Sitting of 4 May 1896

TRAMWAY BILLS.
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,), in rising to move—"That Standing Order 171, relating to Tramway Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the Session," was received with cheers on his re-appearance after recent illness. He said that the reason why this matter was pressing was because one of the Bills to which the Standing Order related—the Sheffield Corporation Bill—stood for Committee next day; and, therefore, it became necessary that the House should take some step with regard to this matter before the Bill was dealt with in Committee. The Standing Order absolutely forbade any corporation working their own tramways. He believed that the Standing Order came into force in 1872, two years after the Tramways Act was passed. The Tramways Act of 1870 distinctly laid down that no power was to be given by that Act for any corporation to work its own tramways. During the interval which occurred between 1870 and 1872 one corporation, if not more, obtained powers to work its own tramways—the Corporation of Glasgow. But the Standing Order of 1872 laid down distinctly that no corporation was for the future to obtain any such powers. This rule continued in force for about 20 years, and in 1892 it was found to be impossible to maintain that Standing Order in its entirety, and an Amendment was then made which was added to the Standing Orders enabling a corporation to work their own tramways in certain circumstances. There was now a Sheffield Bill before the House calling for powers to work tramways, and also a Bill from Leeds asking for similar powers. Both these were suspended Bills from last Session, and it behoved them not to delay any longer with the subject. The Standing Order was suspended last year in the case of one of these Bills, and it passed through the House, but when it reached

