Sitting of 9 July 1896

CIVIL SERVICES, 1896–7 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE).
Estimate presented of the sums required to be voted for the service of the year ending 31st March 1897, in addition to the sums included in the original Estimates for that year [by command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.—[No. 101.]

PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
1. ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.—Account of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ended 31st March 1896, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to be printed.—[No. 286.]
2. INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).—Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure for 1895, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to be printed.—[No. 287.]

FOOD PRODUCTS ADULTERATION.
Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 288.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDONDERRY IMPROVEMENT BILL.
  Read the Third time, and passed.—[New Title.]

  DUBLIN CORPORATION BILL.
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid that, on behalf of his hon. Friend
  1100
  the Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. HEALY), he begged to say that some difficulty had been felt as to the terms of the Instruction standing in his name, and his hon. Friend was anxious to move the Instruction in a form which might meet with the consent of all parties. He would, therefore, put another Notice of Motion on the Paper for Monday next.
  MR. SPEAKER: The same remark will apply to the Instructions standing in the names of the hon. Member for North Monaghan and the hon. Member for West Wicklow.
  MR. KNOX: Yes, Sir.

QUESTIONS.

  TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION (BRISTOL CHANNEL).
  SIR CAMERON GULL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade why the telephonic coast communication along the shores of the Bristol Channel has not been carried further eastward than Ilfracombe; and whether, having regard to the dangerous nature of the coast, especially between Ilfracombe and Lynton, he would take steps to have the work continued at an early date?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): Arrangements are now being made for extending the coast communication eastward of Ilfracombe, and the Postmaster General hopes to complete them before the end of the year.

  FASTNET LIGHTHOUSE.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) if he can state what sum of money has been spent on the attempts to establish electrical communication with the Fastnet Lighthouse; (2) what is the estimate of further expenditure; and (3) whether he is aware that shipowners consider the improvement of the light on the Fastnet Rock, now seriously defective, would be more beneficial to the shipping engaged between America and the United Kingdom than the frequently interrupted telegraphic communication?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): The amount already spent in connecting the Fastnet Lighthouse is about £2,600. The estimate for further expenditure is £850. With regard to the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, it will be sufficient for me to state that in November last the Board sanctioned, at an estimated cost of upwards of £64,000, the reconstruction and improvement of the Fastnet light, by substituting for the present apparatus a biform oil light of the most powerful kind. For this work, £17,000 has been included in the Estimates for the current year.

  FOG SIGNALS AND LIGHTS.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Lloyd's have represented that fog signals are required at Stroma, the Butt of Lewis, Noss Head, and Cape Wrath; also that lights are required on eleven headlands, islands, and rocks, especially at St. Kilda and Vee Skerries, where two wrecks lately occurred and both vessels were lost with all hands; and, whether the Commissioners of Northern Lights are taking any steps to provide these fog signals and lights?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am aware that the representations referred to in the hon. Member's Question have been made by Lloyd's. In 1892 the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners forwarded for the consideration of the Board of Trade a report by their Engineer in which lights or fog signals at the six stations specifically named in the hon. Member's Question were recommended. Definite application for sanction to their establishment has only, however, been made by the Commissioners in the case of three, viz:—for fog signals for Stroma and Noss Head, and for a light at Vee Skerries. Of these the two former have been sanctioned, but the light for Vee Skerries has been refused, the Trinity House having declined to grant their statutory approval as required by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in view of the need for works at other parts of the coast where the general traffic is larger, and also of the great cost of the light, estimated at £59,000. In reply to the statement made in the hon. Member's Question as to wrecks, I am
  1102
  informed by the Northern Lighthouse Commissioners that no wrecks at St. Kilda, and none lately at Vee Skerries have been reported to them. As regards the other headlands, islands and rocks referred to in the hon. Member's Question, the Board of Trade have also sanctioned works at Isle of May, Cape Wrath, Rhinns of Islay, Tod Head, Noup Head, and Inch Keith.

  DELGANY GRAVEYARD, COUNTY WICKLOW.
  MR. J. L. CAREW: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Wicklow (Mr. WILLIAM CORBET), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Local Government Board, Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a prosecution instituted on behalf of a person named Harris against Annie Hippel as to the right to a burying-place in the old graveyard at Delgany, county Wicklow; whether he is aware that the plot of ground in question was assigned to the Hippel family by the proper officer of the Board of Guardians of the Rathdown Union; that after six months had expired Harris claimed the plot, and sought to have the bodies of Annie Hippel's relatives exhumed; and, that when the case came before the magistrates at Newtown Mount Kennedy it was dismissed on two occasions; and, whether he will inquire into all the circumstances, and especially as to the fact of the Board of Guardians having supported Harris at the cost of the ratepayers, their own officer having assigned the plot to the Hippels?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): Consequent upon a complaint of the members of the Harris family that two members of the Hippel family had been interred in their burialplot, an investigation was held by the Guardians, acting as the Burial Board, into the matter, when the complaint was ascertained to be well founded, and application was thereupon made to the Local Government Board and to the Privy Council by the Guardians to have the bodies exhumed; but both these authorities pointed out to the Guardians that the proper course for them to pursue was to institute a prosecution at Petty Sessions under Section 170 of the

  1103
  Public Health Act of 1878. The Guardians accordingly proceeded against the persons concerned, but not against Annie Hippel, and the magistrates, having regard to the fact that six months had elapsed since the date of the burial, held that they had no jurisdiction; but, on hearing the evidence and being satisfied of the facts, they defined Harris's plot on the Order Book and suggested that it should be marked out in the graveyard, winch was done by staking the ground. The Rathdown Board of Guardians acted in this matter in the discharge of their duty to preserve the existing rights of sepulture, and they have no authority and could have none, to assign the Hippel family a burial-place in this plot.

  CHITRAL AND WAZIRI CAMPAIGNS.
  COLONEL WYNDHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, when the medal for the relief of Chitral will be issued to the troops engaged?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): It has been decided to strike a new medal for frontier services, the first clasp of which will be given for the Chitral Campaign. The design is now awaiting final approval, and the dies will shortly be sent out to India, where the medals will be struck.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the medals for the Waziri and Chitral Campaigns will be issued?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The medals for the Waziri Campaign have been issued. As regards the medal for Chitral, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply already given to the hon. Member for Bath.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will introduce a clause into the Land Bill to extend the provisions regarding repayment of loans to all loans under the various Acts for the improvement of land in Ireland and the execution of public works, including the loans under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1879?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I fear it would not be practicable to introduce
  1104
  into the Land Bill a clause of the nature suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

  PIER AT LABASHEEDA, CO. CLARE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution, passed the other day by the grand jury in Ennis, in which the attention of the Government is called to the want felt in the Knock district of any means of communication for the transport of passengers and goods, and requesting that a grant may be made towards making a pier at Labasheeda, on the Shannon; and whether the Government could grant the request of this resolution?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have received a copy of the resolution referred to. The case of this pier could not be dealt with under the Fishery Piers Act of 1846, inasmuch as it would be for commercial, not for fishery purposes, and there are no Imperial funds available for the former class of pier. But in the event of Parliament voting moneys for the construction of piers such as that proposed at Labasheeda, the claims of the locality would be considered in connection with those of other localities.

  LABOURERS ACTS (CAVAN UNION).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that James M'Larney, labourer, of Mullaghboy, Ballymachugh, county Cavan, recently complained to the Cavan Board of Guardians that for the past five years he had been living in an outhouse, from which he had recently been evicted, and was now living in a stable, with his wife and five young children; and that this man had, at a recent inquiry under the Labourers Acts in Cavan Union, had his application for a cottage rejected by the inspector without any further explanation than that it was not required; did the inspector go to see this man's house before arriving at this decision; and would he order a medical inspector of the Local Government Board to visit this man's present habitation, and report upon the state in which he and his family are living?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A cottage was proposed for this man some time ago on the ground that there was

  1105
  an insufficiency of labourers' dwellings in the locality, but it was shown that he occupied a house only recently built, and his application was, therefore, rejected. Since then he appears to have been evicted from this house, and the Guardians have informed him that his renewed application for a cottage will be favourably considered as soon as the cottage now about to be erected is built. It is not the practice of the Local Government Board Inspector to examine the dwellings of applicants for cottages where, as in the present case, it is proposed to increase the number of labourers' houses, and even if M'Larney is now living in a house that ought to be condemned he can only be provided with a new cottage in the manner proposed by the Guardians.

  ASHBURNHAM COLLECTION OF BOOKS AND MSS.
  MR. F. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the unique collection of books and manuscipts formed at Ashburnham Place will shortly be placed on the market for sale en bloc; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to secure the same for the nation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I do not think that if I intended to authorise the purchase of this collection I should give public notice of it beforehand. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. ISAACSON: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that there are a couple of manuscripts of great historic interest, which, if they leave this country, we may never have an opportunity of getting?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That applies to any valuable collection. ["Hear, hear!"]

  IMPERIAL PENNY POSTAGE.
  MR. GERALD LODER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in view of the statement of the Postmaster General in this House, on 28th April, 1893, to the effect that the terms made by the British delegates at the Vienna
  1106
  Postal Congress in 1891 created a bar to the establishment of Imperial Penny Postage, and also in view of the strong feeling existing in Parliament, in commercial circles, in the Press, and among all classes in favour of the reform, he will take care that the British delegates to the Postal Union Congress at Washington, in 1897, shall be categorically instructed to obtain an acknowledgment by the Congress of the absolute right of this country, under the Postal Union Convention, to enter into any agreement with the British Colonies and Dependencies, or such of them as may be willing, to fix such rates of postage as may be agreed upon by them from time to time?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General will, of course, carefully consider, in consultation with the Government, when the time comes, what instructions shall be given to the British delegates to the Postal Union Congress at Washington. There would be no objection on the part of the Postmaster General to an instruction to the delegates to use their best endeavours to obtain such an alteration of the Postal Union Convention as would leave Her Majesty's Government free in the matter referred to.
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Do I understand that Her Majesty's Government will insist upon full and perfect freedom as to what kind of Postal arrangements they may choose to make within the limits of the Empire?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General, as far as he is concerned, will be willing to have instructions given to the delegates to endeavour to obtain such an alteration as that suggested.
  MR. LODER: When will the delegates be appointed?
  MR. HANBURY: I cannot say.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that precisely the same answer was given before the last Convention, and the result was without effect?
  MR. HANBURY: No; I am not aware of that.

  HEVERSHAM-WITH-MILNTHORP PARISH WESTMORLAND.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether

  1107
  he will direct that the Parish Council of Heversham-with-Milnthorp, Westmorland, be furnished with a copy of the Report of the Inspector who recently held an Inquiry as to the proposed division of the parish?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The Inquiry referred to was with respect to an appeal against an order of the County Council of Westmorland dividing the parish of Heversham-with-Milnthorp, and the Local Government Board have determined to confirm the Order. The Reports of the Inspectors of the Board on inquiries such as that in question are regarded as confidential documents, and consequently it is not the practice to furnish copies. No exception to this rule can be made in the present case.

  MILITIA HELMETS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office why helmets without rosettes or chin straps have been served out to the Militia, and whether the War Office intends that the helmets should be used in their present condition?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The helmets have only just been received from the makers, and were issued in an incomplete state to facilitate the fitting. The chains and appurtenances will be sent to the regiments as soon as they are received from the makers.

  SHROPSHIRE VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. JASPER MORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, as there is no small-pox in Shropshire, there is now any objection to the Volunteers proceeding to Aldershot as originally arranged?
  *MR. BRODRICK: Lord Lansdowne has referred this question to the General Officer commanding the North Western District, and under responsible medical advice it has been decided that it would be undesirable to sanction the attendance of the Shropshire Volunteers at Aldershot this year.

  GAS METERS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: On behalf of the hon. Member
  1108
  for West Islington (Mr. T. LOUGH), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the powers for testing gas meters do not enable local authorities to examine the correctness with which the dial-plate registers, but only the internal machinery, and that even if this internal machinery of the meter works properly, it is possible for the dial to register an entirely wrong result; and whether, if he finds this to be the case, he will remedy this defect in the Gas Acts?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am advised that there is nothing in the Sale of Gas Act, 1859, to prevent inspectors examining the correctness with which the dial-plate registers, and I am informed that such a test is made, but only to the extent of the first dial.

  LONDONDERRY ASYLUM.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consent to receive a deputation from the grand jury and representatives of the ratepayers of the county of Londonderry, in reference to the building of the new asylum at Londonderry; whether he is aware that representative bodies and the ratepayers throughout the county, except about the city of Londonderry, are strongly opposed at the present time to such building, which it is estimated will cost about 1s. in the pound, payable chiefly by the agricultural portion of the community, now suffering acutely from agricultural depression; and, whether he will cause proceedings in connection with this heavy expenditure to be delayed until the representative bodies of the county have had an opportunity of laying their objections before him, or have been shown the necessity for its proceeding, or until the ratepayers have been consulted in reference to it?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I doubt whether a deputation would be the best way of dealing with this question. The whole matter, however, is now receiving the further consideration of the Irish Government, and a communication will be made to the gentlemen who desire to form a deputation before any further steps are taken towards passing an Order in Council.

  EDUCATION CODE, 1890.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, with reference to the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury that the Education Department will suspend the operation of Article 73 of the Education Code of 1890 pending inquiry as to its effects, Her Majesty's Government will cause such inquiry to be made of the managers of the schools concerned, having regard to the great variety in their circumstances?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The operation of Article 73 (small print) of the Education Code is suspended until the 31st March 1897. Any inquiries that may be necessary will be made in the meanwhile.

  CHURCH SCHOOLS (STAFFING RULES).
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has any information confirming (or otherwise) the statement recently made by the Archbishop of Canterbury that 90 per cent. of the Church schools would not be affected by the new rules of staffing (Code, Art. 73, small print); and, whether he will grant a Return showing the schools whose staff falls below that scale?
  SIR J. GORST: The information in the possession of the Committee of Council fully bears out his Grace's statement. The Return asked for would be very costly, and I do not think that, the circumstances, it is required.

  CLONGOREY ESTATE, COUNTY KILDARE.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the evicted tenants of the Clongorey Estate, County Kildare, have virtually agreed with the trustees, representing the landlord, to purchase their holdings, he will now fulfil his promise to intervene in the interests of a settlement and use his best endeavours to have the agreement carried out?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I expressed my readiness to intervene in the
  1110
  interests of a settlement on this estate if invited to do so by both parties, and I am still prepared to use my best endeavours towards that end should the occasion offer. I may observe that the re-enactment of the 13th Clause of the Act of 1891 would be necessary in order to enable the evicted tenants to purchase their holdings, but it is proposed by the Land Bill now before the House to further re-enact this clause for a year.

  POTATO DISEASE (IRELAND).
  MR. P. McDERMOTTI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that potato disease has broken out in Ireland; and, if he will take steps to prevent its spread by making a grant to provide those persons who have not the means to spray their crops with a solution which has been proved to be effectual for this purpose, while there is yet time?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am informed that the potato disease has appeared, sporadically and only to a very slight extent, in some districts. So far, it appears to be confined to the early potatoes, and the main crop is still sound and in a flourishing condition, and, I should hope, is now beyond the risk of serious injury by disease. Under the circumstances there appears to be no necessity for the Government to move in the matter, apart from the fact that the period during which the spraying would be effective is almost over. I may add that the use of spraying material is now pretty well known in Ireland in consequence of the experiments undertaken by the Land Commission and by the Congested Districts Board; and it is open to serious question whether it would be wise for Government to defray the cost of supplying spraying material instead of leaving it to the occupiers themselves to pay for it.

  GIANT'S CAUSEWAY.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether those parts of the Giant's Causeway or its approaches which are below high water mark are vested in the Crown; whether he will order an engineer or other official of the Department to visit the Causeway in order to see whether it would be possible, by the erection of an iron footbridge or

  1111
  otherwise, to secure a public passage over the foreshore; and, whether he will undertake that, if the syndicate who are attempting to prevent the public from visiting the Causeway place any railings or other barrier on land vested in the Crown, legal proceedings will forthwith be taken?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am advised that the foreshore and bed of the sea adjoining the Giant's Causeway and its approaches are prima facie the property of the Crown. I shall be prepared to consider any applications which may be made for permission to erect any footbridge or other works over the lands vested in the Crown, having due regard to the rights of adjoining owners; but the Board of Trade have no funds to enable them to undertake such works themselves. No barrier will be allowed to be placed on Crown lands, and I will instruct the local officers to report to me any encroachments of this nature.
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he has seen set forth in the Dublin and Belfast newspapers a list of the names purporting to be those of the syndicate formed to run the Giant's Causeway as a show; and, whether he has been consulted by Mr. Leckie, on that gentleman's own behalf, or on behalf of the syndicate, regarding public rights in the Giant's Causeway?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): I have not seen the list referred to, and, save so far as the hon. Member's Questions have directed my attention to the subject, I know nothing whatever of the composition or objects of the syndicate referred to. I should have hoped that it would have been unnecessary for me to inform the hon. Member that I have not been consulted by, nor have I given advice to, any individual or company on the subject.

  LONDONDERRY MILITIA BARRACKS.
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what is the cause of the delay in the erection of enlarged military barracks at Londonderry?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The War Department has not yet succeeded in obtaining possession of the land on which the
  1112
  barracks are to be built, and a Provisional Order is also required for closing a road and substituting another. This will be proceeded with as soon as practicable.

  EDUCATION VOTE (IRELAND).
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the importance of the questions to be discussed on the Irish Education Vote, he will arrange that that Vote shall be taken first on the next day devoted to Irish Supply?
  MR. HANBURY: I will consult the Representatives of the Irish Party and see what arrangements will best suit their convenience.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM (ENGRAVED PORTRAITS CATALOGUE).
  LORD BALCARRES: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education why the Catalogue of the National Engraved Portraits at the South Kensington Museum has been reduced in price from 5s. 3d. to 3s. 6d.; and, whether he can state what will be the net loss upon each copy sold, assuming that the entire edition of 500 be sold?
  SIR J. GORST: the price of the catalogue, as sold at the Museum, was fixed at 3s. 6d. last January by the Stationery Office, and has not been altered. The net loss on each copy so sold is 1d., but this loss may possibly be covered by sales outside the Museum.

  STAMPING OF WEIGHTS.
  MR. HENRY BROADHURST: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether weights stamped in one county and used in another county must be re-stamped?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir.

  SPANCELHILL HORSE FAIR (ENNIS).
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a patent is about to be granted for the holding annually of a horse fair at Spancelhill, Ennis; and, if so, to whom; and, whether he is aware that a fair has been held at Spancelhill hitherto without any patent?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A horse fair is now held at Spancelhill under a

  1113
  patent granted by James I., and no application for a new patent for a horse fair has been received.

  POSTAL PARCELS DESTROYED (GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY, IRELAND).
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he has ascertained the value of the mails and postal parcels destroyed in the recent burning of a van on the Great Northern Railway (Ireland); has it been arranged from what source, whether from the Railway Company or the Post Office, the loss arising from the destruction of the mails and parcels will be made good; has the management of the Great Northern Railway supplied any satisfactory explanation of the origin of the fire, by which the mail van and a large portion of its contents were destroyed; if so, will he have the explanation laid upon the Table of the House; and, will he also have laid upon the Table of the House the several claims for compensation made upon the Post Office or the Railway Company or both in this matter?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has not yet ascertained the value of the postal parcels destroyed by the recent burning of a van on the Great Northern Railway, Ireland. No letter mails were injured. As regards the liability of the Company that is a question of law upon which the Postmaster General is not yet in a position to offer an opinion. The Postmaster General is not by law liable to make good any claim arising out of the conveyance of a parcel by post, but he accepts liability for parcels, even though unregistered, up to the sum of £2 provided the conditions of posting, packing, etc., which will be found in the Post Office Guide, have been fully complied with; and claims arising out of this unfortunate fire will be dealt with as received. The Company have not supplied any certain information respecting the origin of the fire, but it seems not improbable that it was caused as previously surmised by sparks from the engine. There is no statement in the possession of the Department to lay upon the Table of the House. No useful purpose would be served by laying upon the Table of the House the claims for compensation received.

  NEWBLISS COURTHOUSE, COUNTY MONAGHAN.
  MR. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he will take steps to secure that that portion of the courthouse at Newbliss, county Monaghan, which is used for the holding of petty sessions, and the rent of which is defrayed out of the public rates, will not be used for party purposes; and, (2) if he will use his authority to prevent any party flags or emblems being displayed from the roof or windows of this building during the approaching Orange anniversaries?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The courthouse at Newbliss consists of one room in a building known as the Market House, and this room, as I have already stated, has never been devoted to party uses or purposes, nor have flags or emblems ever been displayed from it. The Justices' room is rented by the Grand Jury pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of the Petty Sessions Act, and I have no authority whatever to act in the manner suggested in the second paragraph of the question.

  CRETE.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is true that the Great Powers have urged Greece to prevent the importation of arms or ammunition into Crete for the use of the insurgents; and, whether any of the Powers is prepared to give a guarantee that the promises of the Sultan will be carried out in the event of the insurgents laying down their arms?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,): The representatives of the Powers have given advice of the character described in the Question to the Greek Government, who informed them that measures had already been spontaneously adopted to that effect. The Sultan's acquiescence in the proposals made by the representatives of the Powers at Constantinople was formally communicated in the first place to them, and by them to the insurgents, but no proposal in the nature of a guarantee has been made by any of the Powers.

  TUBERCULOSIS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he can state the names of the Commissioners appointed on the new Royal Commission on Tuberculosis?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,): The names of the Commissioners are as follows:—

  Sir Herbert Maxwell (Chairman),

  Professor Browne,

  Dr. Thorne Thorne,

  Dr. Shirley Murphy,

  Mr. H. E. Clare (Town Clerk of Liverpool),

  Mr. T. C. Trench, and

  Mr. John Speir.

  EDUCATION VOTE.
  *SIR FRANCIS POWELL: I bog to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Report of the Committee for the present year will be in the hands of Members before the discussion on the Education Vote?
  SIR J. GORST: I fear not.

  TIME POSTMARKS (INLAND LETTERS).
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why it is that whilst some postmarks on letters contain the hour of posting marked upon them in plain figures others do not; and, what is the cause of the long delay in applying this useful distinction to all postmarks on inland letters?
  MR. HANBURY: The change is being carried out gradually, as the stamps are found to need alteration or renewal. Special expense is being incurred for the purpose of expediting the change in London and large provincial towns, but it has not been considered necessary to incur the large expenditure that would be required to alter all the stamps at once.

  WRECK OF STEAMSHIP "DRUMMOND CASTLE."
  MR. H. C. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether at the Inquiry into the loss of the Drummond Castle he will obtain the production of
  1116
  Lloyd's Register for survey of the Doune Castle after her accident in January 1891, also the repairing account of the dry dock in which the Doune Castle was docked on her return from her voyage, and any further information relating to the accident to or with regard to the injury sustained by the Doune Castle?"
  SIR WILLIAM ARROL: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him a Question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether looking to this and previous questions put to the President by the hon. Member for Hornsey, his attention has been called to a letter which appears in the public Press to-day from the owners of the Drummond Castle explicitly detailing what had occurred in the case of the Doune Castle or other vessels while under the command of the late captain of the Drummond Castle, and whether the President will read that letter to the House as the answer of the owners to the imputations which have been cast upon the late Captain Pierce?
  MR RITCHIE: I have seen the letter, but I am afraid I cannot venture to read it to the House. These and all other matters in connection with this lamentable occurrence will be fully gone into by a duly constituted Court when it meets. I agree with the spirit of the questions the hon. Gentleman has put, and I deprecate questions which would seem to imply blame to any of the officers of the unfortunate ship, having regard to the fact that all these matters will be thoroughly investigated. In reply to the Question on the Paper I have to say that information as to the casualty to the Doune Castle will be furnished to the Court holding the Inquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the Drummond Castle. If the Court then require further evidence it will be obtained, but, as at present advised, the Board of Trade do not propose to arrange for the production of the documents referred to in this Question.
  MR. STEPHENSsaid he had not seen the letter to which reference had been made, and he did not intend, as he believed his Question did not convey, any imputation on the owners of the Drummond Castle. It was merely framed with the object of endeavouring to secure proper inquiry should be made.

  1117
  I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. A. J. Balfour), whether he is aware that the inhabitants of the island of Molène are liable to water famines, and that the visitations of cholera and other water-borne diseases they have at times suffered from severely are probably in part ascribable to the deficiency of safe water; and whether, in recognition of the humane and courteous conduct of the people and authorities of Molène to the victims and friends of the victims of the late Drummond Castle disaster, he will take means to ascertain if the offer of provision for water supply by means of a condenser, or by improved storage, or by other reliable form of supply would be acceptable to, and be accepted by, the islanders and their authorities; and, if so, will he request the French Government to allow an acknowledgment of the humanity, kindness, and courtesy of the islanders to take that form, and provide for it by a grant, or by a grant in aid of voluntary contributions from British subjects.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Government were not aware that the inhabitants of the island of Molène were liable to water famines. The form which the acknowledgment by the Government of the kindness and humanity displayed on the occasion of the recent disaster should take was being considered by the Government. He could do no more at present than thank the hon. Member for his suggestion that an offer of provision for water supply might be made.

  ASSIZE SYSTEM.
  MR. A. F. WARR: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether any changes are contemplated in the present assize system, especially in Lancashire; and, whether Reports and Resolutions (if any) upon this subject, adopted by the Council of Judges, will be made public?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): Changes are under consideration affecting the present assize system, and as to Lancashire it is hoped that they may go far to meet the suggestion which has recently been made as to the holding of assizes in that County. The Reports
  1118
  and Proceedings of the Council of the Judges are not public documents, but if desired I shall be pleased to ascertain whether there would be any objection to their being produced.

  COLONIAL OFFICE VOTE.
  *MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the first Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of the Government to propose that the Twelve o'clock Rule shall be suspended for the remainder of the Session; and, whether, in that event, the Government will give an assurance that the Colonial Vote shall not be commenced after midnight?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that he would have to make a proposition at no distant date with regard to the Twelve o'clock rule. He could give no assurance as to the Colonial Vote. It had been discussed on more than one night, but if circumstances made it desirable that there should be further discussion on the Vote he would take care that it did not take place at an impossible hour.

