred, lot the limit be on the principle of percentage. This clause, however, permitted not only personalty, to any extent to be settled, but realty also, and to that he objected altogether. Five-eighths of the land in England was under settlement at the present time, and one of the effects of this was that the Government had had to bring in a Bill to relieve landlords of a part of their taxation. Under other and ordinary circumstances the land might have been distributed in many other hands, and have been more advantageously utilised for the country. ["Hear, hear," and laughter.] He repeated that he objected altogether to settlements in regard to realty, and he thought every Radical ought to agree with him in that view. He thought that settlements altogether did great harm. They kept out of the market large quantities of land, and consequently had the effect of raising the price of land. But they did even more harm than that. Their tendency was to throw property into the same families for generation after generation, and thus to create a landed aristocracy, and a landed aristocracy was a thing to which he thoroughly objected. [Laughter.] Under those circumstances he must, as a Radical with strong views in regard to matters connected with land, challenge a vote on the clause.
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he had only one or two observations to make. He thought the clause was much to wide. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that several cases had been brought to the notice of the Treasury during the present financial year in which the Act had operated harshly. But the right hon. Gentleman did not give a single case, and if there were such cases he thought one or two of them should be stated by way of illustration and con-
      986
      firmation. In his opinion the clause was weak in the fact that it opened the door of possible evasion much too widely, and the result would be that cases would evade payment of the duty which ought not to escape. What very often happened in the case of a man who engaged in business speculation? He settled certain property which he had acquired upon his wife for life, and subsequently upon his children, with a sort of reversion to himself. Matters had been made worse by the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, because that Amendment extended the operation of the clause. As the clause stood originally, it would have been confined to the case where a person settled property either upon his wife or son; but now a man could settle property upon his wife, divide the reversion between his children, and consequently evade the payment of his just debts. It was unfair that encouragement should be given to settlements which were fraudulent in their intent.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Gentleman had missed the central point of the clause. The hon. Member referred to the case of a creditor who could not get at property because it was in settlement; but he had entirely overlooked the fact that this clause did not deal with such property—it never touched property until it had come back to the settlor, and was, therefore, no longer protected by the settlement from the creditor. The clause was a discouragement of those fraudulent settlements which seemed to be so very well known on the other side of the House. ["Oh!"] He confessed he believed such settlements were extremely rare. [A laugh.] He believed the commercial honesty of this country was great—[renewed laughter]—and that settlements such as the hon. Member had referred to were not often made. But the clause had nothing to do with settlements; it did not come into operation until a settlement had ceased to exist.
      MR. WARNERdid not think the hon. Member for Lynn Regis quite understood the point. It was quite true that if property reverted to a man his creditors could seize it. It often happened that a man became bankrupt while the property was in the hands of his wife or children, and that, after he had settled with his creditors, the fee simple reverted to him. That was the point the hon. Gentleman had not solved. He knew the way in which settlements were worked. Settled property was extremely difficult to manage, and entailed a great loss, not only on the community at large, but on the life-owner of the property itself. What they objected to was that the land should be tied up, not for the protection of the ordinary holder of the property, but for the man who was a spendthrift or a fool. Fortunately, in this country the aristocracy had not such a number of fools and spendthrifts in their ranks that they should take especial care to preserve the interests of their children. Any clause that encouraged the settlement of property in the way this clause did was a real injury to the people who had landed estates, and was only giving the sons of fools and spendthrifts an advantage over the sons of ordinary people, who really suffered a great loss by it.
      Question put, "That Clause 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 175; Noes, 75.—(Division List, No. 317.)
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 15,—

      ESTATE DUTIES ON ANNUITIES.
      The estate duty due in respect of any annuity or other definite annual sum, whether terminable or perpetual, may, at the option of the person delivering the account, he paid by four equal yearly instalments, the first of which shall be due at the end of twelve months from the date of the death, and after the end of those twelve months interest on the unpaid portion of the duty shall be added to each instalment
      988
      and paid accordingly, but the duty for the time being unpaid, with interest to the date of payment, may be paid at any time.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved to insert, after the words "or perpetual," the words "referred to in Section 2 (1) (d) or principal Act."
      Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 16,—

      OBJECTS OF NATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, OR HISTORIC INTEREST.
      (1.) Where any property passing on the death of a deceased person consists of such pictures, prints, books, manuscripts, works of art, scientific collections, or other things not yielding income as appear to the Treasury to be of national, scientific, or historic interest, and is settled so as to be enjoyed in kind in succession by different persons, such property shall not, on the death of such deceased person, be aggregated with other property, but shall form an estate by itself, and, while enjoyed in kind by a person not competent to dispose of the same, be exempt from estate duty, but if it is sold or is in the possession of some person who is then competent to dispose of the same, shall become liable to estate duty.
      (2.) The person selling the same, or for whose benefit the same is sold, and also the person being in possession and competent to dispose of the same, shall be accountable for the duty, and shall deliver an account, in accordance with section eight of the principal Act, in the case of a sale within one month after the sale, and in the case of a person coming into possession, or if in possession becoming competent to dispose, within six months after he so comes into possession, or becomes competent to dispose.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved to omit the words "as appear to the Treasury to be," in order to insert instead thereof the words "as are." He said that the clause as proposed by the Government approximated in principle, though not in effect, to the clause in the Legacy Duty Act, exempting heirlooms from Legacy Duty. Objects of national, scientific, or historic interest, which yielded no income and which could not be sold, were really only in the custody of the possessor; and they ought to be exempt from Estate Duty. The clause only applied to property of a