421
another place, it was met with a Standing Order similar to that of which he was now asking the suspension. There were other Bills before the House, the Blackpool Improvement Bill and the London County Council (Vauxhall Bridge) Tramway Bill, which contained clauses respecting tramways, and if the Standing Orders were to be rigorously enforced these clauses must be struck out. He did not think they could shut their eyes to the fact that the Grand Committee on Trade, which had dealt with the Light Railways Bill, had passed practically unanimously the clause which gave not corporations only, not County Councils only, but even District Councils, the power to construct and work light railways. It might be said that the conclusion of the Grand Committee had not yet been confirmed by the House. There was something in that argument, and, therefore, he did not propose to abolish the Standing Order, but only to suspend it to the end of the Session. That would give them time to see whether the House agreed with this decision of the Grand Committee respecting the Light Railways Bill. If the House should agree with the decision then no case could be made out for refusing to permit a corporation to work its own tramways. If the Standing Order was suspended the position would be this; every corporation coming to Parliament for powers to work their own tramways would have to make their case good before a Committee. If they failed in doing that the powers would not be granted. He concluded by moving the Resolution standing in his name.
MR. J. W. MELLORhoped the House would agree to the Motion. The object of it was only to give the Private Bill Committee to which a Bill was referred power to entertain the matter. When he was Chairman of Committees he came to the conclusion that the Standing Order in its present form was of very little practical use, and that it occasionally worked a good deal of mischief. Even if the Motion were one for rescinding the Standing Order he should support it, because he had never been satisfied that there was any really substantial objection against the proposal that local
422
authorities should work their own tramways. The effect of the Standing Order had been to prevent local authorities from making as good bargains with intending tenants as they might otherwise have made, and the Order had thus been prejudicial to the ratepayers' interests. Some corporations have been driven to work their own tramways without Parliamentary powers. The Standing Order, taking it altogether, was an encumbrance of no value.
MR. EDMUND BOULNOISprotested against the Motion. It was not a convenient mode of dealing with a great question like this, to come to that House and to ask for the suspension of the Standing Order in individual and isolated cases. Whether the Order was a good or bad one, it had existed far too short a time for the pronouncement of a definite opinion upon it. It was passed, it was true, in 1872, but it was amended in 1894, and it was with the amended Order that they were now dealing. With regard to the Vauxhall Tramway Scheme which had been alluded to, there was no urgency whatever. The Bill proposed to sanction construction of a tramway over a bridge which did not exist. He supposed that one or two years would elapse before the London County Council could pull down the old bridge, and three or four years more must elapse before they could build another. It would be time enough for the Council to ask for powers to make the tramway when the new bridge should be near its completion. The London County Council hitherto had always disclaimed any intention to work tramways. When the question first came up in 1891 a resolution to that effect was passed, and it had since been repealed on three occasions. It was on that assurance on the part of the majority of the Council that it was induced to pass the Motion for the acquiring of certain tramways. He feared that if this Standing Order were suspended the Council might take advantage of the circumstance, and begin to work the tramways in London. The Council had not been slow to acquire as many of the London industrial concerns as it could. Now the Council wanted to take over the water companies at its own price.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must confine himself more closely to the question before the House.
MR. BOULNOISsaid, that it would be greatly to the disadvantage of the ratepayers if the County Council should obtain the power to work the tramways. Ultimately there would be a deficiency which would have to be made good out the rates. The Council would raise wages and reduce the hours of labour. There was a tendency on the part of public bodies not to deal with accounts as individuals did. They would not write off enough for depreciation, and they generally placed to capital what ought to go to maintenance. They had a striking illustration of all this last week in the County Council.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The only question before the House is whether the Standing Order should be suspended, in order that leave may be obtained to work certain tramways, and the hon. Member is not entitled to take this opportunity to make a general attack upon the London County Council.
MR. BOULNOISsaid, that he was anxious that no fresh burden should be imposed upon the ratepayers. In Glasgow, which had been referred to, the Corporation had worked the tramways at considerable loss. The Resolution of the Grand Committee on Trade in favour of allowing district councils to work their own light railways, hardly supplied a precedent for the action which was now proposed. The light railways, it must be borne in mind, were to be constructed for the special purpose of improving the condition of a depressed industry. He was greatly surprised that the Chairman of Ways and Means should have proposed the suspension of this Standing Order. On past occasions both the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had spoken against the proposal to permit the London County Council to work the tramways. The practice might be all very well in the case of small corporations that could not induce persons to come forward to to take a lease of the tramways. But in London and in large corporations there was no difficulty whatever about that, and at this present moment there were two competing schemes before the
424
County Council. He hoped the House would not sanction the Motion.
MR. A. J. MUNDELLAtrusted the House would agree with the Motion. The Sheffield Corporation did not come to the House asking for power to construct the tramways. They constructed the tramways a quarter of a century ago. They were merely asking the House to allow them to go to the Committee and make out a good case, and after the recent work of the Grand Committee on Trade with respect to a much more important question—namely, the Light Railways Bill, it was a little late for the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Boulnois) to oppose the request of the great county boroughs to be allowed to work their own tramways. The Light Railways Bill gave power to Councils of any county, borough, or district to construct and work light railways, not only for agricultural purposes, but for the purpose of any industry. Why did Sheffield ask for these powers? In the first place, there had been during the last few years numerous complaints of the way in which the Sheffield Tramways had been worked. Indignation meetings of the ratepayers had been held on several occasions, condemning the working, both on the ground that the convenience of the public had not been duly consulted, and that no cheap fares giving facilities for the workmen had been established. There had been complaints about the infrequent and uncertain working of the cars, their uncleanness and the excessive hours of the men engaged in their working. No less than 55 hours a week were required of the men. The Corporation had no power to make any change except by coming to that House and asking for powers. Sheffield had to pay a two-pence fare, whereas the Corporation of the city of Glasgow charged only a halfpenny for the same distance, and Glasgow was not working at a loss, but was making a profit of £12,000 a year. ["Hear, hear!"]
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid that in Committee on the Light Railways Bill there was a difference of opinion as to whether the tramways of the Glasgow Corporation were paying or not. Since then he had gone through the accounts and had found that the