  ARMY RESERVE BILL.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he proposes to deal with the Army Reserve Bill this Session?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreplied that he could not make any statement with regard to particular Bills until the time came for him to make a statement with regard to the rest of the business of the Session.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  MR. JOHN DILLONasked the Chief Secretary whether he had yet put down the Government Amendments to the Irish Land Bill, which he understood were to be on the Paper on Thursday?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he did not think he gave an absolute pledge for Thursday, but they would be on the Motion Paper to-morrow (Friday), and he would move to put the Bill down for to-morrow so that the Amendments might be seen all together.

  IRISH ESTIMATES.
  MR. DILLONasked whether Friday of next week and of the following week could be allotted to Irish Supply?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid the suggestion was well worthy of consideration, but he could not give an absolute pledge at present.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURrose to ask leave to introduce a Bill to facilitate the construction of railways and the establishment of other means of communication in Ireland, and for other purposes incidental thereto. He said the Bill would follow the general lines of the Act of 1889, with some modifications, suggested partly by experience of the working of the Act, and partly by the Bill dealing with the question of light railways in England and Scotland introduced by the President of the Board of Trade. The Act of 1880 constituted an important point of departure in legislation dealing with railways in Ireland. The prior Act of 1883 applied to every part of Ireland; but the lines to be aided under the Act of 1889 were required to be situated in a district where light railways for the development of fisheries and other industries were desirable, but where, from the circumstances of the district, special assistance from the State was required for their construction. Under the Act of 1889, State aid was to be given in capital sums by way of free grant, instead of, as had been the case in the Act of 1883, contributions made by the Treasury in pursuance of guarantee and dependent on the profits made by the line. Further, under the Act of 1889, in certain cases the entire cost of construction had been given, whereas, under previous Acts, the amount contributed by the Government was never to exceed one-half the cost of construction. In the Act of 1889 there was a clause to the effect that any promoters, not being an Irish railway company with a line opened for traffic, must enter into an agreement
  1120
  with such a railway company, or must have obtained a guarantee from a Grand Jury, before entering into agreement with the Treasury; and on these points the Bill followed the general policy of the Act of 1889. Under the Bill the Lord Lieutenant must certify to the Treasury that a railway was necessary to develop the resources of a district, and that, owing to exceptional circumstances, the railway could not be constructed without special assistance from the State. Under the Act of 1889 it was necessary that the Lord Lieutenant in Council should certify that the line was necessary for the development of fisheries or other industries. Now wider terms were used, and it was required that the Lord Lieutenant should certify that the line was necessary for the development of the resources of a district. The amount which would be available under the Bill was £500,000, and that amount might be advanced either by way of free grant or of loan; but, as the whole might be advanced by way of grant, he should imagine it was more likely the money would be utilised in this way than by way of loan. All, or nearly all the railways made under the Act of 1889 were made in congested districts. By this Bill it was proposed that the whole cost of construction and equipment might be advanced by the State if a district were scheduled as a congested district; but, if a railway were proposed to be made outside such a district, then not more than one-half the cost of construction and equipment was to be advanced by the Treasury. The Act of 1889 made it necessary that the promoters of a line should be either an existing railway company, or a company that had made an agreement with one; this Bill practically dispensed with promoters altogether, and it provided that if a line was to be made under the Act there must be a preliminary agreement that it shall be constructed, maintained, and worked by an existing railway company. The only exceptions to the rule would be eases in a congested district in which an existing company was willing to maintain and work the line, but not to construct it. The Bill empowered the Lord Lieutenant to substitute a simple and inexpensive procedure for the cumbrous and costly one

  1121
  of obtaining an Order in Council. It was also provided that lands could be entered on for the purposes of construction without having to go to the expense of lodging money in Court under the 17th Section of the Transfer of Railways (Ireland) Act, the Board of Works being responsible for payment when the amount had been fixed or agreed on. There were some new features in the Bill. No advance would be made unless the Treasury were satisfied that the parties locally interested had given all reasonable facilities in their power for the construction. In a non-congested county district not more than one-half the total amount required would be given. Where the Lord Lieutenant so ordered, a pier, quay, or jetty to be used in connection with the railway might be constructed. Where a free grant was made, the railway, for ten years or such further period as the Lord Lieutenant might authorise, was not to be rated for local rates at a higher value than the land had before the railway was made. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill, which, he said, would be printed and delivered at once.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid that there would be some disappointment that the amount to be provided by the Bill was not considerably larger. ["Hear, hear!"] The whole sum provided could be well spent in the county of Clare.
  Bill to facilitate the construction of railways and the establishment of other means of communication in Ireland, and for other purposes incidental thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 308.]

  FINANCE BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER, CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  Progress, 8th July.
  Clause 20,—

  FINANCE BILL.

    APPLICATION OF INCOME TAX ACTS.
    (1.) Where this or any other Act enacts that Income Tax shall be charged in any year at any rate, there shall be charged, levied, and paid during that year in respect of all property, profits, and gains respectively described or comprised in the several Schedules A, B, C, D, and E in the Income Tax Act, 1853, the tax at that rate:
    for every twenty shillings of the annual value or amount of property, profits, and gains chargeable under Schedules, A, C, D, or E in the said Act; and
    for every twenty shillings of one-third of the annual value of lands, tenements, hereditaments, and heritages chargeable under Schedule B in the said Act in respect of the occupation thereof.
    (2.) The deduction of one-eighth out of the duties chargeable under Schedule B shall cease
    (3.) All enactments relating to Income Tax which are for the time being in force shall apply to the duties of Income Tax from time to time granted by any Act, so far as the same are consistent with that Act.
    Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause, to insert the words:—
    "(4.) Where the total joint income of a husband and wife charged to Income Tax by way either of assessment or deduction does not exceed five hundred pounds, the exemption relief or abatement granted by Section Thirty-four, Sub-section Two, of the Finance Act, 1894, by considering the income of the wife as a separate income from the husband for any profession, employment, or vocation of the wife chargeable under Schedule D or Schedule E, shall be extended to the incomes of wives charged under all or any of the schedules of the Income Tax."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Debate resumed:—
    *MR. ERNEST GRAY—whose speech was interrupted at half past Five on Wednesday—said the Amendment was more than an appeal for relief of taxation on behalf of a deserving class—the class of small traders, on whom the burden of local and

    1123
    Imperial taxation fell with exceptional weight. It was the expression of a principle which it was desirable to intro duce into the procedure of the collection of the Income Tax—namely, that those who received and enjoyed incomes should be themselves directly taxed for income purposes, and that those who under the existing law did not enjoy the income should not be called upon to pay the tax. That principle seemed so just that it was hardly necessary to insist upon it. When the Income Tax Act of 1842 was passed, a husband could appropriate the income which his wife earned; but under the Married Women's Property Act the wife had now the full enjoyment of her own earnings. It appeared to him that the Act of 1842 became iniquitous after the passing of the Married Women's Property Act, for while the wife enjoyed her own income the husband had to pay the tax on that income which he did not himself receive. The present First Lord of the Treasury, speaking in Committee on the Finance Act of 1894, when this very question was under discussion, stated that the plan adopted by the Treasury in regard to the joint income of husband and wife was unjust and absurd, and that the joint incomes of husband and wife should always be separated. That criticism had such an effect on the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right hon. Member for Monmouthshire—that on report he inserted an Amendment which went in some way towards relieving the grievance complained of. But it did not go far enough. It met the case of wives who derived their incomes from professional sources, but not the case of wives whose incomes were derived from industrial pursuits. Many men who were constantly away from home or followed dangerous occupations, put their wives into small shops from which small incomes were derived, as a security in the event of their death. Take the case of a man's salary about £3 a week and the wife's profit, derived from the shop, £1 per week, and on the two sums taken together, the husband would have to pay income tax on £48. The tax might be small in such a case, but when the income was small the burden even of a few shillings was great. He could see no reason why wives managing small shops in that way should be denied the relief which was given to wives with
    1124
    incomes from professional sources. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able on report to make this small concession which would be valued by a very deserving class.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to regret his absence yesterday when this Amendment was proposed. He, too, was sorry he was not present; but he rose now to express his entire concurrence with the arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman bad resisted the Amendment. The question was discussed at great length on the Finance Act of 1894, on an Amendment moved by the hon. member for North Islington, and he agreed to give the relief asked for in cases where the income of the wife was derived from professional sources. But, evidently, the member for North Islington was not easily satisfied—[laughter]—or perhaps it was that gratitude was not a political virtue. [Laughter.] The hon. Member and his friends were asking for more, and he earnestly hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give them what they wanted. He had no hesitation in saying that, if the Amendment were adopted, a most serious blow—he was going to say a fatal blow—would be struck at the revenue from Income Tax. It was true that the present First Lord of the Treasury, during the discussion of the Amendment to the Finance Act of 1894, stated that the incomes of the husband and wife should always be treated separately. That was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman: he was only harrying a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Laughter.] Now he desired to rescue a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer from the doctrines of the First Lord of the Treasury. [Laughter.] The case of a locomotive driver, whose wife carried on a small shop, had been quoted But there was no limitation in the proposal of the Amendment to industrial pursuits. It applied to all cases of joint incomes of husband and wife. Take the case of a man with a salary of £300 a year who had the fortune to marry a wife with a nice little competence of £200 a year. That was £500 a year between them, and they would obtain the exemption, while another man who had a hard-earned income of £500, and married a

    1125
    wife with no money, was to get no relief at all. ["Hear, hear!"] Which was the harder ease? These claims were put forward by people who had not sufficiently considered the question, and it was necessary to be most careful in acceding to them. He went as far as he could in 1894, and at that time the whole Tory Party maintained the doctrines which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now wisely resisted. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked to pledge himself to do something on Report, but he hoped he would do nothing of the kind—["hear, hear!"]—in spite of the hon. Member for Islington and the hon. Member for West Ham; and he should take this precious opportunity of supporting the Government when it was in the right. [Laughter.] He begged Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House not to be led away by the sort of argument which had been used, because it was a blow at the principle of direct taxation. They had been labouring with difficulty for years to reach an equilibrium between direct and indirect taxation; and all these exemptions were in the direction of weakening and diluting direct taxation. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that the solicitude of the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer for the prosperity of his successor was quite touching. When this question was raised in 1894 the right hon. Gentleman said he could not afford to be logical. Events had shown that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in that respect, and probably he regretted by this time that his surplus had not been applied to other purposes than to some of those to which it had been actually appropriated. The right hon. Gentleman based his argument on the assumption that all husbands and wives had a joint purse. Unfortunately all married people did not live together, and even when they did, the wives availed themselves of the Married Women's Property Act, and took care to have the expenditure of their own money. The right hon. Gentleman was anxious to diminish public expenditure; but one way of doing that was to diminish the supply. When financial reformers had desired the abolition of a tax, they had not waited till the Chancellor of the Exchequer said
    1126
    that he could afford it. They insisted on abolition, and when the country had made up its mind, the Chancellor of the Exchequer abolished the tax, and found other means of meeting the deficiency, either by new taxation or diminished expenditure,
    MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYsaid that he should not ask the House to divide, because he was quite satisfied with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's declaration that he would endeavour to meet the case another year. He only desired to see all married women treated on the same lines.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope the hon. Member does not misunderstand me. I confined my remarks solely to industrial incomes.
    MR. BARTLEY: Certainly.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On the question "That Clause 20 stand part of the Bill,"
    MR. JAMES KENYONcalled attention to the collection of Income Tax in regard to works, factories, etc. For many years different associations of employers had been representing to the Commissioners the grievance as to the allowance for depreciation not only on buildings, but also on machinery. The Commissioners at Somerset House had received the representations with great courtesy, but no advance towards redress had been made in the last 20 years. The present rule was applicable to the state of things 30 years ago. The conditions had now quite changed, and in consequence of the high speeds at which machinery was now driven its life was considerably shorter than it used to be. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider this matter, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to make some alteration. Another important matter was that any individual who was the owner of works got a false idea as to the value of them. He died, and the property was left to his family, who again had a false idea as to their value, and consequently were led to spend an income beyond their means.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The hon. Member is raising a question of assessment which does not strictly arise on this clause.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that if the hon. Member would furnish him with particulars he would look into the question.
    MR. COURTENAY WARNERmentioned the hard case of a man who had earned an income paying the same amount of taxation as the man who got his income from capital. The man who earned £1,500 a year had to pay the same Income Tax as the man who had £50,000 invested in Three Per Cents., and who, dying, left his money to his wife and family. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a future Budget would pay some attention to this matter.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEobjected to the principle of differentiation contained in the clause as unfair. On Schedules A, C, D, and E the Income Tax payer had to pay the full 20s., but on Schedule B he had only to pay one-third. It was unfair that this differentiation should be made in favour of one class of the community.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 21,—

    ANNUAL VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION OF ABATEMENT FROM INCOME TAX UNDER SCHEDULE B.
    For the purposes of any claim to exemption, relief, or abatement from income tax, the income arising from the occupation of lands, tenements, hereditaments, and heritages chargeable under Schedule B. in the Income Tax Act, 1853, shall be taken to be one third of the annual value thereof under that schedule, except that if any person occupying, either as owner or otherwise, any lands for the purpose of husbandry only, shows at the end of any year to the satisfaction of the General Commissioners of Income Tax, that his profits and gains arising from the occupation of such lands during the year fell short of one-third of the said annual value thereof, the income arising from the occupation shall be taken at the actual amount of such profits and gains, and if the whole of the income tax has been paid, the amount overpaid shall be certified and repaid in manner provided by section one hundred and thirty-three of the Income Tax Act, 1842.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that one of the great difficulties farmers had in claiming exemption was a difficulty of keeping a form of accounts which would
    1128
    present their case definitely, so as to show those who had to judge whether exemption should be allowed. Would it not be possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in conjunction with the President of the Board of Agriculture to issue a simple and easy form of accounts to enable farmers to claim the exemption offered in this clause?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbelieved that at present, on application at the office of the Surveyor of Income Tax, farmers could obtain forms of accounts setting forth the items of profit and loss on the farm. He would, however, look into the matter.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 22, 23, and 24 passed without Amendment.
    Clause 25,—

    REMISSION OF LAND TAX IN EXCESS OF ONE SHILLING IN THE POUND.
    (1.) The amount assessed in any year in any land tax parish on account of the unredeemed quota of land tax charged against that parish shall not after the passing of this Act exceed the amount which would be produced by a rate of one shilling in the pound on the annual value of the land in the parish subject to land tax, and any excess above the said amount shall be remitted for that year.
    (2.) Sections one hundred and eighty and one hundred and eighty-one of the Land Tax Act, 1802, shall be construed as if the rate of one shilling in the pound on the annual value of the land were substituted for the rate of four shillings therein mentioned.
    *MR. EDWARD STRACHEY*MR. EDWARD STRACHEY (Somerset, S.) moved to omit Subsection (1). His object, he said, was to raise the whole question of the proposed remission of the Land Tax where it was above 1s. in the pound. The tax was not applied equally throughout the length and breadth of the country, and sometimes parishes were actually split up, and a different quota raised in one part to what was raised in another.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Any difference as between one part of a parish and another is illegal.
    MR. STRACHEYpointed out that in some parishes there was separate tithings.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that for Land Tax purposes each tithing, if it had a separate quota, was a separate parish.
    *MR. STRACHEYmaintained that he was right in saying that the Land Tax was levied at different rates in the same parish. The next question was in regard to the redeemed and unredeemed Land Tax. The Government proposed to deal only with the unredeemed Land Tax. He could not see why if this gift to the landlords was made it should not be given to those who had redeemed the tax. He had always understood that the Crown did not absolutely sell the tax, but that the Consols in respect of the tax were earmarked in the name of the owner, the object being to leave the Government open at any time to reconsider the matter. It seemed to him that there was a great deal of unfairness in the proposal of the Government. Take the case of a parish where the quota was £100, and say that half that quota had been redeemed, and that it was necessary for the remaining quota to raise 2s. in the pound. Under the proposal of the Government the man who had not redeemed his Land Tax would receive 1s. in the pound, and his Land Tax contribution would be greatly reduced, while the man who had redeemed would get no benefit. There was no difficulty in tracing the owner of the redeemed Land Tax. Every year when the Land Tax valuation was made the redeemed Land Tax would have to be taken into consideration, so that there would be no difficulty in dealing with the matter from that point of view. He could not see any strong arguments in favour of the Treasury giving up all the Land Tax above the amount of 1s. in the pound. It could not be on the ground that it was a heavy or oppressive tax, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the amount that would be remitted would not be more than £100,000 altogether, if it amounted to so much. Of course, it might be argued that it was a burden which pressed unfairly on a certain number of landowners, and was an hereditary burden which ought to be relieved. While he had no sympathy with those persons who said that hereditary burdens ought not to be taken off, or with those people
    1130
    who said that hereditary exceptions ought not to be interfered with. Yet this Land Tax could not be called an hereditary burden in any sense, as it was not a tax really, but a rent charge.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I gather from the hon. Member's remarks that he takes exception to the whole clause, and not Sub-section (1) only. Of course, if the hon. Member was successful in striking out Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) could not stand alone. If that is so, obviously the remarks of the hon. Member ought to be made when I put the question that Clause 25 stand part of the Bill. That would be the proper place to raise his objection to the whole clause.
    *MR. STRACHEY: Of course, Sir, after your ruling I will limit myself entirely to Sub-section (1).
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No, Sir; I rise to order. It is quite impossible that Sub-section (2) should be enacted if Sub-section (1) were struck out, because Sub-section (2) merely applied existing provisions of the law in the event of Sub-section (1) being made the law.
    *MR. STRACHEY: On the point of order, I submit, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument was right, it would apply to every sub-section in any clause, and it might be always argued. I wish to omit the remission of any amount of Land Tax over 1s. in the pound. I do not wish to strike out the whole of the Land Tax, but the actual remission of any amount over 1s. in the pound.
    *THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The objection which the hon. Member takes is vital to the whole clause. If the hon. Member is successful in carrying his Amendment, the natural effect would be to strike out Sub-section (2) as well as Sub-section (1). His objection, in other words, is to the root of the whole clause, and therefore the proper time to take it is when the clause is put as a whole. Then the hon. Member would be entitled to urge his objection.
    *MR. CHARLES HARRISON*MR. CHARLES HARRISON (Plymouth) moved an Amendment providing that in lieu of the present proposal of remitting all the Land Tax over 1s. in the pound, there should be a remittance

    1131
    of 10 per cent. of the Land Tax. The object of his Amendment was not to increase the amount of remission in any way. The proposal of the Bill was to allow £100,000 out of the net tax which produced £1,000,000. It was to the manner in which this rebate was to be made that objection was taken. The figures would remain exactly the same. In the year 1798 the Act fixed the amount on particular units which might be raised. For the purposes of illustration, he would take it that a parish or unit, under the Act of 1798, would be required to raise £2,000. Whatever the amount of the rateable value had been or was was immaterial, except for the apportionment of that £2,000 amongst the inhabitants or rateable property which went to make up the area. In those cases where the parishes had remained at, or near, the rateable value on the date of the assessment the same amount, the £2,000, had to be raised; but in other cases in the parishes or units so required to raise that fixed amount, the rateable value had increased by reason of buildings or from other causes. The practical operation of that was, that where the rateable value had largely increased, the amount in the pound was so much the less. In fact the Land Tax in 1893 ranged from one-seventeenth of a penny to 4s. in England and Wales. For instance, in Rochdale, the particular quota charged upon that area, by reason of the assessable values having increased from the date when the tax was imposed, had run down to ½d. in the pound. In other places, where the rateable value had decreased, it remained at 3s. 8d. in the pound, and in some places at 4s. in the pound. The consequence would be that under this clause, as at present framed, there would be a remittance of 3s. in the pound where the tax remained at 4s. in the pound, while in other cases persons in those areas where the tax was only 1s. 4d. in the pound would only get the difference between the 1s. and the excess which might be required to be raised for the purposes of the fixed amount. That was a totally inequitable system. Instead of remitting the tax out of the total sum, the Bill remitted it according to the unit or parish, and the result worked out unjustly to certain parishes. The net amount of the Land Tax still levied was
    1132
    £1,000,000. The remittance which it was proposed to make was £100,000. Therefore the fair and equitable way of adjusting and giving the remission was to give the 10 per cent. to everyone who was paying the tax, whether the standard allowance to those paying more than 1s. in the pound were preserved or not. It was not a fair way to give one man 3s. in the pound simply because he happened to live in a parish which had not increased in rateable value since the original assessment in the Act of 1798, and to another man only the difference between the 1s. and the actual assessment.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas afraid the effect of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be to make the proposal contained in the clause absolutely useless. It would give relief in many cases where relief was not at all required. The idea of the clause was to give relief as regarded a certain proportion of the Land Tax, where it was really a heavy burden. There were more than a hundred parishes in Great Britain where the Land Tax was, perhaps, a mere fraction of a penny in the pound. It would be, in such circumstances, really throwing away money for no purpose whatever to relieve the Land Tax payers in parishes of that kind. They did not feel the burden, which was decreasing every year. What he had endeavoured to do by the clause was to give relief where the Land Tax had become year by year a more serious burden on the land. The hon. Member seemed to think there were many cases where as much as 3s. in the pound would be given by the adoption of the proposal in the Bill. He could assure the hon. Gentleman he was quite wrong. He believed there were only two or three places where the limit of 4s. in the pound had been reached.
    AN HON. MEMBER: There is only one.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid there were, however, many places where it exceeded 1s. in the pound, and in those cases the proposal of the clause was to give relief where relief was required.
    SIR MARK STEWARTasked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it had not been a fixed burden before the

    1133
    decrease began in the value of agricultural land, but where year by year, owing to the decrease in the value of agricultural land and the redemption of the Land Tax on houses and the better class of land, in some parishes the Land Tax remaining unredeemed was not possible where boroughs had paid nearly all the Land Tax by annual quotas, to give some compensation to them for having done what they considered to be their duty. Practically they would get no benefit under the 1s., inasmuch as they had paid up under the present scale.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is a proposal in the Scotch Rating Bill on this point.
    DR. CLARKobserved that the Amendment was to make a reduction of 10 per cent. all round. This theory might be right if the Land Tax payers were paying on the present valuation, but instead of that they were paying on a valuation fixed about a couple of centuries ago. He saw no reason at all for the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    On the question "That Clause 25 stand part of the Bill,"
    MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREthought it as well they should understand what the Land Tax really was. It was based upon the law of 1798. At that time the tax was made perpetual, and it was estimated it would produce about £2,000,000 per annum. But there were powers to redeem the Land Tax, which had been exercised in many cases. The tax was divided between different parishes, each of which paid a certain quota to bring together the £2,000,000. It was not dependent upon the amount of property in the parish, one parish paying proportionally more and another less in regard to its property. There was a limit fixed of 4s. in the pound, and if the quota of a parish did not come up to the amount by levying 4s. in the pound, it was reduced. As a matter of fact, he believed there was only one single parish in the country in which the quota of 4s. had been reached. The object of the clause was to reduce the maximum of 4s. to 1s., so that in no case should any
    1134
    parish be obliged to pay more than would be produced by levying 1s. in the pound. The estimate was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose by this £90,000. He confessed he was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should consent to this loss for the benefit of the landed class, considering that they had already made a very large concession to that class. As far as he had understod it, the plea for doing away with the Land Tax was that the incidence was unfair. But it was a new system to say that because the incidence was unfair, therefore they should sweep away the tax. The proper method of procedure in such a case would be to alter the incidence. But he denied entirely that the incidence was unfair. The Land Tax was really a species of rent paid for the land. In some cases the rent might be higher and in others lower, but it was a first charge upon the land, and to say, because he had to pay what amounted to 2s. in the pound, whereas his neighbour had to pay only 1s., that therefore he was unfairly treated, had nothing to do with it, if they regarded the matter as rent instead of a tax. It certainly did appear to him unfair that considering a large number of persons had redeemed the tax on the old basis, the money should be taken from them on the old basis, and that then those who had redeemed the tax should be let off a portion of the money. Many hon. Members on his side of the House held that the Land Tax on the old basis of 4s. in the pound only represented what the landowners ought to pay in consideration of being let off the feudal duties, ship money, and many other things. Far from redeeming the tax, they were desirous of increasing it. They wanted to go back to the 4s. in the pound which would produce about £11,500,000 sterling. The tendency of all mankind if money were wanted was to get it from his neighbour. [Laughter.] It was a somewhat legitimate principle of self-defence, because taxation affected the individual, and individuals collectively protested against the excessive expenditure which involved excessive taxation. But taxation should be levied in the fairest way. Was it legitimate to reduce this hereditary rent levied on the land, which Radicals said, and always would say,

    1135
    had been reduced far below what it should be. The landowner, and the landowner only, managed to shirk his feudal burdens. Every lawyer knew that his land did not belong to him. It belonged to the State, and he was the tenant; of the State, and now wanted to evade his rent. He could pay it very well, but he tried not to, and he had induced hon. Members opposite to play this game for the landlord's benefit. If the tax were reduced, the entire community, which was composed mainly of poor men, would be fined £90,000 to make up for the remission made to the landlords. He read that morning an interesting account in the The Times of the Convention going on at Chicago. He would not go into the subject of that Convention, because it would not be in order. [Laughter.] But there was one phrase in the account referred to which struck him as applying to the finance of the present Government. The able correspondent of The Times said the finance proposed by the Convention was not finance in the proper sense of the word, but "financial freebooting." This proposal to remit the greater part of the Land Tax was freebooting of the most objectionable kind, designed to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. WARNERpointed out that the remission proposed was not intended to benefit agriculture generally, but to relieve the landlords of a portion of a tax. From its origin the Land Tax had always been a landlord's tax. It was in ancient times the landlord's duty to keep up the Army of the country, and the Land Tax was imposed in lieu of the duties they had to carry out in fighting for the defence of the country. Now the tax had grown old it was proposed not to give everybody who originally had to pay this tax equal relief, and not even to give it to poor landlords, because there was an enormous number of poor landlords who were not able to pay their taxes at all well, and who could hardly keep the land cultivated. These would not get a penny of this remission. The man who spent a large sum on his property to make it good and redeem the Land Tax, because it was a charge that might be dangerous in the future, would not get a penny for the good he had done; but his neighbour who had better
    1136
    land, but who had not been a good landlord in the sense of taking care of his property, and had not redeemed the charge, would get relief from the Government. It was iniquitous to give this dole out of the taxes to a particular section of a class.
    *ME. STRACHEYsaid the Land Tax might be looked upon much in the same light as tithe for all practical purposes. Landlords looked upon them both much from the same point of view. All the arguments that could be used in favour of remitting the Land Tax could be used equally as regarded tithe. Land Tax had been paid from very ancient times, and because the landowners had inherited it from their ancestors was no argument for relieving them. He was totally opposed to the Crown remitting to the landowners for their own benefit so large a proportion of the rent it had hitherto received from them. He had always been willing to relieve land from unjust burdens, but he would not be a party to making an absolute gift to the landlords of what was not taxation in the true sense of the word. It might be a good plan to hand over the whole of the Land Tax to the parish councils of the parishes where it was raised for parish purposes. Thus the country at large would get the benefit, and it would be applied for the benefit of the people in the districts where the quota was raised, and where, in some oases, it might seem a heavy tax. Let the tax he remitted, not as a free gift to the landlords, but to the parish, to be used for the benefit of the whole of its inhabitants.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the proposal embodied in this clause was one of the means adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for getting rid of his surplus, the other two being the Rating Bill and the Education Bill; and the three items amounted to something like £2,500,000, which were to be devoted to the benefit of certain classes of the community. Had he anticipated the means which would be resorted to for getting rid of the surplus he would have adopted a different attitude towards the Naval Works Bill, under which money was to be borrowed for the necessary defence of the nation.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the money to be spent under the Naval Works Bill this year