      989
      certain definite kind such as "pictures, prints, books, manuscripts, works of art, scientific collections, or other things not yielding income as appear to the Treasury to be of national, scientific or historic interest." Such property was to be exempt from Estate Duty. What he objected to was that the Treasury were to determine what property came within the exemption. Why should they put this power in the hands of the Treasury? In the first place, the clause gave the Treasury the power of construing an Act of Parliament, which they were utterly incompetent to do. In the next place the Treasury was an interested party and therefore ought not to be empowered to decide in the matter. It was undoubtedly the interest of the Treasury to bring into its coffers every farthing that it could lay its hands upon. In his view the Treasury was a most improper body to determine these questions, it was imperfectly equipped by its legal knowledge for the purpose and it was an interested party. Just let the Committee conceive the state of feeling of his right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury having to determine whether his (the hon. Member's) picture was or was not of historic or national interest. In his opinion the proper body to determine whether certain articles were of scientific or historic interest was in the first place those who made the levy, and secondly the Court of Law. He thought, however, that in most cases an agreement would easily be come to between the levying body and the person chargeable, and the Courts of Law would be very rarely resorted to. He contended that the proper language to use in Acts of Parliament was "is," "shall," and so forth. That was what he called enacting, not that such and such things shall be if a department said so. On these grounds he submitted that the proper words to be used were the words he proposed to substitute, and he therefore moved the Amendment which stood in his name.
      SIR W. HARCOURTsaid it would be out of order to discuss the whole clause on this Amendment, and he would reserve what he had to say until they came to the Motion for the adoption of the clause He objected to the clause altogether on principle, as he believed it would be a very serious sacrifice of revenue. Under the Probate Duty property of this land had always paid, and for the first time it was proposed to exempt it. That was an attack on direct taxation. The hon. Member knew that the principle of taxing this kind of property had existed as long as the Probate Duty had existed. The particular Amendment of the hon. Member was that the Judges should determine this question, and not the Treasury. He did not think either authority was very competent to judge this question. How was it to be determined? The hon. Member had put very well a test question with reference to a picture to commemorate for ever the lineaments of the present Member for King's Lynn. [Laughter.] That, no doubt, would be a matter of great interest both nationally and historically. [Laughter.] but the question was—Who was the best person to decide that? He was sorry to say that the hon. Member had repudiated the decision of the present Secretary to the Treasury—[laughter]—and pointed out that the Secretary to the Treasury was not a permanent officer. As Horace said of Augustus, it was to be hoped that the decision might long be postponed. [Laughter.] It might not be the present Secretary to the Treasury who would have to determine the question. But the hon. Gentleman substituted for him the Courts of Law. Fancy the Courts of Law having to decide the question of the importance from the national and historic point of view of the portrait of the hon. Member [Laughter.] There might be a division of opinion in the Court of first assistance and the question would be carried to the Court of Appeal, and it might be that the question of the importance of

      991
      the portrait of the hon. Member might have to be decided by the House of Lords. [Laughter.] He thought, on the whole, that the decision of the Treasury would be the better decision. Considering the old maxim de gustibus non est disputandum, he confessed that confining himself to the present Amendment he thought a simple decision by the Treasury was the better course. He had a profound respect for her Majesty's Judges, but he was not sure that the simple fact that a man was suddenly clothed in ermine made him infallible as an authority on national, scientific, and historic subjects. Therefore, on the whole, he would rather leave the question to the Treasury.
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that Section 15 of the Finance Act of 1894 provided that it should be lawful for the Treasury to remit the duty with respect to such works of art as appeared to the Treasury to be of national, scientific, or historic interest, and to have been given for national purposes, or to certain public bodies. In that case Parliament deliberately preferred the opinion of the Treasury to the interpretation of the Courts of Law. As the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out, if the question were left to the Courts of Law, it would have to be narrowly interpreted by the Inland Revenue in the first instance, and might have to be carried to the higher Courts before a final decision was arrived at. He believed that the Act of 1894 was right with respect to this matter, and that no better tribunal could be devised than the Treasury for the settlement of questions of this kind. His hon. Friend behind had suggested that his portrait might be of national and historical interests. (Mr. GIBSON BOWLES, "No.") He begged pardon; his hon. Friend was too modest to make the suggestion. [Laughter.] But he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, should certainly decide the picture to be of historical interest, for his hon. Friend's memory would be entitled
      992
      to a vindication against the somewhat libellous portraits of him that occasionally appeared. [Laughter.] The essential things in these matters was that a decision should be arrived at as speedily and at as little cost as possible. The Treasury had construed the 15th section of the Act of 1894 in a liberal sense, which had been satisfactory to all persons whose interests were concerned. These being matters not of law but of fact, it was far better to intrust them to a tribunal like the Treasury than to the Law Courts.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he could not remain insensible to the appeal and representations of the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire. He would, therefore, ask leave to draw his Amendment.
      MR T. W. LEGH MR T. W. LEGH (Lancashire, N.W., Newton) moved after the word "scientific" to insert the word "artistic," in order to exclude from the Estate Duty artistic collections not yielding income. He said that the exemptions mentioned in the clause were very limited. A man not necessarily a millionaire, might succeed to a gallery of family pictures. Ancestors, as a rule, were not distinguished people; in the main they were decidedly undistinguished, and it was extremely improbable that, in most cases, their portraits would come within the category of national or historic pictures. At the same time these pictures might be extremely valuable as works of art, and when they yielded no income it appeared to him to be a hard provision that they should be aggregated.
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that works of art were not excluded from the operation of the clause, but to be included they must be of national or historic interest. They must be something more than merely artistic. It was not intended to give the privilege proposed by this clause to collections of pictures or anything of the kind unless they possessed some such national or historic interest as connected

      993
      them specially with a particular place or family or with the country at large. In fact, the clause was intended to cover what were ordinarily known as heirlooms. The Amendment of his hon. Friend was far too wide.
      *MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that there were works which were neither scientific, nor historic, nor national in their interest, but were purely artistic, and which ought properly to be considered under this clause. Under the definition just suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the whole of the National Gallery, or the greater part of it, would be excluded from the privileges of the clause. There were saints and madonnas which were neither historical, nor national, nor connected with any family or place. Consequently the whole of these beautiful specimens of early Italian art, if they were heirlooms, would be charged with duty though the intention of the clause was to exclude them. There was a gentleman in Wiltshire who possessed an iron chair which was said to be worth something like £20,000 or £30,000. It was not historical, and undoubtedly it was not of national interest because it was made in Germany. [Laughter.] The only interest attaching to the chair was the artistic excellence of its workmanship. It was an heirloom and could not be sold, and surely it was entitled to be protected. He thought there was a case for the Amendment and that the case had not yet been met.
      SIR. W. HABCOURTsaid that when they entered upon the term "artistic" they entered the largest and vaguest term possible. Clause 15 of the Act to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred was of a far more limited character, because it dealt with matters of national, scientific, and historical interest which were devoted to the public. Here they were proposing to protect from the duty everything that was kept in private hands. If they were going to protect from duty everything
      994
      of an artistic character, what they were really going to do was to make an enormous present to the richest millionaires in the country. ["Hear, hear!"] The people who had those fine works of an artistic character were, they were glad to know, persons of great wealth and of great taste also, but that was no reason why they should exempt them for the first time from taxation in this respect. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNEthought the right hon. Gentleman was entirely in error in saying that the great works of art in England were in the hands of very rich people. That was not at all the case. Many persons who, especially in those hard times of agricultural depression, were by no means rich, owned very choice works of art. In a great number of cases these works of art were heirlooms, which the law forbade them selling. A man might succeed to them, but he might not sell them. Yet he had to pay an enormous duty on them, and he might be placed in the position of having to pay such a sum as might cripple his income for life, or certainly for a great many years. That constituted the great hardship of the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth himself. He was grateful for the modifications introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he agreed with his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment that he had not gone far enough. His right hon. Friend said that the only heirlooms he intended to protect were heirlooms of historic and national interest. Why make that distinction? Certain heirlooms, consisting of some of the most splendid pictures in the world, could not come under either of these categories. For instance, the choicest examples of Sir Joshua Reynolds might be in the possession of a poor family; the heir would be completely unable to sell under the law, and yet would have to pay an enormous duty on the