425
financial position of the tramways was not only good but constantly improving. There had been an improvement of 50 per cent, in the receipts this year, as against those of last year. Then there was also the experience of Blackburn, showing 7½ per cent., and Blackpool, showing 6 per cent., and other places, and he wished to give expression to the universal feelings of the municipalities that they knew their interests sufficiently well to conduct their own affairs, and that this privilege ought to be granted to them.
MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE, as one who had sat on the Private Bill Committee on the Vauxhall Bridge Tramways Bill, wished to say that the Committee was absolutely unanimous as to the desirability of suspending this particular Standing Order.
MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that in the interest of the city he represented, he rose to express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone, if he took any effective action on this Motion, would distinguish between London and the provincial boroughs. All the provincial boroughs asked was that the precedent adopted in the case of the Light Railways Bill should be respected in this matter.
MR. JAMES STUARTexpressed the hope that the House would not make any invidious exceptions. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Marylebone had entered into a general attack on the policy of the London County Council; but they were accustomed to that. He thought the hon. Gentleman would have beer more careful in getting up his facts. The London County Council was very much less interested in this matter than hon. Members had led the House to under stand; because the main Measure which would permit them, if they thought fit to work their own tramways, had already passed the House of Commons, and was now before another place, where the action the House was now asked to take had already been taken. It had been laid down on both sides of the House that it was a most reasonable thing for a Corporation to wish to work its own tramways; but there was a strong ulterior reason why the course proposed
426
should be taken, and that was, that inasmuch as the hands of the corporations were now tied, they were prevented from making good bargains for the rate-payers. He trusted that no attempt would be made to treat this question as a political or Party matter, but as a matter of common business interest.
MR. MARK OLDROYDsaid, that at a meeting of the Non-County Boroughs Association, held in London on March 13 last, at which 127 of the smaller corporations were represented, a resolution expressing a desire to see this Standing Order suspended, and the power to work their own tramways granted to non-county boroughs, was passed unanimously; and therefore he trusted the House would agree to the Motion.
MR. W. L. JACKSONhoped his hon. Friend would not press his opposition to the Motion. He was in a position to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman, as he was in sympathy with his views. The hon. Gentleman would understand that when he told him that he had himself put down an Amendment to the Light Railways Bill, with a view to striking out the power the Bill proposed to give to the various councils to work light railways. In spite of the assistance which they had received from the Government in the matter they had been hopelessly beaten on the point. Although he was opposed to Corporations working the tramways, now that the Standing Committee had given them power to work the light railways he did not think that they could contest the point further. On the whole, therefore, he thought that the most reasonable course they could adopt was that suggested by the Motion of the Chairman of Committees in order that the system adopted should be a uniform one. In these circumstances, he hoped that the hon. Member would not press his objection further, but would be content with having made his protest. While sympathising with the views of the hon. Member he recognised the hopelessness of further opposing the granting of this power to the Corporation.
MR. H. C. RICHARDSthought the views of 54 of the metropolitan representatives with regard to

427
this subject onght to receive some consideration before the Standing Order was suspended, and power was given to the London County Council to carry out their scheme for the working of the London Tramways. The London representatives ought to raise their voices against additional powers being put into the hands of the London County Council which would enable them still further to increase the burdens of the metropolitan ratepayers. He was prepared, as a London representative, to go to a Division against this Motion.
MR. J. BRYCEsaid that the House was asked, in passing this Resolution, not to support any particular proposal, but only to give the Committee power to proceed with the Inquiry. He should like to remind the House that the Light Railways Committee had passed a Resolution enabling corporations to work light railways which went much further than the present Motion, which merely proposed to enable them to work tramways. He thought that the Chairman of Ways and Means was well advised in endeavouring to secure uniformity by the Motion which he proposed, and he thought that after the decision which had been come to in regard to light railways, the Motion ought to be agreed to.
Ordered, That Standing Order 171, relating to Tramway Bills, be suspended for the remainder of the Session.

RETFORD, ROTHERHAM, AND BARNS- LEY RAILWAY (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
Order (2nd March) that the Retford, Rotherham, and Barnsley Railway (Extension of Time) Bill be committed, read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.—(Dr. Farquharson).
METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Accounts presented,—of the Metropolitan Police, the Police Pension Fund, and the Metropolitan Police Courts, for the year ended 31st March 1896 (by Act); to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.—[No. 165].
QUESTIONS.

  ADMITTANCE OF CHILDREN TO WORKHOUSES.
  MR. EDWARD LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been directed to a statement of one of the Local Government Board inspectors, which is referred to in the Report of the Poor Law Schools Inquiry, that one family of three children were admitted into and discharged from the workhouse 62 times between the 3rd of October 1893 and the 19th of November 1894; and, whether he is prepared to take action to provide a remedy?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. HENRY CHAPLIN,: The case referred to is, of course, an exceptional one. Difficulties undoubtedly arise in connection with poor law administration, in consequence of inmates of workhouses frequently claiming the right to discharge themselves and their children, and returning to the workhouse after a short interval. No remedy for this could be effected without legislation; and my hon. Friend will understand that this is not within my power during the present Session, at all events.