    1137
    would be found out of the surplus of last year.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONcontinued that since 1797 the Land Tax had been a charge upon the land of England fixed in perpetuity and subject to redemption and purchase. In the application of the Act to particular areas there was the limit of the quota and also the limit of 4s. in the pound, and what was proposed was to reduce the limit of 4s. to 1s., and thereby remit one-tenth of the tax, and put that proportion into the pockets of those who otherwise would pay it. In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to observations that had been made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer condemnatory of the tax; but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer never went so far as to propose to remit any portion of the tax. Where the tax was more than 1s. in the pound, it was to be assumed that this excess was a hardship on those who had to pay it; but how was this made out? To his mind the Land Tax was nothing but a fixed interest payable annually. The value of the land on which a mortgage was charged might fall, and in proportion to the fall in the mortgage interest, the value of the land would rise; but the mortgage would not rise. What would be thought of a mortgagee who demanded an addition to his interest because the residue had fallen in value, and therefore the proportion he took was smaller in value than it used to be? The share of the State in the land had not increased; it remained a fixed amount; and if the land had fallen in value that was the misfortune of the landlord, whose reversionary interest was depreciated, because the margin available for him was smaller than before. How this was made a case of hardship he could not see. The present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Goschen) in his work on local taxation, published 25 years ago, quoted with approval and concurrence a passage from John Stuart Mill, in which he wrote:—
    "That a person owns, a part of the rent does not make the rest of it his just right injuriously withheld from him. The landlords originally held their estates subject to feudal burdens, for which the present Land Tax is an exceedingly small equivalent and for their relief from which they should have boon required to pay a much higher price. There is
    1138
    not the slightest pretence for looking upon it as a payment exacted from the existing race of landlords. It is as if the State had retained, not a portion of the rent, but a portion of the land. The landlords are entitled to no compensation for it, nor have they any claim to its being allowed for as part of their taxes."
    [Cheers.] It would be interesting to know whether the First Lord had changed his opinions on this point, and, if he had not, how it came about that he was a party to this proposal. ["Hear, hear!"] Another Member of the Government, whose absence from these Debates they so often had to deplore, was the Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Chamberlain) who, speaking at Hull in 1885, and describing the burdens of the rich, said:—
    "In the first place I think I ought to have included the Land Tax. It is not a tax in the in the proper sense of the word, but it is a State rent, and a very inadequate one."
    Then the right hon. Gentleman gave his name to a book which was known as "The Radical Programme," which contained this passage:—
    "The Land Tax where it still exists is collected on a valuation made in the reign of William III. It now yields a little over a million, but if it were based on present value it would produce nearly 20 millions."
    Yet the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of a Government which came forward with this proposal. In a speech made at Birmingham in 1885, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
    "If you go back to the early history of our social system you will find that when our social arrangements first began to shape themselves, every man was born into the world with national rights, with a right to a share in the great inheritance of the community, with a right to a part of the land of his birth. But all those rights have passed away. The common rights of ownership have disappeared. Some of them have been sold; some of them have been given away by people who had no right to dispose of them; some of them have been lost through apathy and ignorance; some have been destroyed by fraud; and some have been acquired by violence. Private ownership has taken the place of these communal rights."
    And then, upon that foundation, the right hon. Gentleman put the question which startled the country ten years ago—"What ransom are the private owners of land going to pay for the property in the land which they have taken from the

    1139
    State?" [Opposition cheers.] Why was not the right hon. Gentleman present to defend this proposal, which was ten times more iniquitous than anything that had been complained of either in the Eating Bill or in the Education Bill. [Opposition cheers.] For all that remained to the State of its ancient interest in this land was this Land Tax, and one-tenth of that tax it is now proposed by this Bill to take away. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, perhaps, might rely upon the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture. It was undoubtedly true that the majority report and the minority report agreed in the statement that the Land Tax was a hardship and that it ought to be relieved, but the Reports gave no reasons in support of such a contention. The Commissioners committed themselves to the extraordinary proposition—which destroyed any value their Report might have—that not only was the Land Tax a hardship to those who had to pay it, but that the redeemed Land Tax was equally a burden upon those who did not pay it—or, in other words, that the fact that some unknown person, 100 years ago, wiped out the Land Tax on his estate—was an "intolerable burden" upon the man who might have bought the estate in the market last week. [Opposition laughter and Ministerial cries of "He paid more for the estate."] Surely the fact that a man paid more for an estate without the Land Tax than for an estate with the Land Tax could not be seriously said to constitute an intolerable burden. [Opposition cheers.] He would vote against the proposals of the Government with the fullest confidence that his vote was founded upon justice and reason.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that the hon. Gentleman, during his carefully prepared speech, must have noticed the significant absence of his colleagues from the Front Opposition Bench. [Ministerial laughter.] The hon. Gentleman was good enough to point out that two of his colleagues—who entirely agreed with him in this proposal—were also absent; but if the colleagues of the hon. Gentleman—particularly the right hon. Member for Monmouthshire—really believed with him that the proposal was ten times more iniquitous than either the Education Bill or Rating Bill, they would surely
    1140
    have been present to support him at least with their presence. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the Land Tax might well be raised.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No, I expressly disavowed the contention of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary ten years ago. I stand by the 1798 settlement.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he should like to stand by that settlement too. The settlement of 1798 was based upon an old Act of William & Mary, under which not only was land subject to this tax, but ready money, goods, merchandise, and personal property of every kind also. [Ministerial cheers.] Why, under that Act the profits which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton enjoyed by his personal exertions would be taxed—[laughter]—and, further, as the Act, included offices and pensions, the humble salary which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee so well earned as Civil Lord of the Admiralty in the late Government would also be subject to the tax. [Laughter.]
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: Not under the 1798 settlement.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid it would. It was a curious fact that the law to which he referred remained in force in regard to personal property until 1833, and in respect to offices and pensions until 1876. It had been found by long experience that personalty, being of a very fugitive character, contrived to escape the operation of the Act of William & Mary, and therefore in 1833 personalty was relieved of the tax—a relief which was extended to offices and pensions in 1876. The total loss to the State by these two exonerations from the tax was £132,000 a year. In other words, owners of personalty and holders of certain offices and pensions got a present from Parliament of £132,000 by being relieved of the Land Tax, and yet, when it was now suggested that land, upon which the tax fell heavily, should get some relief, the hon. Gentleman said it was more iniquitous than the Rating Bill or Education Bill. [Cheers.] He regarded it as a very important fact that the Royal Commission on Agriculture, consisting of gentlemen selected for their ability and knowledge of the subject by the late Government—of which the hon.

    1141
    Gentleman the Member for Dundee was a member—unanimously reported in favour of the proposal contained in the Bill. Would the hon. Gentleman suggest that such men as Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Lord Rendel, and Sir Robert Giffen, who signed the report, were unduly favourable to the landed interest.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the hon. Member for Dundee also contended that the proposed relief would extend only to large landed estates. There were as many as 1,400,000 assessments for the Land Tax in England. Of course, there were a great number of these assessments in towns which would receive no relief under the clause, but the figures showed how widely distributed was the tax amongst the owners of the land. The hon. Member could not see any hardship in the fact that though the property which had to bear the tax decreased in value the tax, being a fixed payment, remained the same. He wondered whether, if the hon. Gentleman paid a tax of £100 a year on an income of £1,000 a year, he would think it a hardship if his income fell to £500 and he had to pay the tax of £100 all the same. [Ministerial cheers.] The Royal Commission on Agriculture alluded to the curious inequality of this tax in different parts of the country. The assessment of the Land Tax was indeed, a very old assessment. It dated from many hundred years ago; and, as it was attempted at that time to assess the land faithfully according to its value, naturally the corn-growing land was by far the most heavily assessed. The result, as quoted by the Commission, was that, while in 1797 Hertfordshire's quota was fixed at £41,500, that of Lancashire was fixed at £21,900. Now, of course, the valuation of Lancashire was at least 14 times as great as that of Hertfordshire. As the value of the corn-growing land had diminished, the burden of the Land Tax had increased; and, further, where the Land Tax had been redeemed in the case of building land or land used for railways, an increased burden had been thrown on the neighbouring agricultural land. The Royal Commission declared that nearly one-fourth of the quotas of the Land Tax remaining unredeemed fell upon Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Wilt-
    1142
    shire, and Lincolnshire—and those were the counties where the depression was most felt. The Commission quoted the following cases where the Land Tax had increased within the last 15 years: In Essex, in one parish from 1s. 4½d. to 4s., in another from 1s. 2d. to 2s. 6d., in another from 1s. 1d. to 2s. 3d.; in Norfolk, in one parish from 1s. to 2s., in another from 6¼d. to 1s. 2½d.; in Suffolk, in one parish from 1s. 9¼d. to 3s. 0¼d., in another from 1s. 0¾d. to 2s. 6d.; in Lincolnshire, in one parish from 9¼d. to 3s. 2d.; and in Wiltshire, in one parish from 1s. 1d. to 2s. 2d., and in another from 1s. 1d. to 3s. ["Hear, hear!"] The Commission recommended that steps should be taken to reduce the terms of redemption as proposed in this Bill, and also that the maximum rate of the Land Tax should be reduced. That was the root of the proposals in the Bill. The hon. Member for Somerset asked why the proposals should not be extended to the Land Tax which had already been redeemed. Only in a very few cases had any redemption been effected at a rate above that fixed in the clause. He would remind the Committee that what was proposed was not a permanent but a temporary remission. The quota in any parish was not to exceed 1s. in the pound on the assessment of the parish under Schedule A of the Income Tax. But if, owing to increase of value, the increased assessment should take the parish outside the operation of the clause, then the original quota would have to be paid again. He believed that the remission was well deserved, and that there was no part of the proposals of the Government with regard to agriculture which would be more welcome or which were more necessary and fair. [Cheers.]
    MR. R. WALLACEsaid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had properly remarked on the condition of the front Opposition Bench, but he had drawn the wrong inference. It was not that the Leaders of the Opposition thought this question was a financial bagatelle which did not require their attention. They must be well aware that no more serious question for a large number of persons had been raised during the present Session. It seemed to him that the Gentlemen who usually occupied the front Opposition Bench were

    1143
    unworthily afraid to face the question. [Ironical cheers and laughter, which were renewed as Sir W. Harcourt entered the House and took his seat.] He had seen dramatic demonstrations, conscious and unconscious, by the right hon. Gentleman before this, but never one more successful. [Laughter.] But how could the right hon. Gentleman deal with a discussion which he had not heard? It was a task which would be difficult for himself, but not impossible for the right hon. Gentleman. He could not agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee when he described the observations on this subject made by the present Colonial Secretary some years ago as "bogus history and claptrap philosophy." That was a smart phrase which led one to overstate the case. In those days the Colonial Secretary was sounder on history, social philosophy, and everything else on which he required to be sound, than at the present day. There were hundreds and thousands in the country who sympathised with the lead given to them in those days by the Colonial Secretary. He was surprised that these proposals had not received more attention. They were not to be measured simply by an arithmetical standard, but by the significance of the broad principle involved, and that was the abolition of the Land Tax as far as the Government dare attempt it. [Cheers and laughter.] The tax was at present 4s. in the pound—[crien of "No!"]—and the proposal of the Government was to reduce it to 1s. in the pound. [Cries of "No!"] He was not looking at the question from the arithmetical point of view only. [Laughter.] That was the tendency of the proposal. He would say "ditto" to Mr. Mill in asserting that 4s. in the pound was a very inadequate Land Tax, and there were many people who held the same opinion. Would they be as contented with these proposals as were the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench? [Laughter.] He had not had the time to prepare an informed speech; his information on this subject was mainly of a general character. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] He rose, however, for the purpose of assisting his hon. Friends in doing what they could to emphasise the alarming importance of this proposal, and he trusted that the effect of the discussion would be
    1144
    to call popular attention more significantly and more emphatically to the proposal of the Government.
    SIR W. HARCOURT, whose rising was received with Ministerial laughter and cheers, said that if the hon. Member had given him notice that he was going to make an ill-informed speech de omnibus rebus—[Ministerial laughter and cheers]—he would have been in attendance. But by some misfortune whenever he was in the House he never saw the hon. Member—[laughter]—and therefore he was deprived of the opportunities of meeting him which he should desire. [Laughter.] Unfortunately he had, owing to the position he had occupied in the Government, to inform himself on the subject of the Land Tax, and he had to descend from the empyrean heights lately occupied by the hon. Member, and had to regard this as an arithmetical question. [Laughter.] When the hon. Member had descended from those heights and was able to inform himself of the fact that the Land Tax bore very hardly on poor and distressed districts, when in short he had mastered the elements of the question, he would then be able to address the House not less eloquently, but probably with better information. [Laughter and cheers.] Having had to consider the question of distressed agriculture and the incidence of the Land Tax, he did last year say that he thought the Land Tax was a tax which was oppressive in its character, especially in the distressed districts of the country, and that on counties like Essex, which had suffered very much from agricultural distress, it operated in a most unfair and unequal manner. He said on that occasion that, if it remained for him to deal with the matter, he thought the Land Tax in its present form was a bad tax; if it was to exist it ought to be by equalising it and remedying its heavy incidence on the parts of the country which were least able to bear it. He had always held that they ought to adjust their system of finance so that it should fall most lightly on the parts least able to bear it, and the absurdity of the condition of the Land Tax in Essex as compared with Lancashire was one of the greatest blots on our financial system. Personally he had no opportunity of bringing forward a specific proposal for relief, and though he could not say that

    1145
    this was exactly the scheme he would have proposed, yet, inasmuch as it would give relief from a burden which he could scarcely regard in many parts of the country as in the nature of a differential tax, he did not feel in a position to oppose the proposal of the Government. [Ministerial cheers.]
    *MR. W. S. ROBSONsaid that the inequality of the so-called tax did not meet the point raised by those who objected to the proposed remission. He admitted everything that could be said about the inequality of this so-called burden, but he should like to ask whether this was a tax or whether in substance it was not a national property. [Cheers.] If it was purely a tax it might be properly remitted; if it was a national property, no matter how unequal in its incidence, it ought not to be remitted unless compensation be given for it. He was astonished to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not ventured to repeat what he said when the Budget was introduced. The right hon. Gentleman put into most explicit terms the point for which he and his hon. Friends were now contending. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then said that since 1798 this tax had not been an ordinary tax at all, but that it was in truth a rent charge allowed for by all those who had been purchasers or vendors of land since that date. The right hon. Gentleman had thus made clear the character of this sub-section, and had shown that the Committee were not dealing with the case of the remission of a tax, but were making a gift of national property. The right hon. Gentleman might even have gone further back than 1798; for this Land Tax had been perhaps the only compensation for the abolition of feudal burdens, which had been exacted from the landowners of the country, and it would never have been made perpetual if its character as a national property rather than a national tax had not been recognised. It was now proposed to give away a handsome slice of this property. It was within the competence of the Committee to do so, but let hon. Members understand what they were doing. Do not let them understand that they were remitting a tax like the Tea Duty. This clause proposed to put into the pockets of a particular class money
    1146
    which had never been theirs since 1798. It was, therefore, somewhat fallacious for hon. Members to refer to a Measure of this kind as a Measure of landlord relief. It might be far more correctly described as a Measure of landlord endowment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the clause as if it merely remitted about £100,000 of Land Tax. In form it did, but he pointed out that the remission under Clause 25 was but a small part of the ultimate remission which the landowners would secure. Two reasons were alleged for remission or redemption. In some parts of the country the tax was so small that it was not worth collecting; in other parts of the country it was large, and well worth collecting. On both of those not consistent grounds it was attacked. Then there were the intermediate cases, with regard to which landowners were invited to redeem on terms which gave them substantial profit in the present state of the money market, so as to secure the ultimate extinction of the tax. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing this at a time when he himself had warned the Committee that they had reached the limits of direct taxation. This clause raised a question of far wider Imperial importance—namely, whether they ought to restrict the sphere of direct taxation. That had already become one of the most pressing and acute modern political questions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech told the House that they had reached the limits of direct taxation. That meant that they were within measurable distance of the taxation of imports. In these circumstances they certainly could not afford to throw away any source of direct revenue; if they did, they would be a step nearer the time predicted by the right hon. Gentleman himself, when they would have to lay a tax on the trade of the people—the bread of the people. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether that prospect gave him pleasure, and whether the remission of the Land Tax was intended to bring them nearer to this retrograde policy in finance. Those who desired to keep the commerce of the country unfettered and its bread cheap would not willingly part with any source of direct revenue. The arguments used against giving up the Tea Duty

    1147
    applied with greater force against the surrender of a source of revenue which put a burden on no man's trade and raised the price of no man's food.
    *MR. T. P. WHITTAKERthanked the hon. Member for Edinburgh for drawing from the Leader of the Opposition a statement in support of the Government on this point. He was one of those who regarded the Leader of the Opposition as one of the first financial authorities in the country, and he should have hesitated to express his own view on this question had it not been in accord with that of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not recognise that this proposal did away with an element of direct taxation. It would still be quite within the House to tax land in this country higher than it did if it was thought equitable or desirable to do so. He believed that when the people understood this question, they would not oppose the proposal of the Government. A great deal that was misleading and inaccurate had been spoken and written about it. No one would accuse him of being unduly favourable to the landed interest, and he had strongly opposed the Agricultural Rating Bill; but that touched an altogether different question. The last speaker had given away the argument on the ground of inequality, and now the basis of the opposition was that this was a hereditary charge and a national property. But when the tax was instituted it was imposed equally on personal property and on land. The Act of 1692, which was an Act for raising a war tax, provided that every person or corporation—
    "having any estate in ready moneys or in any debts owing to them, or having any estate in goods, wares, merchandise, or other chattels or personal estate whatsoever, within this realm or without, shall yield and pay unto their Majesties four shilling's in the pound according to the true yearly value thereof."
    The clause taxing land was a subsequent one. Personal property came first. The Acts of 1692 and 1697 were on the same lines in that respect, and so was the Act of 1797. The Report of the Inland Revenue of 1870, which gave the history of this tax says:—
    "It is a remarkable circumstance that these Acts of 1697 and 1797 appear to mark, more strongly than before, the taxation of personal estate as the primary object of the law."
    1148
    That portion of the law which affected personal property was allowed to fall into abeyance, and only the portion relating to land was kept in force. But it was no more a feudal burden in the one case than in the other. In the old days there was very little property capable of taxation except land, and therefore land gave the bulk of the revenue of the country, but to suggest that they should tax land specially for that portion of the revenue that was derived purely from the capital expended on it was not a fair thing. A system of taxing what were commonly spoken of as "land values" would be more equitable. They ought to tax very fully the increased value given to land by its surroundings, by the growth of population, and by the improvements in towns. It was not a sufficient ground for maintaining an unjust tax that it was old. If they were going back to the old law, would they enforce it against personalty as well as against land? The taxation of land was a question for the towns more than for the country, and if the landlords and farmers would only join in seeing that sufficient taxation was placed on the owners of unearned increment on land in the towns, they would open up a source of revenue which would give relief to all. He referred to the sale of a small plot of land in Cornhill at the rate of £2,500,000 an acre, maintaining that it would not have been unjust if practically the whole of the increase value given to that land by its surroundings had been taxed for the benefit of the people. The present he admitted was an unfortunate time for relieving the landed interest, but he was not disposed to refuse to do an act of justice because Parliament was doing an act of justice in another direction.
    MR. R. B. HALDANEbelieved that this question of the Land Tax attracted in a very extraordinary degree the attention of a large section of the public, and he thought they would make a great mistake if they left that out of account. He agreed that it was a great misfortune that the land laws of this country were in the condition they were. It would have been well if the State could have kept a much larger control over the land and taken a much larger share of its profits; but the evils which existed were evils which were

    1149
    created a very long time ago by the laxity and intention, it might be, of Parliament, and they could not redress them. Therefore, he put that out of account, and it seemed to him that the question on which they had to vote was a very narrow one indeed. The defence of this proposition by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was plausible enough, and he was not one of those who took the view that there was not a case of great hardship in these localities, and one well worth the attention of Parliament. The question was whether the proposal for the remedy was a justifiable one. To his mind the particular form of relief recommended by the Commission, and adopted by the Government, was a very bad form indeed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his argument turn upon a word which, he thought, was wholly fallacious in this connection—the word "burden." They had a burden when they had a tax or an imposition upon something that a person had got, but if a person had not got the thing they could not put a burden upon it. The land had been, for nearly a century, subject to this imposition, and it had been bought and sold as though the subject matter of the imposition were not the subject matter of the sale. That brought him to what seemed to him to be the first defect in connection with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal—namely, that it was really unfair to the people who had redeemed the Land Tax. ["Hear, hear!"] On the assurance of the State that it had imposed a permanent burden, taking the view that this was not the subject of property at all, but a slice out of this property which, as it were, belonged to the State, and that there was only one set of terms—those enacted by the State—on which they could redeem it, these people had spent their money in redeeming the Land Tax. They had redeemed it for nothing, and for something worse than nothing, because they were now going to be indirectly taxed to make up the deficiency and to pay for the relief of the burden on those who were not thrifty enough, or in a position to redeem their own Land Tax. There was another thing in connection with the proposal which he did not like. What they were really doing was, under cover of one proposition, making quite a different proposition. If
    1150
    they had wished to make a remission which would reach the localities in this way, why did they not take the School Board rate or something that had come into existence much more recently, say in better times? Instead of that they were taking as the object of the remission a burden which was selected in times when land yielded far less than it did 20 or 30 years ago, and probably less than it yielded now—they were taking something out of the slice which was the State's, which had been the State's for a very long time, and which was never the owner's of the land, and they were giving it back to him. ["Hear, hear!"] Another objection which he had to this proposal was that it was not really a candid and straightforward way of legislating. He for one would have regarded with very great sympathy a candid proposition to give direct relief to the people of those localities where agriculture was peculiarly distressed. The proposal of the Government was put, he would not say in an uncandid form, but in an awkward form—a form which seemed to be economically objectionable and objectionable from the point of view of policy. He could not help feeling that, when he went into the Lobby, which would not be the Lobby in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would be, he should at least have his sympathy, because he had gathered from the closing words of his speech that if he had been dealing with this problem it would not have been in this bad and objectionable form he would have brought forward his proposition for this local and partial relief.
    DR. CLARKsaid the reason why personalty had been finally excluded in England was because from 1798 to 1883 it diminished from £133,000 to £5,000. The abolition in England was the result of the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because of the great burden that had been placed on the annual value of personal property which had not then affected and had only lately affected land as well as property. He was astonished at the speech of the right hon. Member for West Monmouth, because he remembered the very strong opposition he led to the Agricultural Rating Bill. It did seem to him that if they had agriculture depressed and that if this Land Tax rent charge was a

    1151
    burden upon agriculture, surely local rates were a much greater burden, and every argument that applied to the relief of this old hereditary burden would be much more powerfully applied to the relief of the new burdens which the right hon. Gentleman himself so strongly opposed. But were the Government willing to go on relieving agriculture, because if so there was one burden which pressed still more than either the one that had been relieved under the Rating Bill or the one proposed to be relieved under this clause. This was the tithe rent charge, which was the heaviest burden. If they were going to take off the State's charge, were they going to take off the parson's charge as well? It had been urged that the present Land Tax was unequal and unjust, but if the right hon. Gentleman would read the Debates at the time this tax was made perpetual in 1798 he would find that the then Member for Caithness, Sir John Sinclair, very strongly opposed the making of the tax perpetual because of its inequality and injustice. Sir John pointed out how the tax amounted to 6d. in the pound in Lancashire and Yorkshire, while in other districts it was as much as 2s., 3s., 3s. 6d. and 4s., so that it was unequal then, and its incidence unjust precisely as it was at the present time. Mr. Pitt realised that, and showed that the reason why it had been unequal was that under the 4th William & Mary each one of these districts, counties, and parishes had to make an annual return, and every year the Land Tax, both from land and personal property, was becoming less and less, although the land was increasing in value. Then by the 11th of William & Mary it was made perpetual as to the amount on the valuation of seven years before, which very much increased it. They were now paying upon a valuation made two hundred years ago. The tax was made perpetual by Mr. Pitt in 1789, for the purpose of redemption, at 4s. in the pound, and one half had now been redeemed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued that this was a tax upon agricultural land. But the very Act itself set forth that it was also a tax upon mills, mines, ironworks, and other industries. They were told that in various parishes the tax was becoming more and more unequal. That was an argument for making a change in the
    1152
    present method of levying it so that the burden should be equal upon all. If the present clause were carried the inequality would not be remedied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that in small districts where quotas were paid, and where, in consequence of changes in the valuation, the taxes had been increased beyond 1s. in the pound. What might be done was that which was attempted to be done sixty years ago, but which was prevented by the Courts of Law, namely, that instead of having the small areas which were now making the quotas, they should group such areas together and let the burden be alike on all the people. At present in one part of a parish the tax might be one shilling in the pound whilst in another part of the same parish it might only be a penny or even less. When the tax was freed two hundred years ago, some districts were then prosperous which had since become depressed, and in these the burden was heavy. Other districts were at that time poor, which, in consequence of the discovery of coal or iron and their subsequent industrial development, were now prosperous, and here the people were paying practically nothing. The first thing to do was to see that the tax was imposed fairly upon all classes who had not redeemed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had levelled up where the tax was too low, and brought it down to the same level where it was too high, instead of reducing the amount, he should have been glad to have supported him. But instead of levelling up in those districts where the burden was now trifling, the right hon. Gentleman allowed them to remain as they were, and that class of property did not, consequently, bear its fair share. The right hon. Gentleman was making a change as to the valuation which was fixed two hundred years ago, and why not make it all round? Why should one class have a light burden in one district whilst the same class in another district had to bear a very heavy burden, simply because two hundred years ago one was a poor district which had now become rich, whilst the other was a rich district which had now become poor.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERobserved that the hon. Gentleman in his somewhat discursive speech had suggested to him for about the