      995
      pictures. Were they to be considered of national and historic interest? In one sense all Sir Joshua Reynolds's pictures were of national importance, but he did not imagine that would be the sense in which the Treasury would interpret the Act. As a matter of fact, the reason why a picture was made an heirloom was, not because it was national or historic, but because it was artistic; and it appeared to him the man who was burdened—for in the case he had put he was burdened—with a choice work of art of that kind, upon which he would have to pay an enormous duty, ought to be protected as he would if it were of historical or national importance. ["Hear, hear!"] Historical interest he had always understood to mean historical from a public point of view, not because it was connected with a family. This was an extremely vague word which would have to be interpreted by the Treasury, in whom, he was afraid, he had perhaps not quite as much confidence as his right hon. Friend in such a case as this. He ventured to think the Amendment was one which might well be accepted.
      MR. BIRRELLsaid the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had robbed this clause of the value he himself attributed to it. He always thought it was introduced in order to encourage people to collect pictures, books, prints, and manuscripts of great value and of an interesting character, such as they wished to preserve in this country, and to prevent going across the seas. The noble Lord seemed to confine this matter to heirlooms, and to think that the country was interested in preventing heirlooms being sold. For his part he did not know that the heirlooms of this country were such valuable things that they were particularly anxious to preserve them, and the Court of Chancery possessed the means of selling them when the interest or the necessity of the family required it. Indeed, a great many of the pictures which the nation
      996
      now possessed were originally heirlooms, and orders had been made by the Court for their sale. He thought the Amendment was rational, and that they ought not to confine the clause merely to things connected with a place or ancestors, but ought to try and preserve in this country works of the kind referred to because they were of interest to the nation at large, so that they could all have a certain satisfaction in feeling that they existed in their midst. The idea of confining the clause to particular houses and families savoured rather of an aristocratic notion, which a large view of art would liberate the right hon. Gentleman's mind from. As this was to be left to the Treasury, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite, dwelling upon the artistic importance of a picture, might very fairly be accepted.
      THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that the wording of the clause would include a picture which was an object of national interest.
      SIR R. REIDsaid it appeared to him that the Amendment of the law proposed by the Bill was of a very dangerous character. If it was desired to abate taxation in this country they ought to abate it in the interests of those who really saw, let alone possessed, fine pictures. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would forgive him for saying so, but this was a piece of class legislation, practically exempting from taxation those of a particular class. In taxing the people of this country they should tax them on fair principles. He deprecated the introduction of exemptions of this character into our taxing legislation, for, once begun, there was no knowing where they would end.
      COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid many hon. Members on the Ministerial side had a friendly feeling towards the Amendment because, with the indulgence of the Treasury, it would keep in the hands of families who were not rich works of art which they

      997
      cherished, and prevent them from being sold and getting into the hands of millionaires and other wealthy persons. The hon. Member opposite left out of account the natural pride and strong feeling many had in wishing to pass on to those who followed the comparatively few things that had descended to them from their ancestors.
      Question put, "That the word 'artistic' be there inserted."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes, 44; Noes, 228.—(Division List, No. 318.)
      MR. LLOYD-GEORGEmoved to leave out the words "and is," and to insert instead thereof the words "and to have been accessible during the lifetime of their late possessor to public view and inspection under reasonable conditions, and where such property is." The object of the Amendment was to confine the exemption under the clause to collections which had been accessible to the public. Many owners had been exceedingly indulgent to the public, but there were exceptions.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that private owners were exceedingly liberal in lending the collections to exhibitions, or in opening them to the general public. ["Hear, hear!"] He felt an extreme difficulty in laying down a legislative condition as to the rights of the public in this matter. The rights might be so exercised as to become an intolerable hardship to the owner of, perhaps, one or two pictures such as would come under the operation of the clause. The proposal of the hon. Member was retrospective, and that was impracticable. He thought that it would be perfectly impossible for the Treasury or any official to ascertain whether, during a considerable number of years, the clause under such conditions had or had not been complied with. He thought that, if any conditions were laid down, they should be prospective and not retrospective. ["Hear, hear!"]
      SIR W. HARCOURTsaid it was quite true that there would be great difficulties in carrying out the proposals of his hon. Friend, but that was the great objection to the clause. The clause in the Act of 1894 laid down an intelligent principle, but now for the first time they were giving exemption to
      998
      private individuals who kept up these collections for their own use. That was the whole distinction between the two cases. No doubt, in the great majority of cases the owners of these pictures and works of art, in London and elsewhere, kept them where the public could see them, but he had known some exceptions of a not very agreeable character. He would not mention names, but in one case, where there was a valuable collection of manuscripts of Lord Bacon, the reply to the applicant was that it would involve "you staying in my house, which would not be pleasant to me, therefore I must refuse to let you see them." He had known valuable collections to which access was absolutely refused altogether. Under this clause these collections would be exempted from taxation. He thought, in return for exemption, there should be some public advantage. That was a sound principle, and he should therefore support the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]!
      MR. BRYN ROBERTSalso supported the Amendment, as there were collections from which the public did not derive the slightest advantage.
      MR. HERBERT LEWISheld that there were other difficulties, and that these collections should not be exempt. He thought the Amendment might be easily deprived of its retrospective character, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected. With that view, he moved to amend the proposed Amendment by providing that it should not take effect until after the passing of the Act. The possession of historical collections of works of art, of libraries with rare historical manuscripts, etc., gave to persons a peculiar interest and position, and that being so, he thought it only fair that the public should be admitted to some participation in the treasures. He knew of a case, however, in which an historical student was called upon to pay a guinea before he was allowed to see a certain document, and of other cases in which great difficulty was found in gaining access to certain manuscripts, not on the part of the general public, but of working students. He would give specific cases if necessary. He repeated that the possession of those historical and rare treasures gave to a man a far higher position than the possession of a stud of racehorses or of great