  UFFINGTON STATION (GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY).
  MR. A. K. LOYD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, (1) at what date and by whose authority the two sidings, required by Captain Rich to be removed from across Uffington Station on the Great Western Railway, as a condition of obtaining the sanction of the Board of Trade to the opening of the Faringdon line, were replaced across the high road after such consent had been obtained; (2) at what date and by whose authority was the third siding added to the two which had been previously disallowed by Captain Rich across the high road; and, (3) whether a complaint of delay and danger to the public in using the highway, thus obstructed by the railway company in

  429
  contravention of the requirements of the Board of Trade, will only be entertained by the Board of Trade if a large number of railway passengers book at the station where the danger and obstruction are occasioned.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,: With regard to the first two paragraphs of the Question, I have made full inquiry, and regret to say that I am unable to give the information required. The difficulty in obtaining it no doubt arises from the fact that the work was done by a defunct company. The Board of Trade have not been intrusted with any statutory powers to entertain complaints of this description. They cannot make any order as to this crossing, but they are always ready to use their best endeavours to arrange a settlement, and I must say that in this case the railway company appear to be quite ready to meet the local authorities, if the latter will approach them in a spirit of concession.

  NIGER COMPANY.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the stipulations of the Niger Company with its agents, of which Clause 10 states that the agent will not for a period of ten years after the termination of the Agreement communicate to any outside person, official or private, any facts in connection with the districts occupied by the Company or which he shall have visited during his employment in the Company's service, and that upon every breach of the clause he will pay to the Company the sum of £1,000 by way of liquidated damages?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. GEORGE CURZON,: I have seen the clause in question, but I may point out that it is not quite correctly quoted by the right hon. Baronet. The exact words are that—
  "the official will not without the assent of the Company in writing communicate to the newspapers of Great Britain or other countries or to any outside person, official or private, any facts, whether commercial, industrial, scientific, or political, in connection with the Government or
  430
  business of the Company, or the districts occupied by the Company, or with those he shall have visited or become acquainted with during his employment in the Company's service,"
  and, without expressing an opinion on the legal interpretation of the clause, I imagine that its object is to prevent the betrayal of administrative or commercial knowledge which is the property of the Company by any employé who is or has recently been in its service.

  ARMY TERRITORIAL DESIGNATIONS.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if the substitution in all official documents of territorial designations for the old numbers of regiments in the Standing Army, and attributed to the present Commander-in-Chief when Adjutant-General, has been highly successful in developing esprit de corps, local recruiting, and local interest in the welfare of individual corps; and, in such case, why the territorial or distinctive names of regiments of Volunteers, which for their success depend especially on local pride, are officially ignored and numbers substituted?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,: Territorial or distinctive instead of numerical designations have been adopted with satisfactory results for all regiments of Regular Infantry, and have been accepted with a few exceptions by the Volunteer Infantry affiliated to them. The King's Royal Rifles and the Rifle Brigade, together with the Volunteers affiliated to them, retain their original titles. The question of the titles of Volunteer battalions is now under the consideration of a Departmental Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]

  UNDELIVERED LETTERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has been informed that, under the rule providing that undelivered letters containing articles of value shall be registered before being returned to the sender, an unstamped letter containing three stamps, which letter could not be

  431
  delivered, was recently registered and returned to the sender, who was called upon to pay for such registration; and, whether he will direct that the rule shall not be enforced in similar cases, where enclosures of trifling value are concerned?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,: It has not been possible to identify the case alluded to by the hon. Member, as he does not mention the value of the stamps—or the kind of stamp, whether postal or revenue—but if the stamps enclosed in the letter mentioned were of the value of 1s. or upwards the letter was properly registered. It is the practice of the Department in returning undelivered letters containing articles of intrinsic or negotiable value of 1s. and upwards to register them for security, and the Postmaster General does not consider it advisable to depart from this practice. If it is desirable to register letters containing articles of value when despatched by a private person, it is equally necessary to do so when they are returned by the Post Office to the sender.