    1153
    sixth time—(laughter)—that he should attempt to level the Land Tax upwards. He could not conceive any more difficult or impracticable task for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to try and carry through Parliament. They had had a general discussion of the clause on both sides of the Committee, and he hoped they would now be allowed to go to a division. ("Hear, hear!")
    Mr. J. H. DALZIELdesired to emphasise the fact that by the votes that were given in favour of this clause they were going to present £100,000 a year, according to the estimate of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, to the landlords of this country. They were giving this £100,000 a year to the landlords, not in indirect relief, but practically in cash. This free gift was made at a time when the Government had appointed an Inquiry into the whole question of local burdens. They were making this present on their own responsibility to the landlords, while they had pledged themselves to an Inquiry into the whole system of local taxation. It was a curious time to give this further dole to the landlords. They might have waited until the Inquiry was concluded. The right hon. Gentleman knew that whatever the result of the Inquiry, this dole would remain. He could not understand the position of those who objected to voting £2,000,000 a year under the Agricultural Rating Bill, but now said that was not enough, others would give the landlords £100,000 a year more. He objected to every proposal of the Government this Session for the benefit of the landlords. Almost every Bill had had that object. Whether the Finance Bill, the Agricultural Rating Bill, the Diseases of Animals Bill or the relief from taxation in regard to pictures, all came to one thing, "Let us give money to the landlords and make hay while the sun shines." He, as a Radical, objected to this relief of the landlords from taxation and he would be no party to giving them £100,000 a year more.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I move that the Question be now put. [Cheers.]
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: If the discussion is much more protracted I shall be obliged to
    1154
    accept the Motion though I do not do so now.
    *MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid he desired to see land taxation levied on a uniform basis throughout the country. But the greatest obstacle to this was the continued existence of the Land Tax, which bristled with anomalies and abuses, and made difficult and well nigh impossible the imposition of a proper system of land taxation. Therefore, it was desirable either by facilitating the mode of redemption or other means to get rid of the Land Tax before imposing a new Land Tax which should be on an equitable system. It had been argued as if this tax were a permanent and fixed amount. It was as far as parishes were concerned, but it was no longer fixed as regarded individuals. It had been raised with regard to them, but a fixed quota was imposed upon each parish. Owing to the depression in agriculture, large properties had had their valuation lowered, and it had been necessary to get more from smaller properties to make up the amount. Seeing our inequitable system of land taxation, he did not protest against the proposed remission of the Land Tax. To revise the present Land Tax would be a fruitless task. The only way in which our system of land taxation could be reformed, would be to abolish the present Land Tax and substitute an entirely new one.
    MR. J. W. LOGANobjected strongly to the proposed grant of £100,000 in the shape of reduced Land Tax. The gross value of the land in his own county of Leicester was 2½ millions, and the Land Tax upon it amounted to £20,000, but if he looked to Durham he found that the gross value of the land was 5 millions, and the Land Tax was only £3,500. Why was this? In Leicestershire they paid at the rate of 8¾d., and in Westmorland they paid little more than 1d. an acre. These were inequalities that required adjustment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but for the present he would content himself by making his most solemn and emphatic protest against any further dole being made to the landlords. ["Hear, hear!"] He held with Sir Robert Giffen that this so-called Land Tax was not a Land Tax at all. It was

    1155
    simply an interest reserved by the State when it handed over to individuals the rest of the land of this country. It was in the nature of a rent charge, which had been reserved, and the Government had no more right to hand over the Land Tax to any set of individuals than they had to hand over Hyde Park to them. [Cheers.] The land of this country was originally purchased with the full knowledge of the Land Tax which was upon it, and the successors of those who bought the land ought to think themselves fortunate that they got it on such easy terms. ["Hear, hear!"] This was the last protest he would make. [Cheers.] He had been in that House long enough to clearly understand the objections which hon. Members opposite had to hearing a word said on behalf of the poor men of this country. [Cheers.] He was looking, as he had a right to look, to the days of depression which had come on this country, and he asked himself when those days arrived how were the many poor men who were now only just able to keep their heads above water—how were they to meet the additional taxation which this Government was placing on their shoulders for the most exclusive benefit of a certain class. Land at present only paid 26 pence, as against 42 pence paid by other kinds of property, and this Government had already shifted half of the burden of the rates on land on to the shoulders of the men in the towns, who already paid the heavier portion of the taxation. The Government were strong, and he asked them to be merciful, and have more consideration for those men who to-day were paying a much greater share of their small incomes in taxation than the richest men in the country. [Cheers.]
    MR. J. STUARTrose to continue the discussion, when
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERclaimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 70.—(Division List, No. 323).
    Question put accordingly, "That Clause 25 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 188; Noes, 67.—(Division List, No. 324.)
    Clause 26,—

    REDEMPTION OF LAND TAX.
    (1.) The owner of any land may in any year redeem the Land Tax charged on such land by payment to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of a capital sum, equal to thirty times the sum assessed on such land by the assessment last made and signed, after deducting any increase of the assessment made by virtue of this section, and such sum may be paid either in a single payment, or by such annual instalments as may be agreed upon with the Commissioners, and interest at the rate of three per cent. per annum on so much of the capital sum as remains unpaid shall be payable with each instalment, and all the instalments remaining unpaid may be paid at any time.
    (2.) If an assessment on account of the unredeemed quota of Land Tax charged against any land tax parish would but for this section be made at a rate less than one penny in the pound on the annual value of the land in the parish subject to Land Tax, such assessment shall be made at a rate of not less than one penny in the pound, except where such an assessment would produce a net sum exceeding the amount required for the redemption of the whole of the unredeemed quota, in which case the assessment shall be at such rate as will produce a not sum equal to that amount.
    (3.) Any surplus Land Tax in any land tax parish received by reason of an increased assessment under the foregoing enactment, or otherwise received under the Land Tax Acts, shall be paid and applied in manner provided with respect to surplus Land Tax by section one hundred and fourteen of the Taxes management Act, 1880, except that such surplus, so far as it is not applied in payment to the assessors, shall be deemed to have redeemed so much of the unredeemed quota of the Land Tax in the parish as is equal to one-thirtieth part of such surplus.
    MR. JAMES STUART MR. JAMES STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton) moved to omit the word "thirty" (printed in italics) and to insert instead thereof the word "forty." The object of the Amendment was to increase the single payment by which the Land Tax might be redeemed from "thirty times" to "forty times" the sum assessed. By the Clause which had just been passed the Committee had given away a tenth part of the Land Tax, which was the property of the nation. It was now proposed to change that property from a share in the rent to a lump sum of money. The only investment open to the nation for that money was investment in the Funds for forty years. That was 2½ per cent., and as thirty years was a quarter less than forty years, the nation would be a loser by 25 per cent. on the remainder of the Land Tax, or another £250,000 a year, if this

    1157
    transaction were carried out. The only adequate reason for the change would be if the investment about to be made were better than the investment about to be given up. But that could not be said to be the case. The only thing that would make it a bad investment would be if Parliament were to consent in the future to make reductions in the Land Tax similar to that carried in the last clause. But he regarded the present investment a good one on this ground. A long time ago the State said it was a part proprietor in the land of the country, and it fixed the value of its proprietorship at the sum of 4s. in the pound in each parish. If circumstances had brought up the Land Tax in excess of 4s. in the pound the property might be considered a bad property for the State. But that had not happened. He did not deny that the assessment of the tax was unequal. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned instances of serious rises in the assessment. In one case it was from 1s. 2d. to 2s. 6d. in the pound, but in no case had the tax become more than 4s. in the pound. Therefore the State had a good property in this tax, and there was no good ground for making a change in the character of the investment. The change would, as he had said, mean a loss of 25 per cent. in its property to the State, and that 25 per cent. would be given to persons who were in no sense deserving of it. The first Amendment in the Land Tax which had just been carried might be said to help agricultural distress. But this Amendment was an offer that was made all round. To whom would the 25 per cent. go? Chiefly to the inhabitants of the country districts. In the Metropolis more than 60 per cent. of the Land Tax had been redeemed, while in the country generally little more than 40 per cent. had been redeemed. This was a great injustice to the inhabitants of the large centres of population, because those who had not yet redeemed the Land Tax would now be able to do so on far more favourable terms. The line of policy initiated in this clause was most dangerous. The Government had promised an inquiry into the best means of alleviating local taxation generally; and there were many large and reasonable claims to meet. But by this proposal, as by the previous clause, and the Rating Bill, the Govern-
    1158
    ment were using up in advance the very resources on which they could have drawn to effect a readjustment of local taxation. This Land Tax question was closely mixed up with the question of local taxation; and when the Government came to deal with the latter, they would regret that they had thus squandered the national assets.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that he could not agree with the hon. Member. The tithe rent-charge was now redeemable at 25 years' purchase—five years less than the term he proposed. When the Land Tax was made permanent by Mr. Pitt in 1798 as a quid pro quo favourable terms for redemption were offered. During the next two years the rate of redemption was only 20 years' purchase, and £500,000 out of the £850,000 which had been redeemed up to this time was redeemed in those first two years. Since then the value of the funds had more than doubled, and the rate of redemption had therefore increased until now it was about 37 years' purchase. In 1853 Mr. Gladstone dealt with it, the rate then being 35¾ years' purchase, and the rate was reduced to 29½ years' purchase. Again the price of redemption had risen, and the Royal Commission had unanimously recommended that it was too high. If it should happen that the Funds went down again, the State would be a considerable gainer by the terms of redemption having been separated from the price of the funds.
    DR. CLARKsaid that the Land Tax was redeemed in the first instance, on condition that an equal amount of Consols would be wiped out; so that the State lost nothing. Consols were then at 48; but in four years, in consequence of the redemption, the price rose to 70. In 1813 a reduction of three years' purchase was made in the redemption price; Mr. Gladstone further reduced it; and now it would be said that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced the price again by ten years' purchase. Reading this clause with the others that followed, it appeared that the Government were creating a new class of investment. The owner could redeem the Land Tax at 30 years' purchase; then under the next clause he could make the purchase money a first charge on the land; and that mortgage could

    1159
    easily be sold for 35 or 40 years' purchase. Consols were now at 112, and they would soon be bearing only a nominal 2½ per cent., or actually less than 2 per cent. That was 50 years' purchase. There would, no doubt, be a great deal of redemption; and he should like to know the Chancellor of the Exchequer's estimate of the nation's loss by these transactions.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid that the great evil of the Land Tax was its inequality, and as long as they had the Land Tax the only way of really getting equality was through redemption. There was great fallacy in supposing that the Land Tax in its origin was something specially and exclusively connected with the land. That was an ignorant idea; and he would give a most curious illustration of the point. He had in his hand the correspondence of Mr. Canning with a note by his private Secretary as to the official increment Mr. Canning enjoyed in 1827. As first Commissioner of the Treasury Mr. Canning had £4,022 a year, from which was deducted £653 12s. for Land Tax. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not know when salaries ceased to pay Land Tax, but he thought that the above illustration would bring home to his hon. Friends the utter fallacy of supposing that this tax has special reference to land in its origin or inception. It was also a mistake to suppose that the tax was unalterable in its incidence. Those who had studied the question of the Land Tax, its incidence and redemption, had been impressed by its inequality, which was so great that it must be got rid of. He reminded the Committee, when it was said this was a present to a particular class, that he made a larger present than was now proposed to the owners of land in the Budget of 1890. Why? Because he was of opinion that the manner in which the Income Tax was raised on the gross instead of the net was an unequal form of taxation. He understood that the object of the terms of redemption now being discussed was to encourage and facilitate redemption.
    After the usual interval Mr. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk), took the chair.
    MR. DALZIELsaid the Land Tax was originally a tax upon land paid by
    1160
    the landlord as a relief from military service to the Crown. The point was that when this charge was abolished so far as personalty was concerned, it was a fact that certain local burdens on personalty had increased. But the charge upon land was continued, and this charge had been taken into account by Parliament at all times when dealing with the land question. He believed it was true that in certain districts there was a certain amount of injustice, and that was a case for consideration and inquiry. In his opinion, instead of reducing this tax to this enormous extent, the Government ought to wait until the Commission had reported on the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that that House ought to encourage people to redeem this tax, but the effects of the proposal of the Government would be, instead of encouraging people to redeem the tax immediately, to induce them to wait in the hope that it would be entirely abolished. In fact, he could only regard those who had not redeemed the tax up to now as very lucky men, because they were going to get relief to the extent of £100,000 a year.
    DR. CLARKsaid that he had been astonished by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire in respect to this question.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON)called the hon. Member to order. He was not speaking to the Amendment before the House, which was to substitute the term of 40 years for 30 years.
    DR. CLARKsaid that of course he would bow to the ruling of the Chair, but he could not help saying that in that case the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth must have been out of order also. He wanted to know, in the first place, how much the country was going to lose by this proposal on the part of the Government. Between the years 1840 and 1850 the amount of Land Tax redeemed was comparatively small, but that amount had very largely increased after Mr. Gladstone had, in 1853, brought in a Bill reducing the number of years' purchase at which the tax could be redeemed from 36½ years to 29½ years. Now it was proposed to reduce the

    1161
    term of 29½ years to 10 years. What the Government were doing was to surrender an excellently secured tax in order that the owner might acquire the charge at 10 years' purchase, and then take it into the market and sell it at 37½ years' purchase.
    MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that the tax pressed unequally in different parts of the kingdom, because it was very heavy in some counties and very light in others. The question before the Committee was at what rate the Land Tax ought to be allowed to be redeemed. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would enable the landowners to dip their hands still deeper into the national purse than they had hitherto done. As the matter would stand if the Government proposal were accepted, a man who paid £100 per annum for Land Tax would be able to redeem it for £3,000, which would bring in far less to the State than the £100 a year. Having regard to the enormous presents lately made to the landowners, it was too much to ask the House to give them something more. His hon. Friend had shown clearly how advantageous the redemption would be to landowners, and having regard to the low rate of interest at the present time, the landlords would not hesitate to take advantage of the law after the passing of this Bill, and they would derive enormous benefit from it.
    MR. HENRY BROADHURSTthought that those who opposed the Amendment had dwelt rather unjustly on the fact that his hon. Friend ignored the unequal incidence of this tax. His hon. Friend did not ignore it. He recognised it and protested against too easy terms being offered to the landlords. A great deal of the legislation of this Session up to the present time had been in relief of landlords, and this was another form of relief. The landlords were now offered redemption on what were considered by competent authorities altogether unequal and unjust terms. There was no doubt that there would shortly be a considerable rise in the price of land. Such a rise would undoubtedly follow the legislation of this Session, yet the landlords were to be allowed to redeem the Land Tax on ridiculously easy terms. It was extremely inconvenient that the speech of
    1162
    the Leader of the Opposition should have been made, and his followers should not be allowed to criticise it. The right hon. Gentleman's statement had altogether astounded them. They did not conceive that there was anything of the kind in existence until that night. It was a most tempting theme, and one would have liked to follow it right. He entirely endorsed the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and he hoped he would mark his objection to the clause by dividing against it.
    MR. T. LOUGHsaid the question was whether a 3⅓ per cent. investment was a liberal one at the present time. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be disposed to admit that, considering the price of money, rather too favourable terms were offered. When they were considering the Light Railways Bill the other day, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that 3⅛ per cent. was a fair rate at which money might be lent by the Treasury. Why, then, should he give this favoured class an investment at 3⅓ per cent.? The thing that astonished him was the moderate suggestion of his hon. Friend. He really thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might give a little more consideration to it. It was evident that the figure 30 times the sum was not just, considering the price of money. It was a great boon to get the tax extinguished, and therefore, surely 3⅓ per cent. might be charged for the money. Some figure ought to be fixed in the Bill that would cause no loss to the Treasury, and if 40 could not be accepted, why not 35 or 33? He would like to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman. The clause said that the owner of the land might redeem. He would like to know whether there were not some owners of the Land Tax who were not owners of the land? Were those people to be allowed to redeem the tax on the same favourable terms?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No.
    MR. LOUGHasked why they should be treated worse than the landlords? The policy of the Government seemed to be that unless a man held the land, no measure of justice should be meted out to him. At any rate, he thought the transaction should be carried out without loss to the Treasury.
    MR. J. CALDWELLsaid that under the existing law the transaction incurred no loss to the Treasury, but under the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, this would be altered and a loss would be incurred. If there was to be redemption the State ought to be careful to obtain the market price, and even 40 years' purchase would be rather less than the present market price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not argue that he proffered these favourable terms to meet cases of distress, because the same right of redemption would be enjoyed in cases where the burden was light as in cases where the burden was heavy. Was there any reason why the State should allow redemption to take place at less than the market price? What the Government was doing was to give a present to the existing owner of the land. The future owner would not benefit, for the present owner would raise the money necessary for redemption by mortgage on his property, and the future owner would have to pay the equivalent of the Land Tax in interest. The Government had introduced a Bill which would abolish Land Tax in burghs in Scotland. Was it likely that the landlords in these burghs were going to redeem? The Committee had not been given any reason why there should be any departure from the existing practice regulating redemption.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that it was admitted that this was a most unequal tax, and since the time of Pitt it had been the object of Parliament to facilitate the redemption of the tax. The existing terms did not secure its redemption; in fact, redemption at the present price of Consols had practically ceased. The Government therefore proposed to tempt landowners to redeem by offering them more favourable terms. If the proposal were rejected the process of redemption would be stopped altogether, and he could not conceive that that would be a benefit either to the State or to individuals.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEobserved that the argument that it was desirable to redeem the Land Tax because it was unequal could be used with even greater force in support of a proposal to abolish tithe. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was desirable to tempt those who
    1164
    paid Land Tax to redeem, but why was it desirable? It was true that hitherto it had been the policy of Parliament to induce landlords to redeem upon terms which were beneficial to the Treasury, but the terms now offered would cause loss to the Treasury. Was it for the benefit of the public that the tax should be redeemed? He doubted it. When Mr. Pitt introduced his plan the tax amounted to £2,000,000. By redemptions, year after year, half of that sum was now gone. It had been squandered. The only result of capitalising that money had been to induce extravagance on the part of the Treasury. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "It has gone to pay off the National Debt."] ["Hear, hear!"] He knew that; it had been whittled away by the Treasury in payment of debts that ought never to have been encountered. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Treasury had never had the money, which had gone through the hands of the National Debt Commissioners.] ["Hear, hear!"] It mattered little through whose hands the money had passed. His point was that it was a perfectly proper policy on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to redeem the Land Tax, but that hitherto the policy had been to redeem it upon terms which had been favourable to the Treasury, and that now they were having a departure from that policy. The terms which Pitt offered were so much 3 per cent. stock as would produce a dividend exceeding the amount of the Land Tax by one-tenth—a proposal whereby the Treasury gained £400,000. He could understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer entering into a scheme of redemption which would benefit the Treasury of this country to that extent. From the point of view of public policy, it would be an advantage. But what was the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? He said let the Land Tax be redeemed at 30 times the amount assessed on such land. That meant that if they redeemed the whole of the Land Tax at that price it would be a loss to the Exchequer of £250,000 per annum. If they capitalised that, it was a loss of £10,000,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was the policy of Parliament; of past Chancellors of the Exchequer; but he would ask the Committee whether there was

    1165
    not a vast difference between a policy of redeeming the Land Tax upon terms which would benefit the Treasury to the extent of £400,000 a year, and upon terms which would involve an annual loss to the Treasury of £250,000 per annum.
    MR. DILLONsaid he entirely adopted the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Haddington on a previous clause, when he said that this could not be properly considered a tax in the ordinary sense of the word. They could not deal with this matter as an ordinary tax varying from year to year according to the necessities of the Exchequer. Those who had bought estates in this country had bought them subject to the Land Tax. They had not bought the Land Tax, and they had no right to expect to have a remission or redemption of it. An hon. Member opposite, when challenged on the subject said he did maintain the proposition that the Land Tax which had been redeemed years ago was still a burden on the landowners of the country. The meaning of that statement was that if they made a reduction, according to the hon. Member's view, in the Land Tax, they ought in justice to recoup those on whose estates the Land Tax had been redeemed and wiped off long ago at an enormously high rate. Of course, the hon. Member was quite right. He did not admit that it was an unjust tax, although its incidence was unequal, any more than he should admit that a quit-rent was unjust because in one district of the country it was high, and in another district it was low. He challenged and took issue on the first proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was desirable, and that everybody ought to desire, to redeem this Land Tax. He did not think it was desirable to do anything of the sort, and therefore he held that it was not competent for the Government, if they meant to act honestly by the Exchequer, to offer tempting terms to induce men to redeem their Land Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the money accruing from the redemption of the Land Tax passed into the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, and that it was used in the reduction of the debt.
    1166
    What they were entitled to demand was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should prove to them that under this new scheme of his, the redemption of £100 of Land Tax a year would strike off £100 of the National Debt. He claimed that the right hon. Gentleman should show to the Committee, before they were called upon to pass this clause, that there would not be a dead loss to the Exchequer by the operation of this new system. The proposal before the Committee now was this—not only were they under Clause 25, to give £9,000 a year as a present to the landowners of the country, but to follow that up by admitting them to terms which would inflict a further loss upon the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at any rate, ought to allow such a number of years' purchase to be inserted in the clause as would prevent any loss.
    MR. STUARTcomplained that no answer had been given to his point that the Treasury had got no security. At present they had a certain property, but the Government were going to substitute for that another property which was less, although they did not gain anything by it except that the present miserably small rate of redemption might go on. What was the good of their squandering their property like this to no purpose? It was entirely from the Treasury point of view that he had put the case. He contended that the Treasury were getting too bad a bargain, and it was upon that point, to which there had been no answer, that he should take a Division.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked that it was no use his attempting to lay before the Committee again the reasons he had twice endeavoured to impress upon them, and to which he had nothing to add. He would, however, venture to say that the time was getting on, and their sitting was likely to be a prolonged one unless the Amendments were disposed of in a reasonable time. He hoped that the Committee would now come to a decision on the subject.
    *MR. HARRISONsaid the Redemption Act and its provisions as to the investment of the proceeds to be derived from the redemption of the tax under the clause was not interfered with by

    1167
    this Bill. The object of the Redemption Act was declared to be intended—
    "materially to conduce to the strengthening and supporting the public credit and augmenting the national resources."
    This was to be effected under the Act by employing the money obtained on the redemption of the tax, in the purchase of 3 per cent. Consols or Reduced Bank Annuities since altered into Consols. Now, the purchase or redemption money of the £1,860,000 Land Tax, at the price of Consols at the date of the Act, would have purchased about £70,000,000 of Consols. The redemption, however, had not taken place, and Consols are now above par. But under the present Bill the purchase money must still be applied in the manner directed by the Redemption Act. Each £100 of tax must therefore be invested in Consols, which were now 116, and the premium must be paid for by the general Exchequer out of the funds contributed by general taxation, and the landowner who redeemed could thereby obtain, in addition to his rebate of relief of tax, the capital sum which the premium represented. In other words, the Government would take up the tax on the 3 per cent., or 30 years' tables, in order to lend it out at under £2 15s. This was clearly improvident. If the clause had gone on to provide that the purchase money need not necessarily be invested in the manner now directed by the Act, there would have been an answer, but otherwise there was no answer to the argument on which the Amendment was based, and he therefore supported it, particularly as he objected to this further dole or sum represented by the premium being given to the landowner, as well as his rebate in respect of the tax.
    [The CHAIRMAN of WAYS AND MEANS returned to the Chair.]
    DR. CLARKsaid that if this clause was passed with 30 years' purchase, anyone who was paying £100 a year of Land Tax might come to the Treasury and compel redemption. The Treasury were now getting £100 a year, but instead of continuing to receive that amount they would in future get £3,000 from the person who compelled redemp-
    1168
    tion. The Treasury would be obliged to go into the open market with that £3,000 and buy stock with it.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must remind the hon. Member that that case has been put over and over again.
    DR. CLARK: The question has never been answered from this standpoint, because it has never been put.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: The same argument has been used, and the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to repeat arguments which have been urged over and over again. He is not justified in occupying the time of the Committee by merely repeating arguments with which they are already familiar.
    DR. CLARKhad not heard the question put from the standpoint he desired to present. He wished to make clear the process which necessarily took place. If they went to the market and bought they would buy at a loss of £23 10s. for every £100. Why should they throw £23 10s. away——
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: Under the Standing Order 24, I consider the hon. Member is repeating the arguments of other hon. Members, and I must ask him to resume his seat.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 191; Noes, 76. (Division List, No. 325.)
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS MR. HERBERT LEWIS moved in Sub-section (1) to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall" in order to provide that the redemption money shall be paid in a single sum and not by instalments. He said the object he had in view was to prevent any further benefit being given at the public expense to those who already benefited so largely by this clause. They were to pay an extremely low rate of interest, the payment was to stand over sine die, they were to have other advantages, and he did not see why all these should be conceded when most favourable terms were offered.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the hon. Member might have placed this Amendment on the Paper. [Cheers.] He did not see why the system at present in force should be