      999
      wealth, and in that case he thought those persons had a corresponding duty to the public. If they ignored that duty their collections ought not to he exempted from taxation. ["Hear, hear!"]
      Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
      MR. DALZIELsaid it was clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not unfavourable to the principle put forward in the Amendment, and that if he could carry it out he would not refuse to do so. It was true, no doubt, that in most cases the proprietors of collections were willing to allow the public to share the beauty of their treasures. He would refer, by way of example, to one notable instance of generosity—that of the Duke of Westminster, who had thrown open his house in London to the public on Sunday afternoons, in order that they might view his pictures and other works of art. [Cheers.] But there were cases in which proprietors of collections had refused a view of their treasures to the public, and he knew of one case in which admission was refused even to the representatives of the Record Office. He had risen, however, mainly to make a suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who recognised that there was some ground for the Amendment in the interests of the public. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman would state that he would consider the question between now and the Report stage, and see whether some rule could not be framed to meet the purpose in view, his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he objected to the Amendment, in the first place because of its retrospective character, but of course if that could be removed the case assumed a somewhat different aspect. He confessed that he sympathised with the wish expressed that some kind of return should be made to the public by the possessors of collections of objects of art for the advantage of exemption which they would obtain under the clause in respect of those collections. [Cheers.] At the same time it would be very wrong that that return to the public should be exacted in such a way as to place the possessors of the collections in
      1000
      any unfair position. ["Hear, hear!"] The matter was undoubtedly one of considerable difficulty, but he would undertake to consider it before the Report stage. ["Hear, hear!"]
      MR. LOGANtrusted that the Amendment would be so altered as to apply to those persons who might become possessed of pictures in the future. The only justification for this clause was that if persons possessing pictures and other works of art were not to be taxed in respect of them, some benefit should be derived by the public by an inspection of them. He could not understand why, if he collected together four or five valuable horses, his successor should have to pay Estate Duty upon them, while, if he invested his money in pictures and the like, the property should be exempt from such duty. Instead of laying it down what was a national and an historical picture, the best course to adopt was to let exemption under the clause apply to those pictures and works of art to which the public had free and uncontrolled access.
      SIR W. HARCOURThoped that, after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, the hon. Gentleman would not press the Amendment to a Division. There would be a fair opportunity to consider the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Report. He also hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would report Progress after the Amendment was disposed of, so as to afford an opportunity to discuss the clause as a whole. The Committee had now done a good day's work.
      Viscount CRANBORNEdid not understand that his right hon. Friend had made any engagement to give effect to the words of the hon. Member; all that the right hon. Gentleman said was that he would consider the Amendment. He thought that grave inconvenience would attend any proposal of this kind if accepted, and it could not be agreed to without exciting the greatest opposition from other quarters of the House. Though nearly every owner of curiosities was most anxious to show them to the public, anything like a specific direction to do so in an Act of Parliament would be open to great objection. He knew a case where manuscripts were always shown to the public without any restriction, and where the signatures of many

      1001
      important historical papers had disappeared, inflicting not only a loss on the owners, but a loss to great historical curiosities.
      *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that what he had said had been sufficiently guarded. He could not promise to bring up an Amendment on Report, because the matter was one of extreme difficulty and delicacy, and it was conceivable that any proposals of the kind might really inflict great hardship on private individuals. At the same time he sympathised with the object of those who moved the Amendment; and he hoped the Committee would be content to leave the matter there.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, "That Clause 16 stand part of the Bill."
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  TRUCK BILL.
  Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Tomorrow.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15 May] further adjourned till Tomorrow.
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee, deferred till Thursday.
  POST OFFICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday,
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  RAILWAY ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Tuesday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (PORTS) BILL.
  Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [26th June] deferred till Thursday.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.]
  Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  ELECTION PETITIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  BENEFICES BILL.
  Further Proceeding on consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Friday.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committte), deferred till Thursday.
  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL [H.L.]
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; Bill read the Third time, and passed.
  BURIALS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 28th July.
  CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion "That the House do now adjourn,"
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that in consulting, as far as he was able, the opinion on all sides of the House, he had come to the conclusion that on Thursday week the House, might begin the discussion in Committee on the Irish Land Bill. That was not altogether a convenient day for his hon. Friends on his side of the House, as it was the day on which the grand juries met; but he understood from them that they would not object. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. E. MORTONasked what would be taken after the Education Vote on Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid he hoped they might get through the Education Vote before the end of the evening, and, if so, he should proceed with Classes 6 and 7 of the Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. MICHAEL DAVITT: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to bring on the Irish Estimates a week on Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Yes; Friday week.
  House Adjourned at Twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

GRAY PEERAGE.
Committee for Privileges met. The Lord Stuart of Castle Stuart (E. Moray) sworn at the Table to give evidence before the Committee. Counsel heard. Witnesses examined. Claim considered. Then it was resolved, That the Petitioner, Eveleen Smith, wife of James Maclaren Smith, hath made out her claim to the title, honour, and dignity of Baroness Gray in the Peerage of Scotland. The report there of to be made to the House.
MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House and of the Amendments made by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 184.]
FLOODS PREVENTION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments. The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 185.]
CABS (LONDON) BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
INFANT LIFE PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) that it is not expedient to proceed with the Safety of Nurse Children Bill [H. L.] made, and to be printed.—[No. 186].
SAFETY OF NURSE CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
Report with Amendments from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee); Committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and to be printed as amended.—[No. 187.]

TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, explained that the Bill proposed to amend the Act of 1887, which gave power to trustees of landed estates to reduce agricultural or pastoral rents if in their judgment it was for the interests of the estate to do so. But that Act gave no power to trustees to reduce mineral rents or royalties. The object of the Bill, therefore, was to place trustees in estates which produced minerals to reduce the mineral rents or royalties, in the same manner as regarded agricultural rents, if they were of opinion such reduction should be made. It had been brought to the knowledge of the Government that there were some estates in the west of Scotland upon which the mineral royalties, which were fixed when the prices for minerals were high, were now so high as to interfere with the mineral works, and consequently men were liable to be thrown out of employment, and industry to suffer. The simple object of this Measure, therefore, was to give the same power to trustees of mineral estates which trustees of agriculture and pastoral estates now enjoyed.
Read 2a (according to Order); and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

WORKMEN'S DWELLINGS BILL [H.L.]
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY, in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, said he understood that if any Amendments were to be proposed to the Bill, they would be reserved until it came before the Standing Committee. Since he introduced the Measure, he had fully recognised the force of the remarks