  BATH ESTATE (COUNTY MONAGHAN).
  MR. J. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he received a memorial from the Bath Estate tenants, in the county Monaghan, who purchased their holdings under the Ashbourne Act, praying for an extension of time in paying their instalments; whether a letter of the Parish Priest of Dunamoyne accompanied the memorial; and, whether he can state what reply he gave on the occasion, or did he acknowledge the receipt of the memorial referred to; and, if so, to whom did he reply?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,: In consequence of this further Question, I have again caused inquiries to be made into the matter and am informed that a memorial from certain tenant purchasers, which appears to be the memorial referred to, was received in December last, though the fact of their being tenants on the Bath Estate was not recorded. No letter accompanied the memorial from
  432
  the Parish Priest of Donamoyne, but that gentleman was one of the signatories of the memorial and an acknowledgment of its receipt was sent to him.

  PERSO-BELUCHISTAN AND INDO- AFGHAN FRONTIER.
  SIR ANDREW SCOBLE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the demarcation of the Perso-Beluchistan and Indo-Afghan frontier has now been completed; and, whether he proposes to lay upon the Table of the House any Papers relating to this subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,: The Perso-Beluch frontier is demarcated, but I have not yet received the final report or map. The whole of the Indo-Afghan frontier is not yet demarcated under the Kabul Agreement; and, although for special reasons I have laid on the Table the Agreement arrived at with regard to Bashgul Valley, I cannot give any undertaking with regard to the presentation of further Papers until the work of demarcating is complete.

  INCOME TAX COLLECTORS (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, is he aware that collectors of Income Tax in Ireland last year suffered a loss of salary by the reduction of one-eighth in the assessment value of landed property in Ireland, and will he explain why, although this year the full assessment value has been restored, the salaries of such collectors have not been increased proportionately to the loss they sustained last year; and, is he aware that several districts in Ireland have petitioned for the increase, and will the prayer of the petitions be granted?
  MR. HANBURY: The collectors of Income Tax in Ireland are not paid by salary, as is assumed in the Question. They are still paid by poundage. They did not suffer any loss cither of salary or poundage last year—as in 1895–6, although the assessment value of the land was reduced by one-eighth, the

  433
  poundage was paid as if no such reduction had taken place. It was in 1894–5, not last year, that the poundage was paid only on the reduced value, but the Inland Revenue will apply to 1894–5 the practice adopted last year and make up the collectors' remuneration for 1894–5 to the same amount as would have been paid them if such reduction had not taken place. In a good many cases this has already been done. Any applications should be made through the Controller of Stamps and Taxes in Dublin.

  CUSTOMS LABOURERS.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is now in a position to state what steps are about to be taken respecting the grievances of the permanent labourers employed on the Land Department of Her Majesty's Customs, as set forth in their memorial of February 1895?
  MR. HANBURY: I answered a similar Question on the 30th April by saying that the Customs Officials tell me that they hope to report to the Treasury on this subject in the course of a fortnight.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA (CANADIAN CATTLE).
  MR. J. M. WHITE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) whether he has received from the Canadian Government a copy of a Resolution of the Canadian House of Commons expressing in the strongest possible manner the belief that pleuro-pneumonia has not existed in the past and does not at present exist in Canada; (2) whether the Canadian Government have asked that a Commission of experts be sent to Canada to investigate the matter, all expenses to be paid by the Dominion, and every facility to be placed at the disposal of the Commission; (3) whether the High Commissioner for Canada has protested against the injury to the Canadian cattle trade with other nations than the United Kingdom whilst the health of Canadian cattle remains unvindicated; and (4) whether
  434
  he will, without reference to proposed legislation in the United Kingdom, appoint a strong Commission to investigate the matter as requested?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,: The reply to the first three Questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. With regard to the fourth, I would say that the reasons which have led me to the opinion that no advantage would be gained by the adoption of the proposal are fully explained in the printed correspondence which has been presented to the House, and the further consideration which I have given to the Question has only strengthened the conclusion at which I had previously arrived. I regret, therefore, that I do not see my way to alter my decision in the matter.