    1169
    changed. Payments could be made now either in single sums or instalments, and he did not see on what ground the system was to be altered.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the reason was that the terms were more liberal than any that had been offered before.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No; the terms offered in 1853 were more liberal than those now proposed.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid they were not more liberal, because the rate of interest was much higher then than now. All the difference was made by the fact that money was now 2 per cent. By the terms offered, the taxpayers were to lose between £300,000 and £400,000. And not only that, but the matter was taken out of the hands of Parliament, because the instalments were to be paid upon such terms as might be agreed upon between the Treasury and the landowner. It was thus left to the Treasury to come to terms with individual landowners. There was too much of such legislation by Departmental regulation. The way the clause was drafted was highly objectionable.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he wished to meet every reasonable objection that could be raised. Hon. Members seemed to be under an impression that the Treasury would be a great loser by the clause. That was not his opinion at all. He believed there would be very few cases wherein the Land Tax amounted to a considerable sum in which the 30 years' terms would be accepted. The cases in which they might be accepted were cases in which the Land Tax was a very small amount indeed—perhaps a fraction of a penny in the pound on the valuation, involving the payment of a few shillings. In such cases persons might be disposed to redeem on the 30 years' basis.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quite met the point the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs had in view in moving the Amendment. The hon. Member objected to payment by instalments and to any credit being given. If the Land Tax payer could obtain advantageous terms by agreement with the Commissioners, why should credit be given to him?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the Treasury were not bound to accept payment by instalments, for under the clause as it stood they could decline to do so. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. HERBERT LEWISsaid that if payment by instalments were permitted it might give the landowner power to hold over payment to any extent.
    Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 202: Noes, 75. (Division List, No. 326.)
    MR. LOUGHsuggested that words should be inserted in the clause limiting the number of instalments, say to 10 or 15. As the clause stood the Treasury Commissioners had the power of fixing any number of instalments they pleased.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he would inquire what the practice was before Report and see whether it was advisable to insert some limitation.
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS MR. HERBERT LEWIS moved to omit the words, "and all the instalments remaining unpaid may be paid at any time." As the clause stood, it seemed to him that it would be possible for a person who proposed to redeem his Land Tax to allow his instalments to stand over sine die, and the arrangement would practically be of the character of a mortgage.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid the object of the words was to make provision for the payment of outstanding amounts.
    MR. HERBERT LEWISpointed out that under the words payments might stand over for 20, 30, 50 or even 100 years.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY,)said the intention was that a person owing instalments might pay them at any time. The words did not mean that the payments might stand over for ever.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsuggested that words should be inserted to the effect that a certain time should not be exceeded.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALthought such an Amendment was quite unnecessary.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked if it would be open to the Treasury to give an indulgence to a man who had not paid.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALremarked that the words of the clause did not add to the power of the Treasury.
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. GRANT LAWSON): Does the hon. Gentleman press the Amendment?
    MR. HERBERT LEWIS: Yes.
    Division called; but Amendment negatived.
    Question put, "That Clause 26 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 209; Noes, 77.—(Division List, No. 327.)
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 6:—

    DUTY ON COCOA.
    "A duty of Customs of one penny per pound shall be charged on that product of the cocoa been which is generally known as cocoa butter."
    MR. LOUGHsaid that his hostility to this new clause was not abated by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had changed the duty from 2d. to 1d. If the principle was wrong with regard to 2d. it was equally wrong with regard to 1d. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given the Committee a fuller explanation of the reason for this duty. Very few persons seemed to know what butter was, where the cocoa ended and the butter began. He believed that there was a tax on cocoa in this country because it was a drink which might compete with tea or coffee; but cocoa butter was not a drink and could not be used as such. [Ironical laughter.] There was, therefore, no principle on which they ought to tax this product in this country. Cocoa butter was a by-product obtained from cocoa, and he believed it was used in the manufacture
    1172
    of confectionery, and to a large extent it took the place of sugar. He believed it was also used for the hair—(laughter)—and the manufacture of medicines. It had been suggested that the object of the proposed duty was to protect British trade.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I said it was to avoid protecting anybody.
    MR. LOUGHsaid that was exactly the same thing. It struck at the root of the fiscal system of this country. It was contrary to the principle of Free Trade to impose duties on articles where it could be asserted that foreigners benefited by the admission of these articles duty free. Hon. Gentlemen who had any belief in the principle of Free Trade should resist this subtle attack on that principle. They were not by this proposal taxing the foreigner, but the English consumer. So far as he could make out, about 100 tons of cocoa butter were imported into this country, and the duty would amount to about £900. It could not, therefore, be said that the proposal was made in the interest of the Exchequer. He believed it was made in the interest of the firm of Cadbury, who would probably get about £9,000 as a result of this duty. Referring to a paper circulated to Members on the subject, he said it contained the statement that if English makers were to establish works in Holland they could import the whole of the butter extracted into England, whereas if they made it in England, duty would have to be paid on it. That was not a full statement of case, because importers had to pay 2d. a pound duty when they sent to England a commodity which produced 50 per cent. powder and 50 per cent. butter, while the English manufacturer paid a penny on all. He could not see that the foreigner got any advantage at all. The next statement that was made was that there was an import duty on the butter in France and America, but these were both Pro-

    1173
    tectionist countries, whereas we were a Free Trade country. In reference to the next statement he pointed out that probably not more than one-fifth of the cocoa butter was imported into England. What they wanted was the broad principle. In the first place, the foreigner had no advantage; in the second place, the proposal was against our whole fiscal policy; and in the third place they ought not hastily in that Committee to adopt anything which was contrary to that policy.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQERsaid he had not attempted in this matter to do anything contrary to the fiscal policy of the country. Since the last statement which he made to the House on the subject he had put himself in communication with Messrs. Fry and other firms who had objected to the duty, and he had now their authority to say they agreed to the imposition of a penny duty—["Hear, hear!"]—and they did so on the following grounds. Raw cocoa, as the Committee was aware, paid a duty of a penny a pound upon importation into this country, and any manufacture of cocoa, other than cocoa butter, paid a duty of 2d. Cocoa butter, for some mysterious reason, was not considered by those whoso duty it was to interpret the law as coming within the terms of a "manufacture of cocoa" in the existing Act. There was reason to believe that its importation was likely considerably to increase. Out of 86 pounds of marketable produce, the manufacturer would get, he was informed, 50 pounds of cocoa butter, and if there was no duty proposed on the importation of cocoa butter into England it would be sent here by the foreign manufacturer free of duty, while the English manufacturer would have to pay duty. It was a very small matter, but he thought that it was unfair, and they had therefore brought forward this clause.
    DR. CLARKthought the right hon. Gentleman had to a large extent met the
    1174
    objections which had been urged. It was true that there was nearly 50 per cent. of cocoa butter in the cocoa bean, but as a matter of fact, by means of high pressure they could only take away about 30 or 35 per cent. of it. By extracting the cocoa butter they made a lighter and more wholesome beverage. Messrs. Fry & Co. used the cocoa butter for the purpose of producing confections which they could not do without cocoa butter and cheap sugar. The consequence was that, under the present law, they were enabled to cut out the French and German confections, which were handicapped by the expensive sugar which they had to use. If the Government were going to protect the cocoa manufacturers, they ought to go a step further and protect our other industries from foreign competition.
    Clause read First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the following new Clause:—

    APPLICATION OF PART OF DUTY ON SOLICITORS' CERTIFICATES TO EXPENSES OF STRIKING SOLICITORS OFF THE ROLL FOR MISCONDUCT.
    "Whereas, in pursuance of sections twelve to fifteen of The Solicitors Act, 1888, any application to strike the name of a solicitor off the roll of solicitors, and any application to require a solicitor to answer allegations contained in an affidavit, are now made to and heard by a Committee of the Incorporated Law Society therein mentioned, appointed by the Master of the Rolls, be it therefore enacted as follows:
    (1.) Out of the duty paid upon a certificate taken out yearly by every person admitted or enrolled in England as a solicitor, the following sum—namely:

    (a) if the certificate authorises such person to practice or carry on business within ten miles of the General Post Office in London, seven shillings and sixpence; and

    (b) if the certificate authorises him to practice or carry on business elsewhere in England, five shillings;

    shall be paid by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to the said Incorporated Law Society, and shall be applied in such manner as may be arranged with the Treasury for the purpose of the expenses of the Society in the execution of the above-recited sections.
    (2.) If any enactment provides for the performance in Scotland or Ireland of the like duties by a like Committee as under the above-recited sections in England, the like sum shall, in such manner as may be arranged with the Treasury, he applied for the expenses of such committee in the execution of such enactment."
    DR. CLARKasked for some explanation of the clause.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that impartial duties with regard to the examination and conduct of solicitors were imposed by law upon the Incorporated Law Society, and it was found that the funds of that body were not sufficient for the purpose. The society had placed their case before him, and asked that a small portion of the duty should he allocated for the purpose under the supervision of the Treasury, and that was the object of the clause.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could not allow the clause to pass without a protest. This was another instance of the interception of taxes and their diversion before reaching the Treasury. The clause proposed that 7s. 6d. on each solicitor's certificate should be paid to the Incorporated Law Society instead of into the Exchequer. It appeared that a solicitor paid £9 for taking out his certificate, and part of that money was to be used for striking him off the rolls should occasion arise. He was to be struck off the rolls with his own money.
    "Keen was the pang, but, keener still, to feel,
    His own the pinion that impelled the steel."
    [Laughter.] The Law Society was an extremely respectable trade union, and it exercised very useful judicial functions; but those functions were exercised in the interest of lawyers in order to keep their own house clean, and they ought to pay for the cleaning of their own house. If they were to get this public money at all they should get it in the proper way—by a grant-in-aid. He was anxious not to speak more than was necessary on this Bill, because he desired to see it passed; but it was impossible for him,
    1176
    holding the very strong opinions he did with regard to the interception of the public revenue, to allow the clause to pass without protest.
    SIR W. HARCOURThoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not press the clause. If a proposal of this kind was to be made, it ought to be made in the Bill. The Law Society was no doubt a very useful body, but it was in the interest of the solicitors themselves that these inquiries were held. He could not understand the principle of giving money to this society any more than to the Inns of Court, in respect of any proceedings they might have to take against barristers. He really thought that at that time of night no new subject for discussion should be introduced beyond those which were absolutely necessary for the purposes of the Government. This clause could very well be brought up another year for discussion, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press it now.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he made the proposal in the innocence of his heart, on the precedent of a very similar provision with regard to the King's Inn in Dublin. He thought a similar grant might be made in this case for duties which were eminently useful, which were imposed by statute on this society, and for which their funds were not sufficient. However, he admitted the force of the right hon. Gentleman's objections, and as he was most anxious to facilitate the discussion, he would not press the clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the following new clause:—

    INCREASE OF ANNUITY AND REDUCTION OF RATE OF INTEREST FOR THE INDIAN ARMY PENSION DEFICIENCY FUND.
    Whereas, by the Indian Army Tension Deficiency Act, 1885, the annual charge in respect of certain Indian Army Pensions therein mentioned was made payable out of a fund thereby placed in the hands of the National

    1177
    Debt Commissioners, and called the Indian I Army Pension Deficiency Fund, and in order to make the fund solvent, an annuity of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds, payable to the Commissioners, was by section four of the said Act charged on the Consolidated Fund, until all charges on the Indian Army Tension Deficiency Fund ceased;
    And whereas by section five of the same Act the National Debt Commissioners were authorised to lend money, to be repaid out of the said Deficiency Fund by an annuity, with interest at three and a quarter per cent. per annum;
    And whereas the charge on the said Deficiency Fund has proved to be larger than was originally estimated, and consequently the Fund is insufficient to meet those charges thereon, and it is therefore expedient to increase the amount of the annuity, and to authorise the reduction of the rate of interest on any money to be lent as above mentioned; be it therefore enacted that—
    (1.) The annuity charged on the Consolidated Fund by section four of the Indian Army Tension Deficiency Act, 1885, shall, as from the first day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six be two hundred and fifteen thousand pounds, and the said Act shall have effect as if "two hundred and fifteen thousand pounds beginning on the first day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six," were substituted in the said section for "one hundred and fifty thousand pounds, beginning on the first day of April one thousand eight hundred and eighty-five."
    (2.) The rate of interest for any money lent after the first day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six under section five of the said Act shall be such as the National Debt Commissioners, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine.
    In answer to Mr. JOSEPH A. PEASE (Northumberland, Tyneside),
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that the clause provided for an increase of annuity of £65,000 a year. Without this increase the Fund would be bankrupt in the course of the coming year.
    Clause read the First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,)THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire) moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 29:—

    APPLICATION OF PART OF ACT TO SCOTLAND.
    In the application of this part of this Act to Scotland, the following provisions shall have effect:—

    (1) The expression "county" shall be substituted for the expression "land tax parish;"

    1178

    (2) The expression "bond and disposition in security in his favour "shall be substituted for the expression "mortgage secured to him by mortgage deed;"

    (3) The expression "heritable security" shall be substituted for the expression "real security;"

    (4) The certificate of charge granted under this part of this Act by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may be recorded in the register of sasines, and when so recorded shall have priority over all other charges and incumbrances.

    Clause read the First and Second time.
    Motion made, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
    In answer to Dr. CLARK,
    THE LORD ADVOCATEexplained why the clause had no application to burghs, and that it was not necessary to construe "land tax parish" as "burgh."
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved, after Clause 17, to insert the following Clause:—

    AMENDMENT OF 57 AND 58 VICT. C. 30, SS. 18, 23, AS TO CERTAIN HEIRS OF ENTAIL IN SCOTLAND.
    The Finance Act, 1894, shall be construed as if there were added in section twenty-three thereof, after sub-section fifteen, the following enactment:—
    Provided that for the purposes of section eighteen of this Act such institute or heir of entail shall not be deemed to be a person competent to dispose of such estate, unless he is entitled to disentail it without obtaining the consent of any subsequent heir of entail, or having the consent of any subsequent heir valued and dispensed with.
    MR. DALZIELsaid this clause seemed to have no relation to finance, and he did not know how it got here.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid the clause was simply to do away with an unfortunate omission in the Finance Act of 1894, which, as it at present stood, worked a great injustice in Scotland. The Leader of the Opposition would remember that, in Clause 18 of the Finance Act of 1894, he made this change in the succession duty—that the value for the purpose of succession duty

    1179
    on real property was, in the case of a successor who was competent to dispose, made the total value instead of the value of his interest, as had been the law before. As the Bill was originally drafted, entailed property in Scotland was not included amongst the settled property, and a definition clause was put in that an heir of entail in possession should be held to be a person who was competent to dispose. He put down certain amendments to that, and pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it really inflicted a great injustice to all entail proprietors in Scotland, because they practically only had the same amount of possession of their property as a life owner in England had. The right hon. Gentleman felt the force of that argument, and candidly said he would consider the matter on report. He accordingly produced a certain clause on Report, but instead of taking his words as they stood, which simply said the heir of entail should be considered as the possessor of settled property, the clause proceeded to say in positive words that he should have exactly the same privileges—that he should not have to pay the full duty, unless he was a person who was entitled to disentail without consent. They omitted to notice that, through the form of expression being altered, that did not touch the succession of the Succession Duty Clauses which had already been passed before they came to the Amendment. The consequence of that was now, under the Succession Duty Clauses, taken with the interpretation clause, the value for the purpose of succession duty was taken to be the principal value of the property. If they had three brothers in England who succeeded one after the other, they only, for the purposes of the Succession Duty, paid upon what they got, namely, the life interest. In Scotland, where their position was really actually the same, they would have to pay upon the whole principal value of the property.
    MR. T. SHAWremarked that the clause in the Finance Act of 1894 was very carefully considered, not only in the House, but behind the Speaker's chair, in consultations between both sides of the House, with reference to the qualities which should be attached to the succession of heirs of entail. He complained that if there was to be something in the nature of an alteration of the law of this complicated succession they ought to have had it in the Bill, more particularly if the clause was to be a substantial repeal of a matter which had been expressly and definitely arranged between both sides of the House. He demurred to the view that in Scotland they treated heirs of entail in the same fashion as in England. Heirs of entail in Scotland were by law and in the sense of the matter heritable proprietors, and had been so treated with regard to their rights.
    SIR W. HARCOURTasked when this Amendment was placed on the Paper?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: I think the night before last.
    SIR W. HARCOURTthought more notice should have been given of so material an alteration of the law as this, so that it might have been considered. He should have been extremely glad, for instance, to have had the opinion of the late Lord Advocate, with whom the Act of 1894 so far as it related to this matter was settled. He did not think it was necessary to bring up this clause in Committee. It was not an imposition of a new, but a relaxation of the present duty, and the clause could therefore have been brought in upon the Report stage. He hoped it would be brought up on Report and not pressed now.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the new clause would be inserted now.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: But if it is once put in the Bill it will be difficult to get it out.
    MR. T. R. BUCHANANargued that Scotch lawyers

    1181
    should have an opportunity of considering the matter.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEhoped the Committee would insert the clause. There would be plenty of opportunity to consider it further on Report. Ten minutes ought to enable a gentleman of the intelligence of the hon. Member who had just spoken to understand the clause, and he had had 24 hours.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid all he asked was that the law should not be altered without notice to those who were officially concerned in the last settlement of it, so that they might have an opportunity of consultation before being assumed to assent to the change.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid there could be no harm in inserting the clause in the Bill, and there would be opportunity for consultation before the next stage.
    Motion made, and Question put: "That the clause be added to the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes, 184; Noes, 59.—(Division List, No. 328.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the following new clause:—

    APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT UNDER 57 & 58 VIC. c. 10, s. 10.
    "There shall be added to Sub-section 5 of Section 10 of the principal Act the following proviso: 'Provided that in every such case any party shall have a right of appeal to Her Majesty's Court of Appeal.'"
    The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that the clause was merely intended to repair an omission in the Finance Act of 1894. An appeal from the County Court was allowed by the Act in cases where the property in question exceeded £10,000; but very often important points were raised, though the property involved was small in amount, and so it was thought right to allow an appeal in every case.
    MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the clause would give for the first time an appeal from the County Court direct to Her Majesty's Court of
    1182
    Appeal. Every appeal at present was an appeal to the Divisional Court, and he did not think there ought to be an alteration in the procedure.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid that having regard to the points raised, and in order to save expense; it was thought better to allow the appeal direct to the Court of Appeal; a course for which there were precedents in other cases.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that an appeal was allowed by Section 10, Sub-section 5 of the principal Act, to the County Court in all cases where the property was under £10,000, whatever the question might be, so long as it was one of those set forth in Section 10, Sub-section 1. But he was informed that the Inland Revenue had refused to appear in the County Court in cases where the dispute turned on any other point than on the value of the property. If that were so, the object of the appeal to the County Court—which was introduced on the Motion of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the purpose of economy—was defeated.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid it was true that the Inland Revenue had so acted; but he would undertake that the Commissioners would put a more liberal construction on the sub-section in future.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept an Amendment that he had lower down on the Paper to remedy the complaint to which he had alluded. If he left the sub-section as it was, the practice might remain as it was, for the construction put on the clause of the principal Act by the Inland Revenue, was probably inspired by the Law Officers of the Crown.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEopposed the clause.
    MR. S. EVANSsaid they were now about to give the right of appeal direct from the County Court to the Court of Appeal. There was no provision for the

    1183
    hearing of additional evidence, and upon the ground that the clause was crudely drawn he should oppose the clause.
    Clause read the First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    MR. CHARLES McLAREN MR. CHARLES McLAREN (Leicester, Bosworth) moved to report progress. The Government had obtained the whole of the Bill except the schedules; and in the interest of the Government, as well as in that of the House he suggested that the time had now arrived to bring the sitting to a close. A number of new clauses standing in the names of private Members, raising highly contentious subjects of discussion, waited to be taken, but if the Committee embarked on the discussion of them it was certain to last for three or four hours.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that the Committee, having got so far, would finish the Bill. [Cheers.] The clauses which, perhaps, might excite most opposition were not to be moved, and the others remaining to be adopted were what might be described as purely machinery clauses.
    SIR W. HARCOURTthought, after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman, that the Committee might now dispose of the Bill—[cheers]—especially as one of the clauses in the name of the hon. Member for York was not to be moved.
    Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved the following new Clause:—

    ESTATE DUTY ON FRACTIONS OF ONE HUNDRED POUNDS.
    Section seventeen of the principal Act shall have effect as if there were added at the end thereof the following proviso in substitution for the existing' proviso as to fractional parts of ten pounds:—
    Provided that where the principal value of an estate comprises a fraction of one hundred pounds in excess of one hundred pounds, or of any multiple of one hundred pounds, such fraction shall be excluded from the value of the estate for the purpose of determining both the
    1184
    rate and the amount of duty, except that where the principal value of the estate exceeds one hundred pounds and does not exceed two hundred pounds, the duty shall be one pound.
    Clause read the First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved the following new clause:—

    INTEREST UPON ESTATE DUTY AND OTHER DEATH DUTIES.
    (1) Simple interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum without deduction for income tax shall be payable upon all estate duty from the date of the death of the deceased, or, where the duty is payable by instalments, from the date at which the first instalment becomes due, and shall be recoverable in the same manner as if it were part of the duty.
    (2) The foregoing provision shall apply to the interest on all death duties as defined by section 13 of the principal Act in like manner as if it were herein re-enacted and made applicable to those duties.
    (3) The Commissioners of Inland Revenue may remit the interest on any such death duties when the amount appears to them to be so small as not to repay the expense and trouble of calculation and account.
    Clause read the First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    MR. DISRAELI MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham) moved to insert the following clause:—

    CHARGES OF THE NATURE OF AN INCUMBRANCE CREATED BEFORE 2ND AUGUST 1894 TO BE ALLOWED.
    Section seven, Sub-section one, of the Finance Act 1894, shall be read and have effect as if after the words "for debts and incumbrances" there were inserted the words "as well as for all charges of the nature of an incumbrance created or arising bona fide before the 2nd August 1894 by whomsoever the same may have been created."
    This was, he said, a very simple matter and he would like to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer's opinion upon it.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid this clause raised a very large and complicated question. The state of the law in regard to it was at present before the Courts and he could not agree to this alteration of the

    1185
    law, until the Courts had decided what the law was.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DISRAELI MR. DISRAELI moved the following new clause:—

    ABOLITION OF CHARGE ON PROPERTY PASSING BY DISPOSITION MADE WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS OF DEATH, UNDER 57 AND 58 VICT. C. 30, S. 2, SUB-SEC. 3.
    Section two, Sub-section three of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and have effect as if the words "more than twelve months before his death" were omitted therefrom.
    The object of the clause, he explained, was to abolish the charge on property passing by disposition made within 12 months of death. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not prepared to accept the clause, perhaps he might be willing to reduce the period from 12 months to three months.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he voted against a similar proposal last year when in Opposition, and he was afraid he could not accept it now. If adopted it would open a very wide door to evasion.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the proposed clause would put this matter on a proper footing. The question was whether a man should be considered dead 12 months before he died. It was quite manifest that it was improper to make an assumption in favour of the State. The true test was the test of facts, as in the case of domicil and legacy duty, and it was monstrous to oust the facts by a presumption in most cases false.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. J. G. BUTCHER*MR. J. G. BUTCHER (York) moved the following new clause:—

    ALLOWANCES IN ESTIMATING VALUE OF ESTATE.
    In determining the value of an estate for the purpose of estate duty, allowance shall be made for the following incumbrances created by a
    1186
    disposition made by the deceased otherwise than for full consideration in money or money's worth (namely):—

    (a) Any capital sum which being presently raisable bears interest until raised at not less than three per cent. per annum;

    (b.) Any annuity not determinable only on the death of the deceased.

    Provided that the disposition creating the incumbrance was made more than twelve months before the death of deceased and possession and enjoyment of the interest on such capital sum or of such annuity, as the case may he, was bonâ-fide assumed by the beneficiary immediately upon the creation of the incumbrance and thenceforward retained to the entire exclusion of the deceased or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise.
    The object of the clause was to remove an anomaly and injustice in the provisions of the Finance Act of 1894 in regard to the deduction of incumbrances from the value of an estate. He gave as an illustration the case of a man who wished to settle £1,000 on his daughter, perhaps on her marriage. If he raised £1,000 upon mortgage that incumbrance was deducted from the value of the estate. If he charged it on his property, the amount was not deducted from the value of the estate, even though interest was at once payable and paid. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept the clause.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid it was a very difficult subject, and he was afraid he could not possibly accept that clause. It was very difficult to draw the line.
    *MR. BUTCHERsaid he would not press the matter, and asked leave to withdraw the Motion.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. BUTCHER*MR. BUTCHER moved the following Clause:—

    INCIDENCE OF SETTLEMENT ESTATE DUTY.
    (1) The Settlement Estate Duty leviable in respect of a legacy or other personal property settled by the will of the deceased shall (unless the will contains an express provision to the contrary) be payable out of the settled legacy or property in exoneration of the rest of the deceased's estate.
    (2) The Settlement Estate Duty leviable in respect of any such legacy or property shall be

    1187
    collected upon an account setting forth the particulars of the legacy or property and delivered to the Commissioners by the executor within six months after the death or within such further time as the Commissioners may allow.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that he was prepared to accept the clause.
    SIR W. HARCOURTthought that it would be better to bring the clause up upon the Report.
    Clause read the First and Second time, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved the following clause:—

    APPEAL TO COUNTY COURT.
    Section ten, sub-section five, of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and have effect as if after the words "the appeal under this section," the words "whether with respect to the repayment of any excess of the duty paid by the Commissioners either on the ground of the value of any property, or the rate charged, or otherwise," were inserted.
    The effect of the clause would be to enable an appeal to be brought in cases involving the repayment of any excess duty paid on the amount of duty claimed by the Commissioners either on the ground of the value of any property or the rate charged or otherwise.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERALhoped his hon. Friend would not press the clause. It was really quite unnecessary and would encumber the Act.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved the following new clause:—

    LIMITATION OF PROPERTY TO SUCH AS THAT IN WHICH DECEASED AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH OR ANY OTHER PERSON AT THE TIME ON SUCH DEATH HAD AN INTEREST.
    Section two, Sub-section one (b), of the Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and have effect as if after the words "property in which the deceased," the words "at the time of his death" were inserted, and as if after the words "any other person," the words "at the time such death" were inserted.
    He contended that the clause in the Act of 1894 clearly contemplated pro-
    1188
    perty in which the deceased had an interest at the time of his death, and that alone. It never entered the mind of any man in the House that any property of which a man had entirely divested himself and extinguished it perhaps twenty years before his death, should be chargeable with duty. That, indeed, was the construction the Inland Revenue had put upon the Act when it was first passed. At first, when a man had, more than a year before his death, extinguished his life interest, the Inland Revenue never attempted to charge duty; but at about the end of a year, in June or July 1895, the Inland Revenue began to read the Act differently, to put upon it a false construction which it would not bear, and to charge duty wherever a man had a life interest and divested himself of it, no matter how long before his death. Yet another change took place in the kaleidoscopic constructions placed upon this Act by the Inland Revenue, and after July 1895 they sometimes and in some cases levied the full duty and sometimes they did not. There had been three constructions of this single clause, which at the time when it was passed was understood to refer only to the interest possessed by a man at the time of his death. He maintained that it was necessary to restore to the Act its original construction. He knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had undertaken to pay the legal expenses of both sides if a fitting test case for the trial of this question should arise. That was all very well, but there might be a delay of two or three years before such a case was tried and decided, and in the meantime he supposed that the duty would continue to be levied in accordance with the construction put upon the clause by the Inland Revenue. Moreover if, as he expected, the decision were against the Inland Revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have to introduce a Bill of Indemnity in respect of the illegal levy of duties contrary to the Act. If at a future time it should be proved that the Government had been levying these duties unlawfully in consequence of an improper construction of the clause, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer promise to return the duties received up to that time? If an undertaking of that kind were given him

    1189
    he should be willing to withdraw his Amendment. If there should be a legal decision unfavourable to the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman were to retain the amount of the duties already levied his action would hardly be fair.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that his hon. Friend had placed a certain construction upon a very difficult clause in the Finance Act of 1894, but the ex-Law Officers who were responsible for that Act had placed a diametrically opposite construction upon it, and it was upon the advice of the ex-Law Officers that the Inland Revenue had been levying this duty. When he was asked some days days ago whether, as there did appear to be some doubt as to the law, he would do his best to secure that the law on the subjact should be decided definitely as soon as possible, he readily agreed, and he took the very exceptional course of saying that as soon a fitting test case should arise, he would, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, pay the reasonable costs of both sides to the suit. It was an advantage to the Exchequer as well as to the public, that the subject should be decided by a Court of Law. In the meantime he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment to a Division.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he would only express the hope that when any persons came up for taxation they would be informed of the arrangement the right hon. Gentleman had made, and would not be required to pay the duty.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: All we want is a test case.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedules added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. (No. 309.)