903
which the late Prime Minister had made on the Bill as to the difficulty which might arise in case of the migration of the population in a thickly populated district. He thought the interests of the local ratepayers would be well safeguarded under the Bill by the fact that in all local authorities there were two parties, and the one party would closely criticise the action of the other should either be disposed to advance money under unsatisfactory conditions. Again, he thought the interests of the ratepayers under the Bill would be safeguarded to a great extent by the fact that the Local Government Board would exercise more or less control over the local authorities in advancing money, and that Clause 8 would prevent them from doing so in a reckless or careless way. But he had been given to understand that Clause 8 might be read in such a manner as would not sufficiently safeguard the interests of the ratepayers, and in case that opinion was still entertained he was quite ready to suggest that the clause might be made more elastic by giving the Local Government Board more authority than it now possessed under the Bill over the local authorities. He should have no objection to accepting an Amendment, or he would move one himself if it was thought advisable, to the effect that a Local Government Board Inspector should be directed to inspect and report on the buildings proposed to be bought, or on any other details in regard to which it might be thought there was any risk to the ratepayers. He should be ready to move such an Amendment if it was deemed necessary, but at the same time he would point out that the expenses of calling in the Local Government Board Inspector might be so great that it would hardly be worth while doing so in the cases of advancing small sums. But he threw out this suggestion in order to show that he had no desire that the Bill should pass without full regard being shown for the interests of the ratepayers. ["Hear, hear!"] It might be thought that Clause 5 overloaded the Bill. He should be glad to see it passed, but if their Lordships thought in Committee that the Measure in this regard should be passed in the form in which it was originally introduced,
904
he should not object. The noble Earl the late Prime Minister had stated that he regarded the Bill as an experiment, and as such had intimated that he would not oppose it. He acknowledged that the Measure was an experiment, and one which should be closely watched and safeguarded in the interests of the ratepayers, and in that spirit he cordially invited criticism and suggestion. There seemed to be a feeling on the part of some of their Lordships that there was some kind of compulsion in the Measure, and that it was of a somewhat confiscatory character. If his memory served him right, he laid stress, when be introduced the Bill, on the fact that there was no compulsion of any sort or kind, and nothing of a confiscatory spirit in any part of the Measure. Indeed, he went so far as to say that if there had been any intention or spirit of that kind in the Bill, he would not have introduced it. He had brought forward the Bill because he believed it would be an advantage to the working classes to be enabled to borrow money with which to purchase the houses in which they lived on more favourable terms than they could obtain from the Building Societies. That was really the main object of the Bill, and he would not ask their Lordships to approve the Bill unless he were satisfied that it was of a fair, just, and equitable character.
Bill considered in Committee (according to Order); reported without Amendment, and recommitted to the Standing Committee.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CROSS)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT CROSS) moved the Third Reading of this Bill.
Clause 1,—

DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL.

  SLAUGHTER OF FOREIGN ANIMALS.
  (1.) For section twenty-four of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, shall be substituted the following section, namely:—
  "The provisions set forth in Part I. (slaughter at port of landing) of the Third Schedule to

  905
  this Act shall apply to all foreign animals other than—

  (a) foreign animals the landing of which is for the time being prohibited by order of the Board of Agriculture; and

  (b) foreign animals intended for exhibition or other exceptional purposes, and the landing of which is allowed for the time being by the Board, subject to the provisions of Part II. (quarantine) of the Third Schedule to this Act."

  (2.) Section twenty-six of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1891, is hereby repealed.
  LORD HERSCHELL LORD HERSCHELL moved to add at the end of Sub-section (1), after the word "Act,"—
  "Provided always that if it shall be represented to Her Majesty by an Address of either House of Parliament that any particular colony or country is free from cattle disease, and that animals may be admitted from such colony or country without any danger of introducing or spreading disease, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty in Council by Order to allow animals or any specified kind of animals brought from that colony or country to be landed without being subject to the provisions aforesaid; provided that the admission of such animals shall be subject to such regulations as to the route by which the animals are conveyed to this country, quarantine, or otherwise, as the Board of Agriculture may by Order direct; any such Order of the Queen in Council as aforesaid may be from time to time revoked or varied."
  He did not desire that cattle should be introduced into the country if there were any danger of their propagating or causing disease; but although he thought that the policy of preventing animals from being landed alive for the purpose of avoiding the introduction of disease was one thoroughly justifiable, although it might inflict upon a class of the community considerable hardship and loss, he did not think that it would be justifiable to exclude live animals from this country and inflict that loss for the purpose of protecting the business of the breeder when there was no fear of its being interfered with by disease. He conceded that the Measure ought to be sufficient to prevent the introduction of cattle when there was a danger of their introducing disease; but the Bill went much beyond that, it would forbid the introduction of cattle when there was no danger of their producing disease. It seemed to him, therefore, it was only right to provide some machinery by which in the latter event the prohibition to the introduction
  906
  of live animals should cease to exist. He was quite aware it was possible that disease might be introduced by importation from a country in which at the time no disease existed, which was a point to which the Duke of Devonshire called attention the other day, and he had framed his Amendment with that point fully in view. Under the proposal he made it would be impossible for animals to be admitted unless one or other House of Parliament had investigated the matter and represented to Her Majesty that cattle might be introduced with perfect safety. Did their Lordships think that their own House could not be trusted to make such a representation only when disease had ceased to exist in the colony or country, and that the admission of animals was safe? He did not suppose their Lordships would cast a doubt upon the capacity or honesty of the House in any such matter. Then, were they not prepared to trust the other House of Parliament? The Commons were the representatives of the people of the whole country, and this was a matter in which the country at large was seriously and gravely interested. Surely, therefore, it was right that when disease no longer existed they should be able to say that the restrictions to the introduction of live animals should cease. Allusion had been made to the feeling excited in the colonies by the introduction of this Bill. It would surely be in the highest interests of the good relations between ourselves and our colonies that we should show ourselves ready to afford a simple and efficacious method of putting an end to the restrictions as soon as those restrictions ceased to be necessary. He had no doubt one class of agriculturists would like to see the restrictions permanently maintained, but there was a large class of agriculturists who held the contrary view. Their Lordships ought not in a matter of this kind to be guided by considerations of the interests of either one class or the other, and he advised them to agree to his proposal, the acceptance of which he was persuaded would remove the objections which many persons entertained to the Bill.
  VISCOUNT CROSSwas sorry he could not advise the House to accept the Amendment. Disease was stamped out some time ago at a cost to the Exchequer alone of £272,000, and the agriculturists