  MAIL SERVICE (COUNTY MEATH).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received a memorial from the inhabitants of Kilmessan, county Meath, asking for an improved night mail and the establishment of a day mail service; whether the important service asked for could be given by sending the mails by the Midland Railway system, which has its junction at Kilmessan and goes direct to all the principal towns of Meath, instead of as at present by the Great Northern line via Drogheda and Navan, a very indirect route; whether a telegraph office has been asked for and the usual guarantee offered; and, whether, as Kilmessan is an important railway junction and the centre of a most important hunting district, he will see that the accommodation asked for is given?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General has received the memorial in question. For a day mail service to Kilmessan there are trains available on the Midland Great Western Railway, but, unfortunately, the correspondence is not large enough to justify the outlay involved for conveyance of the bags and for delivery of the letters. The improvement of the night mail desired is not connected with the use of the Midland Great Western Railway, but is

  435
  pendent upon a rearrangement of the road service from Navan. In this case also, the expense involved is considerably greater than the additional facilities to be afforded would warrant, and the Postmaster General regrets he cannot see his way to meet the wishes of the memorialists. A telegraph office has been asked for in the same memorial, and it has been offered under a guarantee. The Postmaster General has caused careful inquiries to be made and he fears that unless the guarantee be forthcoming he will not be in a position to give the accommodation asked for.

  RAILWAY RATES) (TRADERS' COMPLAINTS).
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the proceedings under the Conciliation Clause respecting increased railway rates, how many of the complaints are awaiting hearing at the Board of Trade, and in how many cases the railway companies have failed to offer any explanation in reply to complaints; whether he is aware that in a large number of cases no replies have been received by traders who lodged complaints with the Board of Trade prior to 23rd February 1895; and what course the Board of Trade intend to take with regard to cases in which the railway companies have unduly delayed their replies?
  MR. RITCHIE: It is impossible to give my hon. Friend the first figure he asks for, as in a large number of cases the traders have not responded to an invitation to come to a hearing, and it is not known whether they are satisfied with the explanations furnished by the companies and forwarded to them. In about 200 complaints out of 1,850 lodged, no definite replies have been received from the companies, and in these cases the Board of Trade propose to endeavour to arrange hearings without further pressing for replies from the companies. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, a large number of coal cases are in suspense pending a settlement between the parties. The Department has responded to the complaints of all complainants with the exception of those to which I have referred.

  SOLDIERS AND SAILORS (CIVIL DEPARTMENTS).
  GENERAL SIR BEVAN EDWARDS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Resolution of the House of the 21st April regarding the employment of reserve or time-expired soldiers and sailors, and to the statement made by the representative of the War Office that an officer would be appointed at the War Office to take charge of the duties connected with the employment of these men, can he state if an officer has yet been appointed, and what rank he will hold; and whether he is specially appointed for this duty, or is it to be combined with other duties; also what assistance he will be given, and whether it is proposed to provide funds in this year's Army Estimates for his pay and that of his staff?
  MR. BRODRICK: The duty referred to will form part of the work carried on in the office of the Inspector-General of Recruiting, and will be specially attended to by Colonel Borrett, Assistant-Adjutant-General for Recruiting. He will be given the necessary clerical assistance, but owing to reductions in other branches of the office, it can be afforded to him without any increase of the War Office Vote.

  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  MR. G. W. WOLFF: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can tell when the Conciliation (Trade Disputes) Bill will be proceeded with?
  MR. RITCHIE: I regret that I am unable to say when the Second Reading will be taken, but I quite hope that it may be at no distant date.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION ACT, 1889.
  MR. J. RANKIN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, under the Technical Instruction Act, 1889, scholarships awarded by the Technical Instruction Committee of any Council Council are tenable at schools carried on for private profit; and, if not, whether, in view of

  437
  the inconvenience caused by such regulation, he will consider the desirability of altering the Law in this respect?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,: The Committee of Council have no power to put any authoritative construction upon an Act of Parliament, and it appears that the Question whether county scholarships are tenable at private schools would be decided, if raised, by the Local Government Board. Under the Education Bill the county scholarships would be tenable at private schools.

  BRISTOL POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH MESSENGERS).
  SIR WILLIAM WILLS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how many telegraph messengers in the Bristol Post Office have received notice of dismissal, and for what cause; and, whether the Department will arrange that these messengers may be promoted to the rank of postmen as vacancies may occur?
  MR. HANBURY: Twenty-nine Telegraph Messengers at Bristol have recently had notice to leave—four because their conduct has not been satisfactory, and the remaining 25 because there is no prospect of permanent employment being found for them. The Department cannot undertake that these messengers shall be recalled as vacancies for postmen occur. The regulation on the point has been laid down mainly in the interests of the lads themselves. If they remained on as telegraph messengers until the age of 18, the Department would be no more able to give them appointments then than it is now, and it will be obvious that, at the age of 16, lads are better able to learn a trade or prepare themselves for other employment than they are at the age of 18.