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  TRUCK BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY LANDS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [15th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (PORTS) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [26th June] further adjourned till Monday next.
  RAILWAY ASSESSORS (SCOTLAND) SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [19th May] on Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), further adjourned till Thursday next.
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday next.
  UGANDA RAILWAY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
  POST OEEICE CONSOLIDATION BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday next.
  TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY GUARANTEE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  ELECTION PETITIONS BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SHORT TITLES BILL [H.L.]
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  LARCENY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday-next.
  JUVENILE OFFENDERS (WHIPPING) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till To-morrow.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till Monday next.
  CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  BATHS AND WASHHOUSES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 21st July.

  MARKETS AND FAIRS (WEIGHING OF CATTLE) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

GRAY PEERAGE.
Report from the Committee for Privileges 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; made and agreed to, and resolved and adjudged accordingly, and Resolution and Judgment to be laid before Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves, and to be transmitted to the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland.
Ordered, That all deeds, documents, and papers produced on behalf of the Petitioner by her agent be delivered to the said agent.

INDIA (SIAM AND THE UPPER MEKONG).
Letter from the Government of India respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of Tuesday last), and to be printed.—[No. 188.]
INDIA (KAFIRISTAN), 1896.
Correspondence respecting: Laid before the House (pursuant to Address on Tuesday last), and to be printed.—[No. 189.]
PARLIAMENTARY COSTS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills, with amendments, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and Bill to be printed as amended.—[No. 190.]
JUDICIAL TRUSTEES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; Read 1a and to be printed.—[No. 193.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  HIGHLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Moved that the Order made on the 16th day of March last—
  "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a Second time after Tuesday the 23rd day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed for Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
  *LORD HARRIS*LORD HARRIS moved that the Report of Amendments to this Bill be agreed to.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The EARL of MORLEY)said he did not object to the motion, but wished to express a hope that his noble Friend would call the attention of the Local Government Board to the extremely late period at which they introduced their Bills. This year Bills were introduced even after the day fixed for receiving them in the House.
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  *LORD HARRIS*LORD HARRIS moved the Second Reading of this Bill, which, he said, had given rise to ample discussion and to a vigorous criticism and opposition in another place. The proposal of the Measure was to grant out of Imperial revenue half the rates payable in respect of agricultural land. Agricultural land was defined in the Bill, and the half of the rates was to be based upon a valuation to be made this year and up to March 31 next. There were in the Bill the necessary directions to authorities as to the mode in which they were to rate, and there was also a definition of who the spending authorities were. It seemed to him the Bill came to them with two especially strong recommendations, and with another also of some strength, having regard to the principle which ran through the Measure, but not of such force as the first two. Firstly,

  1055
  the Bill was passed by enormous majorities in the House of Commons; secondly, it was recommended by a majority of the Royal Commission on Agriculture; and, thirdly, in one part of the Amendment to the Second Reading in the other House, moved by Sir Henry Fowler, there was an acknowledgment of the principle of the Bill. He supposed that if there was one subject which was specially placed before the constituencies at the last General Election it was the distressful condition of agriculture. Many constituencies expressed themselves distinctly desirous that Government should give its attention to the condition of agriculture, and, if possible, help it in some material way. The modes in which agriculture could be assisted were very few. The Royal Commission on Agriculture found that the cause of the depression in agriculture was the continuous and serious fall in prices; but, whatever opinons may have been expressed by individual candidates in the Election last year as to our system of free imports, the Government received no mandate from the constituencies to change our present system of free imports. To make such a change would have been one way of assisting agriculture. Agriculture might be assisted by a general readjustment of rates so as to relieve what was claimed to be the inequality of rating, but clearly any such readjustment could only be the outcome of the Inquiry appointed ad hoc, and which would undoubtedly occupy a long time. It had been alleged that agriculture had no special claim to assistance because it was favourably treated in the matter of the Death Duties. If that allegation was sound it at any rate had been upset in recent years by legislation. He could not conceive that now it could be said that personalty as compared with realty was unduly taxed. That was the position when the present Government came into power. A very large majority gave a distinct expression of opinion that the condition of agriculture was to be taken into consideration at once. The Royal Commission which was appointed by the late Government indicated, in an interim Report, the way in which assistance was to be given. It reported as follows:—
  We have practically completed the collection of evidence on the various matters which have
  1056
  been referred to us; but, owing to the multiplicity of subjects into which inquiry has been made, and the great amount of information obtained thereon, it is not possible for us to submit at the present time a final Report which could adequately deal with the important and serious question of agricultural depression in Great Britain.
  But the evidence which has been brought before us has convinced us of the extreme gravity of the agricultural situation. We have consequently tome to the conclusion that it is our duty to submit to your Majesty, without delay, certain suggestions which are calculated in our judgment to some extent to relieve the agricultural community, and which cannot be carried into immediate effect without legislation in connection with the financial arrangements of the coming year.
  It is undoubtedly true that the severity of the depression varies greatly in different districts, but we have come to the conclusion that there is no part of Great Britain from which it can be said to be altogether absent. With rare exceptions it has existed and increased in intensity throughout the country for the last 12 or 15 years. In many districts it has reached a stage so acute that the consequences have already been most disastrous.
  And then came the seventh paragraph:
  But the witnesses have been practically unanimous in their desire that agricultural land should be relieved from some of the burdens which it now hears, and there is a general consensus of opinion in favour of State loans for agricultural improvements. We believe that if something is done at once in each of these directions, it will mitigate the results, and may possibly to some extent arrest the progress of the depression.
  In paragraph 33 on the same point he found the following:
  On no subject has a greater concurrence of opinion prevailed on the part of the tenant farmers who have been examined by us, and who have appeared before our Assistant Commissioners, than on the injustice of the present system of local taxation and the necessity for its readjustment so far as it affects agricultural lands. It has been represented to us again and again by these witnesses that the owners and occupiers of agricultural land are specially rated for purposes for which they ought not to be rated; that the capacity of the land to bear the charges now borne by it has been greatly reduced; that agricultural land has to bear an undue share of the local rates in proportion to the present value of its produce; that many of the charges on real property are essentially Imperial charges, and ought in fairness to be borne by all classes of property, and that the whole question of local taxation ought to be reopened and considered in a comprehensive manner, so that all classes may be made to contribute in proportion to their ability to the expenditure on the relief of the poor, education, lunatics, police, administration of justice, and other national purposes, now mainly chargeable on the local rates. No tenant farmer has

  1057
  questioned the necessity for a radical alteration in the existing system of local taxation in the direction of relieving agricultural lands from some of the local burdens to which they are subjected in relation to this expenditure, although, as was to be expected, the opinions of the several witnesses have differed as to the manner in which this relief should be obtained and the directions in which it is most urgently required.
  In paragraph 46 he found the following:—
  The adoption of this recommendation will necessitate some rise in the rates in the pound of the local rates in all districts containing agricultural lands, and where these lands form a large proportion of the rateable property a very considerable rise, unless the deficiency created by the relief thus given to agriculture is made good to the local authorities from the Imperial revenue. In order to meet this difficulty, we recommend that so much Imperial revenue as is required for this purpose should be divided amongst the local authorities, in proportion to the additional charges which will in the first instance be thrown on other properties in the several districts in consequence of carrying the above recommendation into effect.
  There was also a minority Report, and in the first paragraph they recognised the serious condition of agriculture. They stated:—
  "We think that it is important and necessary to point out at this stage of our proceedings, and with a view specially to the consideration of the burdens on agricultural land, that the depression has been and still is far more serious in the eastern and southern counties of England, over an area of rather more than one-third of England and Wales, including such counties as Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Oxfordshire, or the greater parts of them, than in the other parts of Great Britain."
  The objection taken to the Bill in the other House was not to the fact that relief was given to local burdens, but to its being given to a particular class of property. The agricultural interest, therefore, might claim that both Parties had acknowledged the desirability of readjusting local taxation, and that it was fair to make a grant from the Imperial revenue. There was no other expedient before the Government than to assist this heavily-burdened industry from Imperial revenue. Among the objections was one that the Bill established a system of national poor rate; but, if that was so, the Opposition in the House of Commons had failed to give expression to their opinions, for they had admitted the desirability of readjusting taxation. It had been suggested that in consequence of the grant there would be a
  1058
  tendency towards extravagance, but his experience of the Board of Guardians led him to the conclusion that the grant would be economically administered. As a matter of fact, there were very few things upon which the guardians could indulge extravagance. The tendency towards extravagance, if there was such, was not amongst the rural, but amongst the urban members of the Board. Under the Bill the ratepayers would continue to be rated as before with regard to houses and premises, and these would be valued as before, but separately from the land. Already in some 1,500 parishes the farm buildings were rated separately from the land. The fundamental principle of valuing for rating purposes was to value property in consideration of the purpose for which it is used. It might happen that in the midst of a thickly-populated area the land of a business man, whose business was carried on over a considerable ground area, might be rated very much below what it would be rated at for building purposes. As regarded machinery, the farmer would be rated in precisely the same way as the manufacturer; the machinery itself was not rated, but the enhanced value of the building in consequence of the presence of fixed machinery was taken into consideration. With reference to the argument that the Bill was unfair because the urban rates were so much higher than the rural, he pointed out that the rural ratepayer had to do without a great many luxuries that the urban ratepayer was able to maintain, by the mere fact of a large population being collected together which could combine for various purposes. He had an extract from his own neighbourhood which showed that in two parishes, one urban and the other rural, lying side by side, the Poor Rate was precisely the same, the County Council Rate was the same in each case, and the main difference was in the General District Rate falling upon the urban parish, a difference of something like 1s. 6d., and it was almost entirely made up by such advantages as paving, lighting, scavenging, and draining. Possibly in larger and wealthier urban districts they might find that the rates had been increased there by such advantages as baths and washhouses, free libraries, and even in some cases he

  1059
  believed by tramways. Of course, if urban ratepayers chose to indulge in luxuries of this kind, which the rural ratepayers had to do without, it was inevitable that their rates would be higher. Another subsidiary objection which was taken was that the relief given by this Bill was given in regard to rates which had been considered as hereditary. They knew what the opinions of the noble Earl opposite were as regarded the principle of heredity. [The EARL of ROSEBERY: "Hear, hear!"] And he should be curious to hear how he dealt with the matter in this case. When was this principle to commence? By the Act 33 and 34 Elizabeth, overseers were appointed who were ordered to raise up taxation and provide work for the necessary relief of such as could not work in a parish. Moreover, Justices might rate other parishes in order to help a poor parish. The statute which was passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth provided that, not only as regarded the relief of the poor and the finding of work for the abled-bodied poor, was it incumbent upon every parishioner out of his means to provide the necessary sums or material, but also as regarded technical education and apprenticing of the children of the poor. That was the law of the country till 1840. From various causes it had become customary to rate only land, and at last somebody appealed against the rate on the ground that it was unjust and had not been imposed upon all the inhabitants in the parish. The Courts held that the rate was unsound, and considerable confusion resulted. In consequence the Act of 1840, 3 and 4 Victoria, cap. 89, was passed. Among the arguments used by the Attorney General of the day were that there was no doubt that ever since the statute of Elizabeth stock-in-trade was liable to be rated, and that the then state of the law ought not to continue, as it enforced a most inquisitorial research into the private affair's of individuals. The latter objection was raised to the Income Tax, but without avail. Were they to appeal to the principle of heredity as embodied in the usage of 200 years or as embodied in the usage of some 50 years? Surely the former would be the greater value. The Act of 1840 exempted stock-in-trade, whilst it specifically directed overseers to rate
  1060
  agricultural land, woodlands, and coal mines. It seemed to him perfectly fair to claim that the houses and building premises of the farmer were to him precisely, the same as were the houses and business premises to the manufacturer, and the land itself was a very important item in his stock-in-trade. And yet the manufacturer and the urban ratepayer was freed from all ratepaying as regarded his stock-in-trade, while the farmer, even under this Bill and after half the rate had been remitted, would still be rated as regarded that particular item. This principle permeated all the rating of the country; land, as soon as it became useful for brickmaking, cement, or concrete making, at once became more valuable for rating purposes. The agricultural rate was no longer taken, but the land was valued according to what it could produce for bricks, cement, concrete, etc. The rate was paid by the person who extracted the earth from the quarry or the pit, and the persons rated had to pay the rate there and then, but as soon as the bricks, etc., got into the yard of the contractor they were no longer rated, as they were part of the stock-in-trade of the manufacturer, who was exempted by the Act of 1840. He argued that the land and its produce had for years been most unfairly treated as to the way in which it had been rated. Another subsidiary objection taken to the Bill was that the benefit derived from this grant would not be distributed on an equitable basis. Undoubtedly that was one of the most serious objections to the Bill, as it was the one that was most difficult to meet. But if their Lordships were going to analyse the justice or the injustice of a remission of taxation, and to ascertain which man could bear taxation and which could not bear it, they would have to undertake an Inquiry which would not be concluded for a long period, and which would compel them to postpone indefinitely the relief to agriculture which the constituencies were asking Her Majesty's Government to grant without delay. Another argument that had been advanced against the Bill was that under its provisions the lands that were rented the highest would obtain the greatest benefit because they were rated the highest. He did not, however, think that that assumption would be

  1061
  found to be correct. Where a number of farms had gone out of cultivation in a particular distressed district, the farms which remained in cultivation would have to bear the rates of those which were no longer cultivated, and consequently they would be very highly rated. In such cases rates would be high, although the rents might be low and the lands were derelict. He would give their Lordships an illustration of rates being high where the rent was low. On page 299 of the second Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, the following case would be found:—Twenty years ago the farm of 500 acres was let at £2 per acre. In 1892 the rent was reduced 50 per cent., making it £500 per annum, while the capital employed on the farm was £4,000. In 1892 the farm paid no interest on capital, and paid no rents, and the accounts, which had been most carefully kept from year to year, showed that there had been a loss on valuation of £235, the rates being £59. In 1893 the farm again paid no interest on capital and no rent, while the valuation showed a loss of £954, the rates being £90. The accounts for 1894 afforded a curious instance of fluctuation of profits, because, although the capital employed was reduced 25 percent., the farm paid £146 interest on capital, and £500 rent, and left £144 of profit to the farmer, the rates being £79. In 1895 the farm paid £52 interest on capital, about one-third of what it ought to have paid, it paid no rent, the rates being £84. So that in the four years £313 had been paid in rates, £698 had been received in interest and rents, and the loss on the valuation was 25 per cent. That was the result of farming on some of the best land in East Kent. He thought that that was a very fair illustration of how the argument that high rates meant high rent could be met. It had also been argued that, whatever assistance was given to agriculture would go into the pockets of the landlord. It seemed to him difficult to say precisely where the relief would go to. He might, however, safely say that the relief would go to the land, and it was the object of Her Majesty's Government that it should do so. He could understand that, where a farmer was doing fairly well, and was earning a percentage, although not a fair percentage,
  1062
  upon his capital, that he might, if he were honest, leave something to his landlord. Of course, in the case of leases the whole of the profit, after paying the fixed rent, would go to the tenant. The suggestion that a share of profit would go to the labourer had been treated with derision, but in his opinion if a farmer found at the end of the year that he had made a larger profit than he anticipated, he would use a portion of it in paying for more labour, because that would enhance the profit derived from the farm. As he had said, he could not say where the relief would go in all cases, but as there were three parties interested in the land, it might be taken that each of them would obtain a fair share of it, and that it would not all go into the pocket of one of them. It had been objected with one breath that this relief was an enormous one and with the next that it was a mere dole which would be powerless to effect the relief of agriculture. Whichever was the true description of it, the agriculturists recognised that Her Majesty's Government was trying to do something practical to help them, and was not merely expressing a barren sympathy for them without giving them any material assistance. Before he came to the end of his remarks, he wished to deal with a particular statement which had been made by Sir W. Harcourt in the House of Commons, in which he said that farmers in a particular county had alleged that the distress came not so much from a drop in prices as from their unfair treatment by their landlords. Sir W. Harcourt, referring to Hampshire, said:—
  "I have also rend these very important and instructive documents, the Reports of the Assistant Commissioners, and, naturally, one of the first Reports that I looked at was that relating to the county in which I reside, a Report furnished by a gentleman extremely well known to every agriculturist—Dr. Fream. In cases where what were regarded as only fair and reasonable rents, maintained even in the good times, the tenants have been held together; but on other estates, where old tenants were got rid of for the sake of others willing to pay higher rents, the result has been disastrous. Unduly high rents were accompanied by short tenancies. Many and frequent changes were consequently the result, and the general tendency of such a policy has been ruinous. It is maintained that those landlords who have been in the habit of making reasonable reductions when asked have done best in the long run; and, on the other hand, that a generation of farmers has been ruined through a lack of timely concessions."

  1063
  Anyone reading that would come to the conculusion that that was the opinion of Dr. Fream, whereas, in fact, it was only a letter from a single farmer to Dr. Fream, Then Sir W. Harcourt went on to quote a letter to Dr. Fream, which, he said, was sent to him by a farmer whose family had been tenants on the same estate for two centuries. In that letter it was said:—
  "Since our conversation I have considered the matter somewhat, and, writing from a tenant-farmer's point of view, and solely as regards arable land, I beg to append my humble opinion, formed from costly experience of the causes of the present ruinous state of our industry."
  Sir W. Harcourt went on to say—
  "He proceeds to speak of bad seasons and of foreign competition. Yes, and he speaks of another thing, which I hope the hon. Gentlemen who cheer will note—'the disinclination and refusal of landlords in most cases to meet their tenants. Some, not all, are now offering 15 or 20 per cent. abatement. When, as is the case for the last two years, more than the rent has been lost, this is too little. In seasons like the last two 50 per cent. should be allowed to tenants of a few years' standing, to enable them to hold on.' Then comes another cause for the ruinous state of the agricultural industry—'absence of combination and any real representation in Parliament.' Both Houses are overdone with landlords and their advisers. The interests of the tenant-farmers are now, and have always been, neglected."
  All this was contained in a letter from a single farmer to Dr. Fream. He should like to read to the House a statement of Dr. Fream himself. As regards the "disinclination and refusal of landlords in most cases to meet their tenants," Dr. Fream said:—
  "In the area that came under my observation, I did not meet with a single exception to the rule that the rents have been reduced during the last 12 years. In some cases these reductions have been so great that tenants are practically keeping on the farms at their own rentals. A large tenant farmer said to me:—'It has come to this. You may regard the land as practically of no value, and look upon the rent as merely covering the interest on the outlay on house and buildings.' And he added that by the time the landlord has met all expenses, he has scarcely got anything left for himself. Not only are the rents a diminishing quantity, but some have not been paid for years, though the reduction may have gone almost as far as possible short of extinction. The landlord does not get even a fair interest on the cost of the buildings and yet with rents down to nothing, as it was expressed to me, the tenants continue, many of them, losing money."
  1064
  That was the real opinion of Dr. Fream. Why did the right hon. Gentleman suppress all this and give so misleading a version to the House and the country. He always regretted to have to make personal observations on people who were not present, but he was sure Sir William Harcourt would forgive him for correcting his statement and giving the true version of Dr. Fream's views. To sum up, his arguments were that the constituencies at the last Election gave the Government a most distinct injunction, by an enormous majority to look into the state of agriculture generally, and to assist it as quickly as they could; that the Royal Commission, by a majority of its members, recommended the particular form of assistance embodied in the Bill; that the principle of the readjustment of the burdens on real property was admitted by the Amendment of the Opposition in the House of Commons; that this mode of assistance was the only form in which assistance could possibly be given at once, and that, as a matter of fact, there was no injustice in agricultural land being relieved of half the rates, because urban ratepayers were already excused from paying rates on their stock-in-trade, whereas the farmer had to pay rates on what he regarded as his stock-in-trade, namely, the land. Those were the grounds on which he begged to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
  *LORD FARRER, in moving to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Motion to insert the words, "this day three months," said it was with great diffidence, as one of the youngest Members of the House, that he rose to move the rejection of what appeared now to be the principal Bill of the Session, and he should not have done so had he not felt convinced that it was a very bad Bill. The argument of the noble Lord who had just sat down really came to this:—
  "We promised to do something for agriculture; we do not know what to do. We got a recommendation from the Commission; we do not adopt it because we think it will do very much good to agriculture, but because it is the only thing we can do."
  The Bill was based on the authority of the Agricultural Commission. That Commission went into a number of subjects. They went at great length into

  1065
  the question of bimetallism. To his mind, it was a most cruel thing to dangle before the poor farmer the suggestion that by increasing the number of counters with which men do their business, agricultural depression would be removed. Still more foolish was it to suppose that people were going to change the standard of value in this country for any such purpose. That bubble was soon pricked by the masterly speech of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then the Commission did something else. They got a number of statistics from that able man, Sir Alfred Milner, statistics of a very doubtful character, and adopted them as the foundation of a Scheme for altering the finance of the country. One of the discoveries of the majority of this Commission was that the Land Tax which had been redeemed for generations was still an actual burden on the land. They hurried up an interim Report which was never fully discussed or examined, and they did their best to prevent the minority from making a Report. Fortunately, however, the minority did make a Report, and it was from that Report was obtained an insight into what was the real state of agricultural depression in the country. He was not going to deny that there was very grave agricultural distress, but until they knew, in the first place, what were the causes that had led to it, and, in the second place, what was the nature and character of that distress, any remedies would be empirical and useless. There were two fundamental causes for the present distress. The first was the great fall in prices, and for the causes of that they must go back fifty years to the repeal of the taxes on food. The second great cause—and it was shared by the agricultural capitalist in common with all other capitalists—was that by some process, which he called a blessed process, a large share of the profits of industry had been transferred from saved capital to labour. There could be no doubt that the distress complained of had not reached the agricultural labourer. He, at any rate, till within the last two years, was far better off than he had ever been in the matter of nominal wages, and still far better off in real wages by reason of the cheapness of
  1066
  the things he had to purchase. These two blessed and happy causes had led to the great improvement of the masses of the people, but at the same time no doubt to great suffering on the part of the farmer and the landowner. But when it was suggested that the remedy for that was a paltry alteration in rating, it was but the old story of dame Partington and the Atlantic. What was the real nature of this distress? The distress was as different as possible in different parts of the country. There were parts in which there was no distress at all, in which the assessment and value of land had gone up. There were other parts in which the fall in value had been small, and others in which it had been large. The average fall had been about 26 per cent., but it varied from less than nothing to something like 40 per cent. He believed there was in the possession either of the Commissioners or of the Local Government Board a map which showed where there was great distress, and where there was less or none. He wished the House could have had that map before them. There was great distress in the east and parts of the south, and especially in the arable counties; but in the north and a great part of the west there was nothing which could be called distress. But that was not the only great difference. The land surrounding the great towns formed a very large part of the whole land of England. The value of that land had risen by reason of the demands made on it by the inhabitants of the towns. There was no distress among persons in the immediate vicinity of the towns; on the contrary, such land let at a very high value, and there were also many cases in which the letting value was no indication of the real value. In the county of Surrey and other residential parts of England the land was still used for the purpose of agriculture, but if anyone wished to buy, it he would find that its capital value was five or six times the letting value as agricultural land. At the same time, the rates were only levied on the letting value. In his immediate neighbourhood in Surrey, there was land which would let at not more than 10s. or 15s. an acre as agricultural land, and which yet

  1067
  would cost £100 an acre to buy. It was taxed at one-fifth its real value for local purposes, and he was not sure that it was taxed at one-fifth only of its real value for Imperial purposes, and he would ask the House whether it was wise in an assembly which consisted largely of landowners, to call attention to such a fact as that? They heard a good deal of the unearned increment in London, and they were going by this Bill to give back half the rates to persons who owned such land as he spoke of. Did the House think that would pass without comment? He had heard much about obstruction in the House of Commons, but he would point out that this very question of accommodation land, which Mr. Chaplin admitted to be a very important question, was relegated to the morning of an All-night Sitting in the House of Commons. The question of accommodation land, and of the boon which the Government proposed to bestow on the owners of such land, was a bigger question than the Government imagined, and a great deal more would be heard of it. He admitted fully that there were cases of great agricultural distress, and he would like to see them relieved, but when the amount which it was proposed to give had been spread over the country, including areas where there was little distress and areas where there was none, the sum available for places where there was genuine distress would only be about a shilling an acre. That would hardly satisfy a distressed farmer in Essex. Then, would this relief go to the landowner or the farmer? Under leases no doubt it would go to the latter, but five-sixths of the land of this country was held under annual arrangements which were subject to readjustment every year. Supposing prices were to continue to fall and a farmer not under lease were to ask his landlord's agent for an abatement of rent, would not the agent at once say, "You have had relief this year to the extent of £5, £10, or £20 under the Agricultural Rating Bill, and therefore we must postpone the question of abatement until next year." That, he held, was likely to happen as long as human nature remained unchanged. The greater part of the relief would go to the landlord, and it was difficult to see that a single acre of land would be kept in
  1068
  cultivation as the consequence of this dole, or that a single additional labourer would be employed. But it was said that this was not merely a Measure for the relief of agricultural distress, but also a Measure for the reform of the law of rating. Now there were two grievances of which ratepayers complained. There was first the question of the incidence of rates as between the owner and the occupier; but that question this Bill left untouched. In the second place there was the question whether personal property paid its fair share towards the local expenses of the country. How were the Government dealing with that? They dealt with the question in the rural ratepayer's favour, leaving it untouched in as far as it concerned the town ratepayer. The noble Lord (Lord Harris) had found fault with the phrase "hereditary burdens." But the author of that phrase was the present First Lord of the Admiralty, who, in a book which was the foundation of all their knowledge upon this subject, had pointed out that the poor rate and certain other rates upon rural land had always existed; that they had not increased; that land was bought and sold subject to them, and that they had thus become what he termed "hereditary burdens." He did not altogether approve of that phrase, but undoubtedly when taxation had been permanent in respect to certain property for a certain time and did not increase, it ceased to be a special burden upon the land and became a deduction from the value of the land before the owner had use of it. What was the case as regards rural rates? Mr. Goschen showed that in 1841 the rate was 2s. 7d. in the pound, and in 1868–69 it was still 2s. 7d. in the pound. According to evidence taken before the Agricultural Commission, it appeared that that rate was now only 2s. 3d. in the pound. The rate therefore had diminished. In the cases of 20 rural unions inquired into by the Commission, the rate was 2s. 4d. in 1867, and 2s. 2d. in 1892; or per acre the average rate in those unions was 2s. 6d. in 1867 and 1s. 9d. in 1892. Let them compare that state of things with the case of London. In 1866 in London the rate was 4s. 4·75d. in the pound; in 1876 it was 4s 10·2d.; in 1886 5s. 3·6d.; in 1896, 6s. 2·42d.