  907
  who suffered very considerably by the existence of disease, had a right to say that now the country was free from disease Parliament ought to protect them from it in the future. The two great reasons which he adduced on a previous occasion why this Bill should be passed had been entirely ignored by the noble and learned Lord. At present the duties thrown on the Board of Agriculture were to find out whether there was any danger of disease, or whether there was any instance of disease in the countries from which it was proposed to export cattle. He was sure that the noble Lord could not have consulted the Board of Agriculture.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I did not refer to that because my Amendment deals with it; it leaves repealed that portion of the Act.
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid that no Department in the country had more efficient, deserving, intelligent, and earnest officers than the Board of Agriculture in connection with this question of cattle disease. But they said that it was almost impossible for them to find out in any country whether disease existed to such an extent as to induce them to stop the importation of cattle from that country. Another reason was that if cattle were allowed to leave the port of debarkation alive, although inspected by eminent men, it was impossible for anyone to say whether the cattle so imported had or had not disease. ["Hear, hear!"] Inspectors had not really the means of determining whether or not disease existed in imported cattle unless they were slaughtered on landing. Therefore it was the intention of the Government to abide by the Bill as introduced, because they believed that the proposition of the noble Lord would not protect either the producer or the consumer, as they ought to be protected, from the importation of disease. The duty of administering the Acts rested with the Board of Agriculture. They had done the work well so far as they had gone; but they wished to make their action permanent. He thought that to transfer the responsibility in this matter to either House of Parliament was to select the very worst tribunal. Was either House more likely to understand the business better than the Board of Agriculture, with its staff
  908
  of officers? The Government believed that they ought, in the interests of disease prevention, to make the prohibition permanent, and he appealed to their Lordships not to yield to the somewhat insidious proposal of the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid that Parliament at present appeared to consider itself qualified to deal with this question, for it was about to enact a stringent law superseding the action of the Board of Agriculture, and making perpetual the prohibition of foreign cattle. After this duty had been taken away from the Board of Agriculture, he should be curious to know what would remain for that Department to do. He viewed this Measure as a deliberate step for the protection of breeders in this country against their competitors. The Bill inflicted a cruel loss upon one section of agriculturists—namely, those who fed or grazed animals for the market. Unless there was a very strong and urgent reason for passing a Bill which inflicted a cruel injustice on a certain class of agriculturists, then such a Bill had no real defence. Could anyone say that such a strong case had been made out for this Bill? Could anyone allege that there was any danger of disease being imported by means of the sheep from Iceland? He regretted the severe injury that would be caused to the Icelanders by this Bill. He contested the necessity for the Measure, and asserted that some means should be granted, like the proposition of his noble Friend, for putting it aside.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid he was not going to be seduced by the mention of Protection. They did not want Protection in the ordinary acceptation of the word; what they wanted was protection from disease—["hear, hear!"]—and if they were protected from disease there would be a great many more cattle bred in this country than there was now, because the breeders of cattle would have greater confidence that their flocks and herds would not be ravaged by disease. He confessed he preferred the existing state of the law to the Amendment of the noble Lord. In the present state of the law they did have a Minister who was responsible to Parliament, but according to the proposal of the noble Lord a Party vote might be taken on either side of the

  909
  House to suit the emergencies of the moment, advising Her Majesty to pass an Order in Council to admit animals from a colony or country in which no disease existed. They could not possibly say that no disease existed. There might be no disease in Canada at present but to-morrow it might be imported there from the United States, for the frontier between Canada and the United States was so great that it would almost be impossible to prevent such importation. In that way animals might be brought into this country which had the germs of disease in them, although they might when landed appear to be free from disease. As to the proposal that the President of the Board of Agriculture should make regulations as to the route by which animals were conveyed to this country, how was it possible that the President of the Board of Agriculture could direct by what routes animals should be brought to this country? He would have no authority at all in the matter. If for three years animals had been slaughtered at the port of landing without affecting the interests of the consumer in the least, as he believed could be proved, it would be much better to make the restriction perpetual and not subject to the caprice of any Minister who might be at the head of the Board of Agriculture. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE EARL OF CAMPER DOWNsaid he could not go so far with the noble Lord as to say that this Measure was introduced for the purpose of protecting the breeders of cattle. He agreed with Lord Herschell that they ought to look at this question from a much larger point of view than that of merely one section or other of the agricultural community. He spoke not without some experience on this matter, because he lived in one of the parts of the country which was directly affected by this question of the introduction of Canadian cattle. He had frequently bought them himself, and had seen great quantities of them landed, and he remembered all the circumstances connected with the occasion upon which the further continuance of this traffic was stopped by Lord Burghclere, who at that time was President of the Board of Agriculture. It was quite true that this question had been argued for the most part on that
  910
  side of the House from the interest of one section or another of agriculturists, but he would submit that there was another aspect. It was quite true that the present law had, up to the present time, suppressed and prevented the introduction of disease, but he maintained that they could not stop where they were in regard to this matter. The persons who wished to introduce Canadian cattle wished to do so now. [EARL SPENCER: "No!"] He would refer the noble Lord to the correspondence which had taken place between the Government of Canada and this country. The argument of those who wished to introduce these animals, however, was that if they were not able to do so they would rather have some permanent regulation. How could either House of Parliament comply with such a condition as that proposed in the Amendment? ["Hear, hear!"] How could either House of Parliament conduct an Inquiry which the Board of Agriculture said it found it almost impossible to conduct? So far as he was aware there was no precedent for either House of Parliament to act as an executive body. The reason why they could not go on any longer as at present was that the Board of Agriculture had never attempted to lay down any conditions under which cattle could be safely admitted from Canada. There was no knowing in what set of circumstances a Government might feel itself justified in admitting these cattle. Therefore, farmers would not feel themselves safe in giving up their present mode of farming and turning their attention to breeding cattle, because if they adopted that course they might be ruined by the sudden readmission of Canadian store cattle. He had considerable local experience of this question, and he could assure their Lordships that farmers would infinitely sooner know with certainty in what position they stood, even though it involved the acceptance of this Bill. He hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *EARL STANHOPEtrusted that the House would refuse to accept the Amendment. It appeared to him that farmers did not require Protection, but merely some safeguard which would protect from disease their flocks and herds. Moreover, it was only just to