  EDUCATION (IRISH FEE GRANT).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether it is in accordance with the wish of the Commissioners of National Education that he has determined to regard their statement relating to the Irish Fee Grant,
  438
  in reply to the observations of the Secretary to the Treasury, as confidential; and, (2) whether, if the Commissioners, who are gentlemen giving their time to the public service without salary, desire their statement as to how they have endeavoured to perform their duty to be brought before Parliament, he will comply with their request?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already explained that the document in question is a confidential one. It is unusual to lay such Papers on the Table of the House. If any communication of the kind referred to in the second paragraph were received from the Commissioners, the Irish Government would, of course, submit it for the consideration of the Treasury; but the ultimate decision in such matters must rest with the Government Departments concerned.
  MR. KNOX: What were the Government Departments concerned?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Irish Government and the Treasury.
  MR. KNOX: If the Commissioners wish their answer to the charges made in this House to be put before this House, have they any way of attaining that object?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; not without the consent of the Department.

  TITHE RENT (IRELAND).
  MR. J. C. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Freeman's Journal of 30th April, signed P. Gallagher, in reference to the collection of tithe rent in Ireland by the Land Commissioners; whether several years' tithe rent-charge are allowed to remain unpaid by landowners; and, if he can state what the amount of loss under this head has now totalled to in Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have read the letter in question. The Land Commissioners inform me that it is not the fact that several years' arrears of tithe rent-charge are allowed to remain unpaid by landlords in any case where the Commissioners have sufficient information to proceed. Between the date of the passing of the Irish Church

  439
  Act in July, 1869, and March 31, 1895, the amount of tithe rent-charge remitted or written off as irrecoverable amounted to £16,061, of which £6,021 represents the amount remitted to tithe payers pursuant to the provisions of the 17th section of the Arrears of Rent Act, 1882. During the same period the tithe rent-charge collected and, when necessary, recovered by legal process, has amounted to considerably more than half a million per annum. Assuming, therefore, the amount collected to have been £500,000 a year, the total collection throughout the past 26 years on this basis would, roughly, amount to about £13,000,000, and the percentage of the sum of £10,040 written off as irrecoverable on the total collection would be about 0·08.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (IRELAND).
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that the Local Government Board have refused the application of the Boyle Town Commissioners for a loan for electric lighting purposes on the ground that they are not also an urban sanitary authority; and (2) whether, in view of the fact that there are a number of townships in Ireland similarly situated to Boyle, where there is no system of public lighting, and where the Town Commissioners are not the sanitary authority, owing to the expense of a Provisional Order and incidence of the rating, he will be prepared to introduce into the Housing of Working Classes (Ireland) Bill now before the House a non-contentious clause giving such Town Commissioners borrowing powers for public lighting purposes?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Boyle Town Commissioners applied to the Local Government Board for permission to contract a loan for lighting the township by electricity, and were informed that, not being a sanitary authority, the Commissioners had no power to borrow money for the purpose under the Electric Lighting Act of 1882. The power to supply electricity for lighting purposes is confined in Ireland, by the Act of 1882, to urban and rural sanitary authorities, who must first obtain a licence or Provisional Order from
  440
  the Board of Trade; and as the Boyle Town Commissioners have no power to supply electricity under that Act, they could not borrow money for that object. As regards the second paragraph, Town Commissioners, such as those of Boyle, who are not sanitary authorities, already possess the power to light their towns, and may borrow money for that purpose under Section 4 of the Public Health (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1884, but such power would not include the supply of electricity, having regard to the provisions of the Act of 1882. I am considering, however, in connection with the Public Health Bill now before the House, the question of empowering Town Commissioners to borrow money for the supply of electric light.