  1069
  Therefore not only had the rate become enormously larger, but it had also increased enormously, and it was the increase of the rate quite as much as the amount of the rate which was the real burden. What was true for London was true also in the case of other great towns, in some of which the rate was as much as 5s. in the pound; in West Ham he believed it was between 8s. and 9s. Town rates had increased enormously, and in these circumstances did the Government think that the inhabitants of towns would quietly acquiesce in their proposals? Did they not think that those proposals would cause great discontent? Let them remember that it was through the expenditure of the urban ratepayer's money that the value of the land in and around the town in which he lived was increased. The landowner enjoyed his unearned increment due to the labour of the townsman, whilst his land did not now contribute anything like its proper share to the local taxation of the town. That was a grievance of which landlords might expect to hear a great deal more. ["Hear, hear!"] But so far from remedying this existing grievance; this Bill aggravated it, because it proposed to give an additional dole to the owners of this land out of taxation that fell upon the dwellers in towns. In order to carry out their scheme the Government proposed to make further alterations in our system of local taxation. They distinguished between the valuation of land and the valuation of buildings in unions or districts which comprised both, and they threw a larger proportion of this burden on buildings. The result would be that whilst the Government dole would make up existing deficiencies, yet if the rates increased the increase would fall in a larger proportion upon buildings than upon land. Mr. Chaplin defended the proposal by saying that it would make the owners of buildings in semi urban districts more economical in their public expenditure. Municipal bodies, however, wanted no inducement of that kind to make them careful in their expenditure. Another innovation introduced by this Bill was that land was to be valued separately from buildings, but how were barns, pig-sties, and buildings of that kind to be valued apart from the land? ["Hear, hear!"] Whoever heard of the value of a barn
  1070
  apart from the land on which it stood? In his own parish every farm would have to be revalued under this artificial system. The Government called this an improvement of the law of rating, but as a matter of fact their Bill would make the state of the law much worse than it was now. But there was even worse behind. The last point on which he had to trouble their Lordships was the source from which the Government dole was taken. If they gave money to one class of persons they must take it from somewhere else. Money did not come out of nothing. Now, how did this Bill deal with this part of the question. It said—and this was perhaps the most absurd part of this bad Bill—that it should come out of the taxes on personal estate before they reached the Exchequer. As if the Government could earmark these funds and thus appropriate them. Of course, what would happen was that the common purse would be depleted just as much as if the money had gone into it and was then taken out. If they took water out of the pipes which supplied the cistern, they lowered the level just as much as if they took it out of the pipe which left the cistern. By taking the money before it reached the Exchequer, they might and they did confuse the public accounts, but they lowered the level of the money in the common purse of the nation just as much as if they took it out of the common purse. And of what did this common purse consist; how was it filled? More than half of our taxation revenue consisted of taxes on consumption, taxes mainly on tea, spirits and tobacco consumed by the masses. Of the remaining half, more than a moiety, or quarter of the whole, came from Schedule D of the Income Tax and other taxes on business and industry, and less than a quarter of the whole from taxes on capitalised property. The dole given to landowners must come, in the main, out of the pockets of the workers, out of the industry of the country. Let him quote our highest living authority—Mr. Gladstone. In 1883 the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "The transfer of a rating charge to the Exchequer, in whatever form it is done, is a question of a transfer from a fund supplied

  1071
  almost entirely by property to a fund supplied in a very large degree by labour. Every time we place a grant-in-aid upon the Consolidated Fund we commit this offence of laying upon labour a very large proportion of the charge heretofore borne by property."
  The dole which the Government proposed to give to landowners would be drawn from the industry of the country and applied to one class, and that chiefly the landlord class, and did their Lordships think that was a wise, a just, or a popular thing to do? The Government admitted that the grievance of the urban districts was a serious one, but all they had promised by way of relief in their case was a Royal Commission to be appointed, presumably by the President of the Local Government Board, whose care for towns or urban districts is shown by this Bill. He had now shown their Lordships in the first place that this Bill would really do nothing to relieve agricultural distress; secondly, that so far from being an improvement of the law of rating, it introduced confusion and injustice; and, thirdly, that the Government were taking money under the Bill from the industry and labour of the country, and giving it to one class of the occupying owners in the country. For those reasons he moved the Bill be read a Second time that day three months.
  THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY): The noble Lord who has just spoken must be aware that we cannot, according to our ordinary practice, when we get into Committee, alter the details of the Bill, and therefore comments on the mere Committee part of the Measure are not very relevant to the issue which is now before us. No one can say that this Bill has been insufficiently discussed in the other House of Parliament. I think we have no probability here of an all-night sitting, and for that mercy we must be thankful. ["Hear, hear!"] The arguments that were used on both sides are very familiar to all who have followed this Bill through its weary course, and I do not think that, with other and more attractive matter on the Notice Paper, I should be justified in detaining your Lordships very long upon the question. The noble Lord dealt with the matter in two aspects. He questioned the relief that was given to agriculture, and he questioned the justice of remitting the Poor Rate upon the land. I shall
  1072
  not contest the statement of the noble Lord that the advantages conferred by this Bill, whatever they must be, must, by the very nature of the case, fall in different degrees on various parts of the country. I can only say that there is no kind of taxation with respect to which that is not true. There is no remission of taxation which would not be exposed to a similar reproach. We have not to deal with an absolutely uniform body of taxpayers, but with a body of interests, and whatever measures we may take there must be some cases where persons whom we do not intend to benefit will have an advantage from what we do, and there will be cases where those we do intend to benefit will not benefit as largely as we could wish. But that is a weakness inherent in all legislation, and if we abstain from legislation simply because our legislative action will not affect all classes and interests alike, we should never consent to any legislation at all. ["Hear, hear!"] But I do maintain that the general effect of this Bill is to benefit the occupiers of this country. And it is obviously so for this reason. The Measure is only taken for five years. Anybody who knows anything of the progress of agriculture in this country will know that any Measure affecting occupation for five years will affect the majority of occupiers in the country. The noble Lord has an extraordinary belief that the greater part of this country is held upon annual tenure, and that there is a readjustment every year. ["Hear, hear!"] I wondered in what distant island the noble Lord had been living that he could have conceived such a delusion. It is absolutely untrue. ["Hear, hear!"] As far as my knowledge goes I believe it is the fact that in the south of England the land is generally held nominally upon annual tenure, but the rule which universally prevails is that as long as the occupier lives the rent is not disturbed unless it is disturbed in the tenant's favour. It is admitted that the leaseholder will get the whole benefit of this remission in the rates, and I believe it is certain that in the vast majority of the cases the occupier also—because he will continue to hold at the same rent while he lives—will get whatever advantage is conferred by the remission of rates upon his farm. There may be scarce and distant

  1073
  instances where the legal power is misused or the general understanding is neglected, but of course the common result to any man who manages his property in such a fashion is that he would get no farmer in the present falling state of the land market to take his land, and everyone knows what that means to the landowner. I wish to say, in passing, a word in favour of the landowner. I shall be thought to be as courageous as the well-known Scotch clergyman who said a word in favour of "the puir deil." [Laughter.] It is usually assumed that the landowner is a mark for every taxpayer—that no one can complain of injury done to him, and that any Measure is condemned if it can be shown to be for his advantage. But that amiable system of argument, which is part of the general condemnation of all rich men, assumes that all landowners are large, and comes from people who seem never to have realised the fact that there are an enormous number of small landowners in this country. I asked a friend to look up the figures of a county, not one with which I myself am connected, but one with which my noble Friend Lord Spencer is connected, and when we examined the figures we found, taking only those landowners who had more than an acre and excluding mere house property, that whereas there were about 1,100 men who had more than £100 a year, there were nearly 5,000 who had less than that sum. Now, why are these unfortunate people who have less than £100 a year never to be the subject of your consideration? Why are you always to neglect their interests and postpone their claims because there happen to be other landowners who possess a large income in land? They have exactly the same right as persons who earn their living in any other manner; and to refuse to consider the rights of a large number of persons because there are by their side a small number of persons whom you do not wish to consider, seems to me to be unduly exalting the importance of the large proprietors, and to imagine that because there are a small number of large proprietors therefore the rights of the small proprietors should be entirely neglected. Therefore, what I have to say with respect to the incidence of this Bill is that in the first instance it will be a benefit to leaseholders;
  1074
  that in the second instance it will certainly be a benefit, according to the almost universal practice in England, to those who hold their land by annual tenure; and in the third instance it will be a great benefit to the small freeholders—a class who deserve your consideration, and whose interests you ought to encourage. So much for the benefits conferred by the Bill. The noble Lord tells me that we have taken it from labour and given it to capital, and he founds that statement upon the fact that there is a portion of our revenue which is paid by the labouring classes; it is the portion which consists principally from the nerve stimulants of various kinds that we tax. But in this Bill the payment of which he complains is taken from the Death Duties, and it is not true that the Death Duties are an old tax, so that you can confound them with the taxes upon tea or upon spirits. The Death Duties were imposed two or three years ago, and, having been imposed two or three years ago, you take a certain amount of money out of what they bring in and you give it to the relief of the occupiers and the small freeholders of the country. To say that that is taking money away from labour and giving it to capital appears to me to be the most outrageous misrepresentation of the real facts of the case. Then the noble Lord deals with the question of personal property. I quite admit that I should have been very glad if it had been possible to include urban property in the relief given by this Bill. The sum at our command is small, and we had to take the case which was most pressing and was most urgent. But the noble Lord must remember that the case of rating—of local taxation—as it presses upon urban and upon rural property, is of a very different kind. Local taxation on urban property or on houses situated in the country is another sort of house tax, a very heavy one. Local taxation upon land is a tax upon machinery, it is a tax upon the elements of production, it is a tax upon the industry, and, therefore, the hardness, if there is a hardness, in confining rating to real property presses much more severely and is much more contrary to the ordinary principles of taxation in the case of rural land than in the case of houses. I have only a word to say in respect to personal property. The noble

  1075
  Lord tells us, using a phrase we have heard again and again, it is not an hereditary burden. But is it not an hereditary burden upon personal property too? Why is it not an hereditary burden upon personal property? There it is in the Act of Elizabeth laid upon stock-in-trade quite as distinctly as ever laid upon real property, either in land or houses. Why is personal property not subject to that hereditary burden? Has it been relieved by process of law? It was relieved by process of law in an annual Act that was passed at the beginning of the present reign. Up to the beginning of the present reign personal property was undoubtedly liable to rate quite as much as real property, and now every year you pass a special Act exempting personal property from its share in the rates. You acknowledge that it is not a, permanent feature of your institutions, because you embody it in an annual Act. It is certainly not an hereditary exemption that personal property enjoys, because, if this Parliament were now to be prorogued without any further measures being taken, the liability of personal property would revive again according to law. There is, therefore, no pretence for saying it is an hereditary burden, and I should demur to that phrase "hereditary burden" when we know that hereditary exemptions are never considered. For more than 100 years land was free from the particular burdens that were imposed upon it by the legislation of two years ago. Why was that not an hereditary exemption? It had existed for 100 years, and when the noble Lord tells us all land has been bought subject to the varying burdens of the Poor Rate, and therefore it has become, not a rate, but a rent-charge, he states what is largely inconsistent with the fact. Many noble Lords in this country will be able to tell him that there are acres and acres of property in this country which have never changed hands since the time of Elizabeth, and the owners of which, if it is an injustice to single realty out for special taxation, are suffering that taxation as keenly as they did 300 years ago. I have thought it necessary, in courtesy to the noble Lord, to answer arguments which have been answered by day and by night again and again in the other House of Parliament, but I do not feel I have any
  1076
  right to detain the House by dwelling upon the question. I will only repeat that the benefit of this Bill is for the occupiers, for the leaseholders, for those who hold from year to year, and for the small freeholders of the country who cultivate their own land, and that we have adopted this particular mode of relief because we wish to make a breach in a vicious method of taxation, and to mark the injustice, of which all of us have long complained, and which exempts personal property, being about five-sixths of the property of the country, from bearing burdens which all property should bear alike. [Cheers.]
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, who was received with cheers, said: My Lords, it is a little difficult to tell where to take the noble Marquess with regard to this Bill. He has told us, though not in very clear terms, that we are not exactly competent to discuss so financial a Bill.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: No, I never said that.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Then will the noble Marquess state again what his doctrine, is?
  THE PRIME MINISTER: My doctrine is that we are perfectly competent to do what he proposes—namely, to throw out the Second Reading; but according to the practice of Parliament—I do not say we are intrinsically incompetent to do it—it would be a grave departure from ancient practice if we altered the Bill in Committee.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: But we do not propose to alter the Bill in Committee, and therefore I do not quite understand what the objection taken by the noble Marquess amounts to. I understood it was a veto on discussion, and I confess from what has taken place I understood that that veto had been imposed because after the speech—the vigorous and excellent speech—of my noble Friend, one of the greatest economic authorities in this country at this moment, had been delivered, I expected to see a dozen noble and independent Lords spring from their seats to answer him, or at least to see a competition amongst the various Members of the Cabinet in this House to have the privilege of demolishing his arguments. But, on the other hand, if we are not to touch this Bill at all, why was it introduced to us in a speech of an hour? I do not

  1077
  disparage the speech or the speaker, but I do not quite understand the footing on which we are. The Bill, which is one of the principal Bills of the Government, is introduced by a Member of the Government whose talents we all recognise, but whose position in the official hierarchy is an honorary one, and introduced in a speech of an hour, and then we are given to understand by the noble Marquess that we have nothing to do but to pass the Bill in silence. I confess that, though I do not uphold the right of this House to discuss financial Bills, we are at any rate obliged to take this opportunity, which is the only one that offers itself to us, to protest against a Bill which we believe to be vicious in principle and ineffectual in practice. Now there are certain grounds on which I think we are all in accord in this House. We none of us deny the fact of agricultural distress. I suppose nine noble Lords out of every 10 who are listening to me have the gravest reason to feel the pinch of agricultural distress; but I think there are, at any rate, three limitations that we should impose upon that fact. In the first place, it is not, as my noble Friend pointed out, universal. In the next place, there are hopes, judging from the evidence that was given before the Agricultural Commission, that it has seen its worst, and, at any rate, whether it is universal or whether it has seen its worst or not, it is not the only distressed industry in the country, but it is the only one to which you propose to give relief. ["Hear, hear!"] We have been told what the Bill is not, but it is very difficult to find out what it is. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board took advantage of the introduction of Sir Henry Fowler's Amendment to state that this was not a remedy for agricultural distress, and it was quite evident from the speeches just delivered here that it was not to deal comprehensively with the system of rating. It is obviously not a remedy for agricultural distress. We did not want the declaration of the President of the Local Government Board to assure us of that fact, because, after all, what you deal with is not the grievance of the agriculturist. The grievance of the agriculturist is not the rates that fall upon him. In order not
  1078
  to remedy agricultural distress, but I suppose to relieve it, you take what is undoubtedly the lightest burden on the farmer and you propose to relieve it partially and incompletely. What is the heaviest burden upon the farmer? It is rent. ["No!"] Well, what is the heaviest burden?
  *LORD HARRIS: In the case I put rates were distinctly the heaviest.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: That was an isolated case, and I will give another isolated case—the case of a farm in Mid Norfolk. In 1884 the rent of the farm was £1,206. In 1893 the rent was £543 and the rates £39. You can hardly say that there rates were the heaviest burden on the land. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not wish to say anything in disparagement of the landlords. I do not wish to foul my own nest, for I am a landlord myself. What are the benefits to be conferred on the farmer? What is the farmer to get from the landlord? He will get £685, but under your Bill he will get the munificent sum of £19 10s. I am giving the figures from a farm in South Wilts. In 1869 the rent was £1,042; in 1893 the rent was £520. The rates are £55 2s. For all I know the case may arise on the estate of the noble Marquess.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE): No; I am in North Wilts.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Well, at any rate, a neighbour of the noble Marquess has given the farmer are mission of rent of £522 on this particular farm. You in your Bill, for which you have strained every maxim of political economy, give him the munificent sum of £27 11s.! Of course nobody is in such affluent circumstances as to disdain the gift of £27 annually; but what I ask is this—is the game worth the candle? [Cheers.] Is it worth while to produce a sense of injustice in the great mass of urban ratepayers in order to afford this illusory remedy to a distress which is only too real? ["Hear, hear!"] I suppose it would not matter very much if you were only going to give the dole to distressed districts, but your dole is universal, indiscriminate. You are giving more to Lancashire, where the average rent is £2 an acre, than to distressed Essex, where the rent is 10s. an acre. You will give relief to accommodation

  1079
  land near towns, for which you are unable to find a definition in this Bill, but for which you were able to find a definition in the Irish Land Bill. What is the case of the market gardens which in many instances pay £10 a year rent to the landowner until such time as he transforms them into a building property? If you wish to relieve distress relieve distress, but if you wish to relieve prosperity say so, for that is what you are going to do by this Bill. What might you have done? I am not so barren in suggestions as to criticise the Bill without offering any plan in return. You might have done what you did in Ireland; you might have scheduled the distressed districts. Where is the map to which the noble Lord alluded? Why is not that produced? Because if it were we should know the places which we wish to relieve.
  *LORD HARRIS: The map is not an official document. It was never approved by the Royal Commission. In fact, the Commission as a body knew very little about it.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: It was prepared by the Chairman. There is no difficulty in making it official, and if it is not made official, what is the Board of Agriculture for? You have robbed the President of the Board of Agriculture of all his duties. Let him betake himself to a construction of a map showing the distressed districts. [Here a map was handed to the noble Earl] I have here a map which has been presented to Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"] Does that make it official? How did it leak into Parliament—how did it dribble in?
  *LORD HARRIS: I do not know what map it is you have got.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY, having handed the map to Lord Harris, said: Let us pass from that. I say that your remedy is partial, incomplete, and not just in its application. Of course, the whole thing might be stated as a rough-and-ready and haphazard subsidy to agriculture, but I believe the whole policy to be a mistake. I think what you are going to do is to produce a very great discontent with a very inadequate result. I will return to Lancashire. There are in that county several vast estates, and I know that there is a strong feeling among manufacturers and
  1080
  citizens that they should be allowed to acquire the freehold of their premises. There is a feeling of discontent now because that is not open to them; but what will they think when they find that they have to pay half the agricultural rates to swell the revenue of the great landlords? [Cheers.] On this subject the feeling of Lancashire was plainly expressed by Mr. Whiteley, the Member for Stockport. ["Hear, hear!"] In the second place, I have the gravest doubt whether the Bill will confer any boon at all. We had one experience—in 1888—of subsidy, but in that case it did nothing to alleviate local burdens whatever. The noble Marquess says that the Bill is only for five years, but I doubt whether you can give subsidies for five years and then be able to withdraw them. At all events, the Bill was not introduced for five years originally. The noble Marquess has promised an Inquiry into the whole incidence of rating, which shows that he recognises a grievance which should be inquired into.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: The whole of my argument was that there is a very great grievance.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Marquess did not seem to recognise the grievance of the urban ratepayers. At, any rate, we are face to face with this Inquiry. We all know before we begin two facts—one is that the average of the rural rates is now 2s. 4d. in the pound, and that the average urban rates are two or three times greater than that. You have another fact to face. The whole rates of this country amount to £29,000,000 annually, and of these the rural rates come to something like £4,000,000, so that you have left £25,000,000 to deal with. Are you prepared to deal with urban rates on the same scale which you have applied to rural rates? If so, you will have to give 10 or 12 millions in addition to the two millions which we say you are throwing away now. There is another point. What is the financial outlook of this country? [Cheers.] I know that a Peer has nothing to do with finance. He has no connection with taxation except the payment of taxes, but in a private capacity it is possible for a Peer to consider the question of our future taxation. At this moment you are mortgaging the surplus which you

  1081
  inherited from us. You are mortgaging it for five years, which may or may not be the duration of the present Government in Office. What is the outcome? You are spending money with both hands in a time of profound peace. You are spending a sum unprecedented except in a time of war. ["Hear, hear!"] The noble Marquess found himself the other day so hard put to it that in sup port of an Imperial enterprise, which he described, and justified from that point of view, as one of the greatest moment, he had to appeal to private enterprise and private subscription in order to assist him in his efforts. [Laughter.] But if he cannot get his private sub scriber he must go to the public contributor. He will want money, I predict it to him, and I venture to say he will not contradict it—after the Egyptian Treasury is exhausted, and after the £35,000 has been contributed by India—[cheers]—when those not illimitable resources of supply are exhausted, the noble Marquess will want some money for North Africa. Is the noble Marquess quite sure he will not want any money for South Africa? [Hear, hear!"] Is the noble Marquess quite sure he will not want any money for education? Is the noble Marquess quite certain that the state of Europe is such, and the state of Asia, and Africa, aye, and of America, is such that he may not have to assert himself in various quarters of the globe at once at great cost to this country? Well, I say that it is not at this time that you should take your surplus and give it in this improvident manner, not as I believe to the benefit of any class of the agricultural community, but to be spent, as they think fit, by the local authority. I come to my last point, and it is this—Where does this money come from? The noble Marquess said, with a confidence which I can only describe as sublime—[laughter]—that it comes from the Death Duties. By what art does the noble Marquess ear-mark that particular source of contribution? He said, by the bye, I remarked that the Death Duties were only established two or three years ago; I think he will find he is mistaken.
  THE PRIME MINISTER: I said that the present Death Duties were so established.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not think the word "present" occurred, but I have no doubt that is what the noble Marquess meant. You can no more ear-mark the money that comes from these Death Duties for this or any other purpose than you can ear-mark any rent from any particular farm on the Hatfield estate. In fact, the last would be infinitely more easy than the first. Money is paid into the Exchequer and from the general body of the taxpayers comes the money that this Bill demands. Of course, you may call it the Death Duties, or you may call it the Income Tax, or you may call it what you like, but, of course, it comes from the pocket of the taxpayer. [Cheers.] Now, I want to know whether the taxpayer is particularly anxious to pay this subsidy. In my humble judgment he is not so anxious. I quite admit that there has been no great or universal protest as yet from the people of this country against this particular form of class and sectional subsidy, but of this, at any rate, you may be certain, that there are classes of taxpayers—not merely the classes who only pay taxation, as the noble Marquess said, in nervous stimulants—but who pay the direct taxation, who very jealously scrutinise every addition to that taxation. There is the class who live in houses just over the £20 limit, and who pay House Duty; there are the half-million, more or less, who claim abatements in the Income Tax, and who, therefore, may be considered a class that should be treated with indulgence, but who, at any rate, whether they should be treated with indulgence or not, are a class who you may be certain will scrutinise very closely every item of your Budget. I want to know whether they will be satisfied by being told that, though they might have had a penny taken off the Income Tax, that penny will not be taken off the Income Tax, but that two millions will be spent out of the Death Duties for the resuscitation of agriculture. I am afraid that they will think that they would have preferred having the penny taken off the Income Tax, and that they are comparatively indifferent to the exact sources from which this money will come. But, at any rate, I am quite certain of this, that when they come to realise the exact

  1083
  nature of your proposals you will have from the general body of the taxpayers of this country a protest so universal that it may alarm the strongest Government that has ever existed in this country. It is for that reason that I wish to take an early opportunity of joining in that protest, and also because I believe no Bill more unjust, more inoperative, and more futile has ever been submitted to the judgment of Parliament. [Cheers.]
  The House divided on the Question whether "now" shall stand part of the Motion:—

  CONTENTS

  …

  …

  153

  NOT-CONTENTS

  …

  …

  35

  DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Halsbury L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lichfield, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Devonshire, D. (Lord President.)