  911
  the consumer that cattle disease should be excluded from the country, because its presence would be sure to raise the price of meat. It was not the farmer or the Government which desired Protection; it was the Board of Agriculture which required protection from the pressure put upon them to relax the rules which they laid down. It would be remembered how his noble Friend, Lord Burghclere, last year resisted successfully the great pressure put upon him to admit Canadian stock into the country, even though there was no cattle disease in Canada at the time. The late President of the Board of Agriculture had acted with much wisdom and firmness. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, now desired that those rules should be made absolute, and therefore he hoped their Lordships would refuse to accept the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I shall certainly support what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal termed this invidious Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: I described the Amendment as being an insidious one.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Well, then, this insidious Amendment to an invidious Bill. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] But there are other insidious things connected with this Bill besides this Amendment. It is a little fortunate that the word "protection" should have occurred so often in the course of this Debate. I did not count how many times it was used by my noble relative the noble Earl opposite in the course of his short speech. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The word has an ill sound, and it is a pity that we cannot hit upon something less insidious and less invidious. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] There is one evil that I apprehend will follow from the certain rejection of this Amendment, because we are under no illusion as to its fate, because in this House there is little or no chance of the voice of reason carrying its due weight. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The evil that I apprehend is that unfortunately it will be the duty of the noble Marquess opposite to dispense with the services of one of his most valued colleagues—I mean the President of the Board of Agriculture—because this Bill, as it stands, will strip him of his last remaining official duty, and I am sure
  912
  that he would not like to survive that duty and to become a mere ornamental member of a Cabinet already not too limited in number. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] I was sorry to hear the speeches of the noble Duke and the noble Lord behind me. I wonder whether they speak on behalf of the Scotch districts in which they live, or whether they are merely pronouncing their own individual opinions on this subject. As far as I am informed, those districts in Scotland conceive that they have been flagrantly sacrificed in their most material interests in order to satisfy the demands of a larger body which has not more claim to be consulted with regard to it than they have. But I do not look at this question as one which concerns a certain section or a class only. What I look at is the grave result of the course which you are going to adopt, as indicated by the language you have addressed to us. We certainly possess one great advantage in this House over those who sit in the other House of Parliament—namely, that in our discussions we are occasionally treated with a frankness and sincerity and candour which is not always perceptible in the discussions which take place in the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] We have to-night had the confession made to us that this Bill is to be the law of the Medes and Persians, and that we are to be cut off from every chance of grace and mercy for ever. [Cheers and counter cheers and laughter.] Yes, and as far as noble Lords opposite can compass it, they will exclude for ever the entry of live cattle into the ports of the United Kingdom. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] That is the fact. ["Hear, hear!" and counter cheers.] You may say: "So much the better. We are sustaining certain interests in agriculture and we are protecting "—ill-omened word—[cheers and laughter]—"agriculture in its best and highest sense." But I think that you are tying your own hands in a most disadvantageous manner. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Marquess who is at the head of the Foreign Office is no doubt occasionally approached by those who represent Foreign Governments on the subject of commercial treaties. Is this Bill intended to protect the noble Marquess from such approaches? If so, that is another candid

  913
  admission made in this House. I will not pursue the subject of commercial treaties with Foregin Powers further, but I will come to the subject of our colonial relations. The Secretary of the Colonies is a very important Member of the present Government, although he is not quite so much to the front as he was a short time ago—[cheers and laughter]—and he has promulgated a scheme for the establishing a Zollverein for the Empire. I do not know whether this Bill has been introduced with the object of illustrating what would be the effect of our colonies entering into such a compact with us. Even in this Temple of Truth it would be difficult to ascertain whether this is the fact or not. [Cheers and laughter.] The Secretary for the Colonies must know that Canada, one of the most important of our colonies, has set her heart upon having her cattle when proved to be free from disease, admitted into this country. She has offered to pay the expenses of any experts we may send to her territories to ascertain the state of the health of her cattle, and, further, she has offered to pay the sum of £10,000 for every case of cattle disease that can be proved to exist within her territories. In these circumstances the first step that Parliament is asked to take towards bringing about a commercial union between the different parts of the Empire is to declare by Statute that under no condition can live Canadian cattle be introduced into this country. ["Hear, hear!"] We have had the declaration from the Lord Privy Seal that in no stages can the presence of disease be detected in the living animal. That is a very grave assertion, and it ought not to have been made until its accuracy had been established. Our great seaport towns had built at great expense stores where cattle could remain until the state of their health was ascertained beyond dispute, and now these expensive structures are to be thrown upon their hands in deference to an idea, the truth of which has not yet been conclusively proved. So much for the Bill itself. Let me now say a word as to the effect of the Amendment and as to the attitude of the Government in regard to it. My noble Friend behind me told us that we despised the Minister of Agriculture, but I beg to assure him and the Minis-
  914
  ter of Agriculture, whom I see near the steps of the Throne, that no such language has ever been used by us. It is you who have shown that you despise the Minister of Agriculture by depriving him of every important duty he has to discharge. All that the Amendment would do is to empower the Minister of Agriculture to accede to the prayer of one of the Houses of Parliament, which in this case would undoubtedly be the House of Commons, that he would take steps to make inquiries into the health of foreign cattle. It seems a little late in the day to discuss the competence of the House of Commons to pass such an address. It is perfectly competent for the House of Commons to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject. Whence this sudden distrust of a Select Committee of the House of Commons? I confess I think it is a singularly ungracious thing at the present moment to disclose your distrust in the wisdom of the House of Commons, when they have been pleased to have returned so overwhelming a majority in your favour; but, at any rate, whether wise or unwise, you are attempting, as it seems to me, by this Bill to fix a permanent stigma on the wisdom of the House of Commons, which, in my humble opinion, it has not, even during this Session, deserved. What it comes to is this. You have no confidence in the Minister. You have no confidence in the House of Commons, you reserve your full confidence for the House of Lords. [Cheers.] That is your meaning by the rejection of this Amendment. Let your candour extend to that declaration, and let the country know what this Bill means. [Cheers.]
  THE PRIME MINISTER (THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY): The noble Earl has made the discovery that if this Bill is passed through both Houses of Parliament, it therefore becomes the law of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be altered. That is a totally new commentary on the institutions of this country. This Bill will be capable of being altered exactly as any other Bill can be by the consent of both Houses of Parliament. [The EARL of ROSEBERY: "Hear, hear!"] Then the noble Earl tells us that because we do not mean to suspend that constitutional rule and vest this power of altering the law in the

  915
  House of Commons exclusively, we show a want of confidence in the House of Commons and a want of confidence in the Executive Government. What this Amendment proposes is a self-denying ordinance on the part of the House of Lords, that it should strip itself of the rights and prerogatives with which it is invested by the Constitution. What ground or reason is there for that?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: How does it strip the House of Lords?
  THE PRIME MINISTER: By enabling the House of Commons to pass over its head the repeal of this Act whenever it pleased, without consulting the House of Lords.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It gives the House of Lords an equal right.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: An equal right to repeal it, but not to keep it. We wish to have the voice the Constitution gives us in determining the law of the country. We have steadily adhered to that determination. We avowed it at a time when it was less popular than it is now, and our claim on the confidence of the people of this country has been distinctly and conspicuously confirmed. [Cheers.] I do not really think this Amendment makes any serious difference in the present law, and if you accept it you might as well not pass the Bill at all, because what the Amendment does is to place in the hands of a Minister after he has moved a Resolution in the House of Commons the power the Minister now possesses without the Resolution. But as our Constitution is now worked, if a Ministry is in office and has any majority at all that can support it, it could always pass at its pleasure a Resolution of this kind—in fact, a Resolution would be a matter of course. ["Hear, hear!"] It is not so in this House, because the decisions in this House do not affect the stability of the Ministry, and therefore Members of the House of Lords are not restrained in their votes by any consideration of what the effect of them will be on the Ministry. So long as the Ministry has the confidence of the House of Commons, so long it can command such a Resolution as that contemplated by this Amendment. The only difference between the existing state of the law and the proposed Amendment is that under the existing law the Minister stands out responsible and visible to
  916
  all, while under the Amendment the Minister would be working behind a screen. I do not see any advantage in that change. ["Hear, hear!"] A great deal has been said about the impossibility of finding any adequate motive for this Bill. It is on the contrary, in my judgment, and in the judgment of most agriculturists whose opinion I have had the opportunity of learning, it is the most effective method which can be devised of conveying succour to agriculture in its present depressed condition; because the only thing that can lift up a depressed industry and restore it to its old prosperity is the inflow of capital into the channels of its activity. The only thing wanted is that capital should be invested in the great industry of this country, in that pastoral agriculture which in the future will form so large a part of the agriculture of England. One thing is above all necessary, and that is, confidence; and therefore, when you consider the fitness of the law or the action of statesmen, you must not look upon it from the point of view of those who are familiar with the persons by whom the law will be carried out; you must look upon it from the point of view of the small capitalist in the country, who is thinking whether it is safe or not for him to invest his capital in the breeding of cattle or sheep. He will say to himself, the one danger I have to fear is disease. That is the one thing which will make all my calculations vain and frustrate all my endeavours; that is the one thing which can reduce me to penury and destroy my chances of reviving my industry. How am I to be defended against disease? You tell me that the existing state of the law defends me. Well, the existing state of the law, properly administered, does do so no doubt—properly administered; but what security is there that the law will be properly administered? At present it is in the hands of a Minister of the Crown, by his simple decree, to make a change which, if made unwisely, exposes to the danger of disease all the flocks and herds of this country. He can do that by his simple decision if this Amendment is passed. He can do it if he goes through the form of taking a Resolution after 12 o'clock in the other House of Parliament; but in every case it lies entirely in his discretion. Will that discretion

  917
  be always wisely exercised? You have heard speaker after speaker tell you that, according to the decision of the experts, it is not possible for the wisest Minister, though he avails himself of all the light of science, to know whether disease lurks hid in the cattle coming into this country or not, whether the danger exists which would reduce to the lowest point of disease the industry of his countrymen. ["Hear, hear!"] But it is not merely a question of inability. Nothing would be further from my mind than to express any retrospective distrust of the noble Lord who last administered with so much general approval the Agricultural Department of this country; and I need not say that I feel no such distrust in the right hon. Gentleman who, with equally general approval, now administers the office. But how are we to know that the Minister of Agriculture of the future will be of the same disposition? Are there no temptations to try them, or seductions they must avoid? I listened to Lord Burghclere and Lord Spencer. They thought they were proving their case by detailing the extent of the pressure brought to bear on them to induce them to relax the law. They dwelt with almost pathetic earnestness on the heroism with which all these enticements had been resisted. [Laughter.] All honour to Lord Spencer and Lord Burghclere. I will put a candle in their niche and worship them as saints in the future—[laughter]—but how am I to know that men of this temper and moral fibre will hereafter fill the office? How am I to know that this heroism will be continued in the ranks of the Ministers of this country? There may be a falling off. We do not know what the Minister of the future may be, and if one Prime Minister makes a mistake and once offers the office to a Minister who falls away from the heroic model of these two great examples, all precaution will be in vain. Cattle with disease will be admitted. The bacillus, if bacillus it is, which we are so anxious to keep out will establish its lodgment on our shores, and the prospects of the industry will be visited with temporary ruin and with permanent instability and uncertainty. That is the great and serious evil. We know it is an evil with which we have had to contend in the past; we know
  918
  that the efforts of Parliaments and Governments have not been adequate to preserve us from the incursions of this disease; we know the severe loss and want of confidence that is spread abroad by this uncertainty, and we cannot be told that we are simply to trust to the heroic resolution and steadfastness of future Ministers of Agriculture. We require something more secure. Capital, which knows little of individuals, requires something more secure, and unless you give it that security confidence will not rise again, and you will have lost the most hopeful opportunity of restoring the agricultural prosperity of the country. [Cheers.]
  The House divided:—

  Contents

  …

  …

  26

  Not-contents

  …

  …

  108

  DIVISION LIST—CONTENTS.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Kensington, L. [TELLER.]

  Chesterfield, E.

  Crewe, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Kimberley, E

  Lingen, L

  Orford, E.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Playfair, L.

  Reay, L.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Ribblesdale, L. [TELLER.]

  Aberdare, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Burghclere, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Welby, L.

  Hobhouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Amherst, E.

  Annesley, E.

  Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

  Bandon, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Coventry, E.

  Fife, D.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Grafton, D.

  de Montalt, E.

  Portland, D.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens berry)

  Richmond, D.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Jersey, E.

  Salisbury, M.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Zetland, M.

  Lichfield, E.

  Mar and Kellie, L.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

  Mayo, E.

  Morley, E.

  Morton, E.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Nelson, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Abingdon, E.

  Powis, E.

  919

  Ravensworth, E.

  Heneage, L.

  Scarbrough, E.

  Herries, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Hillingdon, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Stradbroke, E.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl.)

  Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

  Kenyon, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Yarborough, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden).

  Falmouth, V.

  Middleton, L.

  Halifax, V.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck)

  Knutsford, V.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Llandaff, V.

  Portman, V.

  Morris, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Addington, L.

  North, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

  Belper, L.

  Brodrick, L. (J. Midleton.)

  Norton, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly).

  Churchill, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Rookwood, L.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Douglas, L. (E. Home)

  Dunalley, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Stanley of Aldorley, L

  Stanmore, L.

  Egerton, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Elphinstone, L.

  Forester, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [TELLER.]

  Trevor, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Wantage, L.

  Glenesk, L.

  Wenlock, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  VISCOUNT CROSS VISCOUNT CROSS moved the following new clause:—
  "This Act shall come into operation on the 1st day of January next after the passing thereof."
  LORD HERSCHELLasked what was the meaning of this proposal. If the Act was not to come into operation until the 1st of next January, the power of the Minister for Agriculture to admit cattle would continue during the interval. If, as the Government apparently thought, it was such a terrible thing that the Minister for Agriculture should have this power, why was the present state of things to be continued for the next six months? ["Hear, hear!"]
  THE PRIME MINISTER: There is a Minister whom we can trust. [Laughter.]
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am glad to observe the limit you put to your confidence. [Laughter.]
  VISCOUNT CROSSexplained that if the Act came into operation at once it would be rather hard on Iceland and Norway, which were not affected with disease at the present moment. The postponement was desirable in order that those countries might have time to make certain arrangements.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought this a very inconsistent concession.
  VISCOUNT CROSSpointed out that the concession could not take any other form. When they proceeded by Act of Parliament, preferential treatment could not be provided for in the Act without infringing upon the principle of the most favoured nation clause. The Amendment was moved in accordance with a promise made in the other House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS AND CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Lord James of Hereford added to the Joint Committee; and a message ordered to be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to add one of their Members to the said Joint Committee.
House adjourned at Ten minutes past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a Quarter past Ten o'clock.