  Macclesfield, E.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Mayo, E.

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Morley, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Onslow, E.

  Fife, D.

  Orford, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Sutherland, D.

  Powis, E.

  Radnor, E.

  Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

  Ravensworth, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Selborne, E.

  Bristol, M.

  Stanhope, E.

  Hertford, M.

  Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Northampton, M.

  Waldegrave, E. [TELLER.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Zetland, M.

  Yarborough, E.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward)

  Falkland, V.

  Halifax, V.

  Hood, V.

  Lathom, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Knutsford, V.

  Llandaff, V.

  Abingdon, E.

  Melville, V.

  Albemarle, E.

  Portman, V.

  Annesley, E.

  Templetown, V.

  Bandon, E.

  Bathurst, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Belmore, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Camperdown, E.

  Addington, L.

  Carnwath, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Clarendon, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Belper, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Boston, L.

  Dartrey, E.

  Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne)

  de Montalt; E.

  Dudley, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Eldon, E.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Burton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  1084

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Manners, L.

  Manners of Haddon, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Middleton, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  Clinton, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Clonbrock, L.

  Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

  Colchester, L.

  Connemara, L.

  Morris, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  North, L.

  Crofton, L.

  Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Norton, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Pirbright, L.

  De Saumarez, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Dorchester, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Dunning, L. (L. Rollo.)

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

  Egerton, L.

  Forester, L.

  Rathmore L.

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

  Rodney, L.

  Rowton, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Glenesk, L.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Grantley, L.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Sinclair, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Stanmore, L.

  Harris, L.

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

  Heneage, L.

  Herries, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Hillingdon, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

  James, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Templemore, L.

  Tollemache, L.

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

  Tredegar, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Wantage L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Lovaine, L. (E. Percy.)

  Worlingham, L. (E. Gosford.)

  Lovell and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Wrottesley, L.

  Macnaghten, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Hobhouse, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Kensington, L. [TELLER.]

  Chesterfield, E.

  Crewe, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lingen, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Monkswell, L.

  Stamford, E.

  Playfair, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Reay, L.

  Rendel, L.

  Oxenbridge, V.

  Ribblesdale, L. [TELLER.]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Burghclere, L.

  Russell of Killowen, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Thring, L.

  Davey, L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Welby, L.

  Herschell, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

  FISHERIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL, [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to Order): An Amendment made: Bill recommitted to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 191.]

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved, that the Report of the Amendments to this Bill made by the Standing Committee of their Lordships be received.
  Clause 1,—

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]

    WHEN MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND HIS DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER NOT VOID OR VOIDABLE.
    No marriage heretofore or hereafter contracted within the realm or without, othan than a marriage hereafter contracted in England by solemnisation thereof by a clergyman of the Established Church of England shall be deemed to have been or shall be void or voidable by reason only of having been or being contracted between a man and his deceased wife's sister, notwithstanding any statute, canonical or other objection, unless it has been before the passing of this Act annulled by some court of competent jurisdiction, or shall be so annulled in a suit instituted before the passing of this Act, or unless cither party thereto has (after the marriage and during the life of the other) before the passing of this Act lawfully married another; and such evidence as would be proof of any other marriage shall be received for all purposes as evidence of such marriages respectively; but no right, title, estate, or interest, whether in possession or in expectancy, and whether vested or contingent, at the time of the passing of this Act existing in, to, or in respect of any dignity, title of honour, or property, and no claim by the Crown for duties leviable on or with reference to death, and before the passing of this Act due and payable, and no payment of or discharge for such duties before the passing of this Act duly made or given shall be prejudicially affected thereby.
    VISCOUNT HALIFAX VISCOUNT HALIFAX moved after the words "other than a marriage," to insert the words "heretofore or" He said that the Amendment which he asked their Lordships to accept had for its object to remedy an inconsistency that existed between Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. If their Lordships would refer to the Bill they would see that under Clause 1 all marriages with a deceased wife's sister were legitimised in
    1086
    England for the future, with the exception of such as were performed by a clergyman of the Church of England, and that all such marriages were legalised in the past, however contracted. By Clause 2, however, the clergyman was not relieved from the penalties to which he is at present liable under the Ecclesiastical law, for performing a marriage within the prohibited degree, and it was quite clear that anyone who contracted such a marriage would not be able to bring any action against any authority of the Church for refusing to administer to him or her the Holy Communion. Under the present Bill any marriage with a deceased wife's sister which should be performed by a clergyman of the Church of England was declared to be void, while at the same time if the Bill were carried, such marriages in the past would be rendered legitimate by the State law by retrospective action, and although the latter class of marriages had been contracted in defiance of the law, not only of the Church, but of the State. The two proposals were absolutely inconsistent with each other in point of principle. But even a greater objection to the proposals than their being inconsistent was that these marriages in the past had been enabled to be performed only by the fraud and perjury of the parties concerned when they obtained the necessary licence or applied for banns to be put up. At any rate, the parties, by their silence, must have deliberately assented to that which they knew to be absolutely untrue. In his view it did not become that House, which was the highest judicial court in the country, to condone such breaches of the law, or to whitewash people who had been guilty of them. He begged their Lordships to observe that his Amendment did not touch such marriages as had been contracted before the Registrar, but merely those which had been performed by Clergymen of the Church of England. It appeared to him that it was not merely the character of these marriages which was at stake in this matter, but the character of their Lordships' House also as the guardian of truth and justice. There was another matter to which he should wish to draw attention, and that was that his Amendment in drawing a distinction between

    1087
    ecclesiastical and civil marriages was in harmony with the suggestion which had been made by the noble Earl on the Front Opposition Bench, when he said that perhaps a remedy for this alleged grievance might be found in drawing a broad distinction between civil and ecclesiastical marriages. He thought that there was a great deal to be said in favour of that proposal, and if ever this Bill became law, which he hoped it would not, the matter would be dealt with on that basis. He hoped that their Lordships would accept his Amendment.
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid that he was unable to accept the Amendment of the noble Viscount opposite, and he hoped that their Lordships would not agree to it, because it would completely destroy the retrospective action of the Bill, which to him was a matter of the greatest importance. He ventured to think that even among those who opposed the Bill many were of opinion that the Amendment would be most grossly unjust to the children born before this Bill passed into law. That was the chief reason why he could not accept the Amendment. But he thought also that it would draw a very unfair distinction between the rich and the poor, because those who had been able to afford to get their marriage solemnised by a clergyman of the Church of England or other minister in another country would reap the benefit of the Act, while those who were unable to do so, would not. He would like to take the opportunity of thanking his hon. Friend Lord Heneage for not moving the Amendment which stood in his name. There was no Member of the House who would have greater weight with him and their Lordships on this matter, than the noble Lord who had been so long and intimately connected with measures of this nature in the House of Commons. He greatly sympathised with the noble Lord's object, but he felt that it would be a very dangerous thing to alter materially a Bill passed by a substantial majority on the Second Reading.
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsuggested that the difficulty might easily be met by introducing a clause designating such children as it was desired to make legitimate. What the noble Viscount wished to prevent was a premium
    1088
    being put on law-breaking in the past. That was what the Bill did. It bore the mark and note that it was in defence of those who had openly defied the law.
    LORD HERSCHELLpointed out that the punishment would not fall on those who had broken the law. It would fall on those who were perfectly innocent, namely, the children. In addition to that it would be a great inconvenience if this kind of marriage was validated in some cases and not in others, merely because in some cases a clergyman had solemnised the marriage.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)said the noble and learned Lord seemed to forget that in all cases in which the stamp of illegitimacy lay upon the children, the children were innocent. It seemed to him that if the argument of the noble and learned Lord were adopted the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children would be abolished.
    The House divided on the Question that the words proposed be there inserted:—

    CONTENTS

    …

    …

    47

    NOT-CONTENTS

    …

    …

    90

    DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, L. Abp.

    Melville, V.

    Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Ely, L. Bp.

    Lincoln, L. Bp.

    Oxford, L. Bp.

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    St. Albans, L. Bp.

    Salisbury, L. Bp.

    Ailesbury, M.

    Winchester, L. Bp.

    Bristol, M.

    Hertford, M.

    Balfour, L.

    Chelmsford, L.

    Beauchamp, E.

    Clinton, L. [TELLER.]

    Belmore, E.

    Colchester, L.

    Carnwath, E.

    Crofton, L.

    de Montalt, E.

    Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

    Dudley, E.

    Egerton, L.

    Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

    Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

    Lauderdale, E.

    Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Howard de Walden, L.

    Mayo, E.

    Lovaine, L. (E. Percy.)

    Morton, E.

    Middleton, L.

    Powis, E.

    North, L.

    Stanhope, E.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough)

    Waldegrave, E.

    Yarborough, E.

    Sinclair, L.

    Stanmore, L.

    Halifax, V. [TELLER.]

    Stratheden and Campbell, L.

    Knutsford, V.

    Llandaff, V.

    1089

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

    Dorchester, L.

    Farrer, L.

    Glenesk, L.

    Bedford, D.

    Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

    Fife, D.

    Portland, D.

    Grey de Ruthyn, L.

    Saint Albans. [TELLER.]

    Hawkesbury, L.

    Heneage, L.

    Sutherland, D.

    Herschell, L.

    Hobhouse, L.

    Abergavenny, M.

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

    Northampton, M.

    Abingdon, E.

    Kensington, L.

    Bathurst, E.

    Lawrence, L.

    Camperdown, E.

    Leigh, L.

    Carrington, E.

    Macnaghten, L.

    Chesterfield, E.

    Manners, L.

    Clarendon, E.

    Mendlip, L. (V. Clifden.)

    Cowper, E.

    Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

    Crewe, E.

    Ellesmere, E.

    Monkswell, L.

    Granville, E.

    Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

    Hardwicke, E.

    Kimberley, E.

    Playfair, L.

    Lichfield, E.

    Ranfurly L. (E. Ranfurly.)

    Morley, E.

    Northbrook, E.

    Reay, L.

    Onslow, E.

    Rendel, L.

    Portsmouth, E.

    Ribblesdale, L.

    Rosse, E.

    Rodney, L.

    Saint Germans, E.

    Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

    Spencer, E.

    Rothschild, L.

    Falkland, V.

    St. Levan, L.

    Falmouth, V.

    Shand, L.

    Oxenbridge, V.

    Sherborne, L.

    Portman, V.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Stuart of Castle Stuart, L. (E. Moray.)

    Belper, L.

    Boston, L.

    Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

    Swansea, L.

    Thring, P.

    Brougham and Vaux, L.

    Tollemache, L.

    Burghclere, L.

    Tredegar, L.

    Burton, L.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Castletown, L.

    Wandsworth, L.

    Cheylesmore, L.

    Wantage, L.

    Churchill, L.

    Watson, L.

    Coleridge, L.

    Welby, L.

    Connemara, L.

    Westbury, L.

    Davey, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    De Saumarez, L.

    Wrottesley, L.

    Clause 2,—

    PROVISIONS RESPECTING CLERGYMAN OF ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
    Provided that no clergyman of the Established Church of England shall be liable to any pains or penalties for withholding the rights and privileges of Church membership from persons living together in marriage made valid by this Act, or from either of them; and nothing herein contained shall relieve any such clergyman from any ecclesiastical pains or penalties to which he would otherwise be liable if this Act had not been passed, by reason of his solemnising a marriage between a man and the sister of his
    1090
    deceased wife by reason of his contracting, or having contracted, or living in marriage with his own deceased wife's sister.
    *VISCOUNT GALWAY*VISCOUNT GALWAY moved to omit the following words:—
    "Provided that no clergyman of the Established Church of England shall be liable to any pains or penalties for withholding the rights and privileges of Church membership from persons living together in marriage made valid by this Act, or from either of them."
    The Amendment, he said, did not in any way affect the principle of the Bill, but it did affect very much the position of individual members of the Church of England. He would not discuss what these rights and privileges were. It was sufficient for his purpose that they referred to the Holy Communion. A man might have married his deceased wife's sister and be living quietly and respectably in a village. A new clergyman might come to that parish with extreme views, and led on by conscientious scruples, possibly might withhold the rights and privileges of the Church to this man and woman. The clause said that if he did so, he should not be liable to any pains and penalties. It seemed to him that the clause as it stood was calculated to encourage such proceedings and to create scandal in a parish. This clause would set clergymen above the law of the land, because it would enable them to say that people were not married although their marriage was recognised by the law. If a layman were to state publicly that a man lived with a woman as his mistress when his marriage with her was recognised by the law of the land, he would certainly be subject to proceedings for libel. Why then enact that a clergyman who made such a statement, thereby insulting a member of the Church of England, and depriving him of his rights, should be exempt from pains and penalties? The laity would very naturally object to this proposed establishment of sacerdotal rule.
    THE BISHOP OF OXFORDregretted that his first speech in their Lordships' House should have to be made in defence of the rights and conscientious convictions of the clergy. The clause as it stood would reconcile him to the Bill if anything could. It would be monstrous to compel a clergyman to do certain things for doing which at present he

    1091
    would be liable to ecclesiastical censure. He trusted that their Lordships would not burden the consciences of men who were doing their utmost to serve God and the people in Church and State, and would refuse to place them in this terrible position. He shuddered to think of the trouble which the omission of this provision from the Bill would involve.
    LORD DAVEYthought that the right reverend prelate had largely exaggerated, in fact driven to death, the argument as to the burden that would be imposed on clergymen's consciences. According to the noble Viscount who had moved the previous Amendment, the provision which it was proposed to omit from the Bill would have the effect of enabling clergymen to refuse the Holy Communion to persons who had contracted the marriage made valid by the Bill. He supposed the ground of the refusal would be that the parties were "notorious evil livers," that they were in fact living in immorality. He knew of no other ground upon which a clergyman could refuse the sacrament, which was the principal privilege of Church membership. It appeared to him monstrous that the clergy of the Established Church should be at liberty to stigmatise people as notorious evil livers when they were married with the sanction and approval of the law. On that ground he should support the Amendment.
    *VISCOUNT HALIFAXwished to ask their Lordships what results they supposed would be arrived at if the present Amendment were carried? Did they suppose that the clergy had no consciences? Did they imagine that, because it pleased Parliament to alter the marriage law, the clergy would be prepared to give the lie to all that they had taught hitherto on the subject of Christian marriage? If they imagined that, they would make a mistake. It would be said that he was an extreme person; but when such different papers as the Guardian, the Church Times, the Record and the English Churchman all agreed upon this subject, they might feel sure that there was a great mass of opinion among the clergy and laity upon this question. If this Amendment were embodied in the Bill and the Bill passed, they would provoke a quarrel between the civil law and conscience, the result of which would be very much to the
    1092
    misfortune of the law. He was not inclined to see things pushed too far, believing that heroic remedies were very deplorable. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would consent to be taught by past experience. Their Lordships would remember passing an Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, in which it was laid down that the clergy of the Roman Church should not do certain things and should incur penalties if they did them. But that did not prevent them doing them. A little later their Lordships passed a Public Worship Regulation Act in order to affirm a certain principle. What had been the result? Why, the Act that was to enforce a certain principle had been the very instrument which had laid aside that principle for ever. If this Bill was to pass it would only be prudent to pass it in such a form as to minimise the friction which it must produce. The Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, far from minimising that friction, must increase it.
    EARL COWPERsaid that, of course there might be some clergymen who might wish to make martyrs of themselves, and who might refuse to obey the law, but he could not help thinking that the great mass of the clergy, even of those who would rather not administer the Holy Communion to people in this position, would, if the law obliged them to do so, feel it to be their duty to obey and to conform to the law of the land. However lamentable it might be that certain people should become martyrs for a rather strange reason, the evil of having one or two cases of that sort would be a far smaller evil than the enormity of seeing people deprived of the Holy Communion for no reason except that they had done what the Legislature would have declared that it was lawful for them to do. In the privilege given to clergymen of refusing to marry divorced persons there was no great harm, for after all a man might be married at a registry, but the question now under consideration was a very different matter. If the Amendment were rejected, unless a man had an elastic conscience, and felt that he could go for Holy Communion to a dissenting chapel or elsewhere, he must be absolutely debarred from participating in it. He did not think that the oppression from which the clergy must fancy that they were suffering could weigh in

    1093
    the balance as against that consideration. He admitted that it was a pity to have to make this change in the Bill after it had been read a Second time, for it was possible that some of their Lordships had voted for it who would not have done so if it had not contained this provision. There was, however, to be another contest on the Third Reading, and consequently the supporters of the Amendment were not open to any charge of breach of faith. He was very anxious that the Bill should pass, but he could not approve the retention of the provisions under consideration.
    LORD HERSCHELLsympathised with a great deal that the noble Earl had said. He strongly desired to see this Bill pass into law, and he thought that the matter to which attention had been called by the supporters of the Amendment was of less importance than that the Bill in some form should become law. If such grievances as had been described were afterwards suffered, public feeling would be aroused, and that would make it easy to pass an amending Act to prevent the continuance of these grievances. As the Bill had passed the Second Reading in the form in which it now stood, it would perhaps be wise not to make the alteration proposed by the noble Viscount opposite. It was true, however, that much was not gained by the concession to clerical opinion which was embodied in the provisions under consideration, because the hostility of the right reverend Bench and others seemed to be quite as acute as it would have been if there had been no concession at all. Therefore, he did not think that many votes were gained by the concession at the Second Reading. This Measure, he feared, was not likely to become law this Session, but it would be a great thing if it could pass at a future time with general consent and with the quietness of feeling that had characterised to some extent its reception on the present occasion. Thinking that the result would be more likely to be obtained if the proposed change was not made in the Bill, he did not feel that it would be expedient to press the Amendment.
    THE EARL OF KIMBEBLEYsaid that he desired earnestly that this Bill should pass, and he dared say that a
    1094
    certain number of votes might be influenced in its favour by the retention of this particular provision in the clause. At the same time he must say that he had never seen in a Bill anything more objectionable than this provision. He believed that if this question was not settled the result would be far more injurious to the Church than to laymen. More pressure of this kind might increase the number of those who already had their doubts about the advantages of an Established Church. He was one of the last persons who would desire to see any contest between laymen and ecclesiastics of the Church, but at the same time he felt more strongly than ever that there was no other real solution of the difficulties in question than to make the binding marriage a civil marriage alone. ["Hear, hear!"]
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid that after what he said on the Second Reading of the Bill, he could not accept the Amendment. The Bill was an attempt at compromise—it was presented in a spirit of concession, and he was bound to confess that their efforts at conciliation had not been met in all quarters with the reciprocity they anticipated. It was sought by the Bill to draw a clear distinction between the civil marriage and the religious ceremony, and that being so, it was, of course, impossible for him to accept the Amendment proposed. Moreover, he felt very strongly indeed that as the Bill was passed by a substantial majority on the Second Reading, it would be, to say the least, a very unwise and dangerous course to ask that the Measure should be passed for the Third time under different conditions and in a different shape. ["Hear, hear!"]
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he did not think that those who had spoken had attached sufficient weight to the importance of the consciences of men. It was not right to oppress the conscience of any man; but it was further most impolitic in the highest interests of the country generally to pass any legislation which would wrest the consciences of those who were engaged as public teachers and instructors. The clergyman and the teacher were taught from their youth upwards a certain doctrine about marriage, and in holding that doctrine they had been protected by the law and

    1095
    supported by the authority of the Church. It would be a serious thing to so change the law as to put pressure on those men to violate their consciences. He might remind their Lordships of similar difficulties when formerly the clergy were called upon to bury men of profligate and vicious character with words of the highest Christian hope, and when rather than violate their conscience by uttering those prayers they submitted to be suspended or deprived of their benefices. It was thought just to consider the consciences of the clergy then, and he did not think it was less important to do so now. ["Hear, hear!"]
    The House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause:—

    CONTENTS

    …

    …

    47

    NOT-CONTENTS

    …

    …

    90

    DIVISION LIST:—CONTENTS.

    Canterbury, L. Abp.

    Lincoln, L. Bp.

    Halsbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

    Oxford, L. Bp.

    St. Albans, L. Bp.

    Devonshire, D. (L. President.)

    Salisbury, L. Bp.

    Winchester, L. Bp.

    Portland, P.

    Balfour, L.

    Saint Albans, D. [TELLER.]

    Boston, L.

    Churchill, L.

    Clinton, L.

    Ailesbury, M.

    Colchester, L.

    Cottesloe, L.

    Abingdon, E.

    Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

    Beauchamp, E.

    Egerton, L.

    Carnwath, E.

    Foxford, L. (E. Limerich.)

    de Montalt, E.

    Dudley, E.

    Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

    Ellesmere, E.

    Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount Earl. [TELLER.]

    Lauderdale, E.

    Mar and Kellie, E.

    Mayo, E.

    Lovaine, L. (E. Percy.)

    Morton, E.

    Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

    Onslow, E.

    Stanhope, E.

    Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

    Waldegrave, E.

    Rodney, L.

    Falkland, V.

    Rothschild, L.

    Halifax, V.

    Stanley of Alderley, L.

    Melville, V.

    Stanmore, L.

    Ely, L. Bp.

    Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

    NOT-CONTENTS.

    Bedford, D.

    Belmore, E.

    Camperdown, E. [TELLER.]

    Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

    Carrington, E.

    Bristol, M.

    Chesterfield, E.

    Hertford, M.

    Clarendon, E.

    Northampton, M.

    Cowper, E.

    1096

    Crewe, E.

    Glenesk, L.

    Hillsborough, E. (M. Downshire.)

    Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

    Kimberley, E.

    Hawkesbury, L.

    Northbrook, E.

    Heneage, L.

    Powis, E.

    Howard de Walden, L.

    Saint Germans, E.

    Leigh, L.

    Spencer, E.

    Macnaghten, L.

    Yarborough, E.

    Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

    Middleton, L.

    Knutsford, V.

    Monckton, L. (V. Galway.) [TELLER.]

    Oxenbridge, V.

    Portman, V.

    Playfair, L.

    Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)

    Belper, L.

    Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

    Rendel, L.

    Shand, L.

    Brougham and Vaux, L.

    Sherborne, L.

    Tweedmouth, L.

    Burghclere, L.

    Wandsworth, L.

    Castletown, L.

    Wantage, L.

    Clonbrock, L.

    Watson, L.

    Coleridge, L.

    Welby, L.

    Davey, L.

    Westbury, L.

    De Saumarez, L.

    Wolverton, L.

    Dorchester, L.

    Wrottesley, L.

    Farrer, L.

    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYproposed the insertion of the following new clause after Clause 2:—
    "3. Provided further, that no man who has boon divorced for, or convicted of, adultery with his wife's sister, shall at any time under this Act be permitted to contract a marriage with her; and any such pretended marriage shall be void."
    He asked their Lordships to regard the Amendment, not as hostile to the Bill, but as a natural complement to it. He recognised that the promoters of the Bill had really tried to meet the objections of those who, like himself, were strong opponents of the Bill, in a certain measure and degree; they had tried to meet the religious objections. But they had not attempted to meet the objections to the Bill on social grounds. What were the social objections to the Bill? That it would absolutely destroy the brotherly relations between a man and his wife's sister after his wife's death, and very much embarrass those which existed between the wife and her nearest friend during her lifetime. The adoption of this Amendment would make it possible for the wife's sister to remain, as she was now, a constant visitor, especially in times of sickness, at her sister's home. He thought all parties would be protected by the knowledge that any undue familiarity would be visited with severe punishment indeed. There was no doubt that under the present law cases of undue familiarity existed. His friend, the President of the Probate

    1097
    Division, informed him that there were already a certain number of cases of such familiarity. Would the Bill, if it became law, increase or decrease that number? They should protect the existing relationship, and show that any infraction of it was a very serious and heinous offence. He did not propose to press his Amendment to a Division, but he would like to hear what those in charge of the Bill had to say in reply to his arguments.
    *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYhoped his right reverend Friend would withdraw the Amendment, with which the Episcopal Bench did not agree.
    Amendment negatived.
    *THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY: May I withdraw it?
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The Amendment has been negatived, and therefore cannot be withdrawn.
    THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN moved the insertion, after Clause 3, of the following new clause:—
    "4. Nothing in this Act shall affect the law of marriage in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions outside the United Kingdom."
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended.—[No. 192.]

  FLOODS PREVENTION BILL [H.L.]
  Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow.
  CABS (LONDON) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  IRISH CHURCH ACT, 1869, AMENDMENT (REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF RANFURLYsaid the Government consented to the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Lord having agreed not to press further with it. They did this on the distinct understanding that their doing so did not commit them to anything beyond an admission that the period during which the annuity was to run, in case of redemption of tithe rent charge, would have been more equitably calculated at 45
  1098
  instead of 52 years. They were not to be held committed to any approval of the methods by which the Bill proposed to deal with the existing position, nor could they give any pledge that they would themselves deal with it in the near future. He thought it only fair to point out that all cases of purchase under the Land Bill, should it pass, would carry out what was required in this Bill—that the case for a Bill of this kind could not be deemed urgent, inasmuch as the earliest annuities would not expire till well on in the next century; that it was questionable whether the method proposed in this Bill was the best method; and, that as the Bill now stood, it would not carry out the intentions of the promoters. In addition, this Bill only dealt with £160,000 of tithe rent charge annuities, whereas such a sum was less than half of the tithe rent charge.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid of course he must accept the terms the Government put upon him. He had been in communication with the Irish Government to-day, and he agreed that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading, and then might proceed with it further. Of course he knew at that period of the Session, unless the Government gave facilities in the House of Commons, it was useless to proceed, and he was informed that they would not give facilities; but the concession which they had made, in agreeing to the principle of 45 years instead of 52 to redeem was really the crux of the Bill. It was an important concession, for which they had been working at least two years, and he was glad to find that the Treasury had admitted so far that he had made out his case. With regard to the annuitants, perhaps there need be no great hurry, but if the reduction were given in one case it would be impossible for the Government to go on charging a tenant who had not redeemed money which he did not owe. The noble Lord referred to the method of carrying this out, but he was not wedded to any particular method. If there was any doubt in the matter he might assume that it would be looked into, and the drafting altered. He was quite content with the terms, and he was prepared to take the Second Reading now as arranged.
  Bill read a Second time.

  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Considered in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; and recommitted to the Standing Committee.
  House adjourned at Twenty minutes past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.