  STAMP TRANSFER DOCUMENTS.
  MR. J. P. HOGAN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that much inconvenience is occasioned to business men having commercial relations with the Colonies, by the practice of refusing to stamp transfer documents that have been more than 30 days in transit; and whether, in view of the fact that the Post Office cannot undertake to deliver mails from all parts of the Empire within a limit of 30 days, and that English stamped transfer forms are not purchasable at Colonial Treasuries, he will consider the advisability of substituting 42 days for 30 in the present regulation of the Inland Revenue Department on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,: Where a document, such as the hon. Member mentions, first executed in the colonies, is sent to this country, it can always be stamped here, not 30 days after the date of execution, but 30 days after its arrival in this country. The hon. Member's Question must refer to instruments first executed here by one of the parties and then sent to the colonies to be executed there by another. Such instruments ought to be stamped before they are sent out; but, even in these cases, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have, on good cause shown, stamped the instruments without a penalty, although they were presented more than 30 days after the date of first execution.

  NAVY (MANNING).
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will grant the Return with respect to the manning of the Navy which appears on the Notice Paper this day?
  The FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,: No, Sir; the publication of the details suggested would not be for the interest of the public service.

  SECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSION.
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, (1) if the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen has yet furnished to him the answer of Mr. Assistant Commissioner Laurie to the charges against him; (2) whether the Vice President of the Council has received a protest from the Incorporated Association of Head Masters against the report of the Assistant Commissioner; and (3) whether he has power to order the inclusion of such protest, along with any answer from the Assistant Commissioner, to be printed along with any further editions of the above-named report?
  SIR J. GORST: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the negative; to the second, in the affirmative. I have no power to make any order with respect to the printing of the report referred to.
  MR. J. BRYCE: As I am referred to in this Question, I ought to say that, inasmuch as the Secondary Education Commission came to an end last August, I have no longer any power or jurisdiction whatever in this matter, and it is not for me to send to the Education Department any reply that Mr. Laurie may make. Mr. Laurie has, however, requested me to say on his behalf that his reply to the protest referred to in the Question is now in the printer's hands, and will, he trusts, be published within a fortnight. It would have been ready sooner had not Mr. Laurie been awaiting the protest referred to, which reached him only a fortnight ago. He desires to give every possible publicity to his reply.

  ALASKA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA.
  MR. H. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to the result of the investigations of Mr. Alexander Begg, historiographer of British Columbia, regarding the boundary line between Alaska and British Columbia, south of the 56th parallel of latitude, as detailed in the Canadian Gazette of 16th April; whether it is a fact, as contended by the British Columbia Government, that 3,000,000 acres of land of high strategic and commercial importance, on the Pacific coast, opposite Prince of Wales' Island, which was assigned to Great Britain by the Anglo-Russian Treaty of 1825, is now marked upon United States official maps and charts as United States territory; and, whether, seeing that this Alaskan boundary south of the 56th parallel was not reported upon by the recent Alaskan Boundary Commission, he will suggest to the Canadian Government that an early and independent investigation be made upon the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,: Mr. Begg has communicated to this Department from time to time various memoranda, all of which have been duly transmitted to the Dominion Government. The Boundary Commission to which my hon. Friend refers was appointed under Article 1 of the Treaty of 22nd July, 1892, to make a coincident or joint survey of the territory adjacent to the boundary, with a view to the ascertainment of the facts and data necessary to the permanent delimitation of the line, which the two Governments will proceed to consider as soon as the final Reports of the Survey Commission have been received. When the question is ripe for this diplomatic discussion the points raised by Mr. Begg will, no doubt, receive due consideration for what they may be worth. The area which Mr. Begg maintains was assigned to Great Britain by the Treaty of 1825 is marked on all United States maps as United States territory.

  GRAND JURY LAWS (IRELAND).
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been

  443
  directed to the resolution adopted by the Roscommon Grand Jury at the lust Assizes, on the report of their discharging Committee, who state that, owing to a recent decision of the superior Courts strictly construing Section 54 of the Grand Jury Act, it is impossible for the Grand Jury to make payments for the work required to be done on the roads of defaulting road contractors in order to prevent these roads from going entirely to ruin; and, whether, in view of the public inconvenience, he has any intention, of introducing a short non-contentious Bill to remedy the serious deadlock that has arisen?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have seen a copy of the resolution referred to. The case was decided by the Court of Appeal, and the Lord Chief Baron, in delivering judgment, and with a view, as he observed, to prevent misapprehension, created in the minds of some Grand Jurors by the decision of the Queen's Bench Division, stated in the clearest way that the invalidity pointed out arose, not from any insurmountable difficulty in connection with the Grand Jury laws, but on account of the crude form of contract adopted in the particular case, which, he had no doubt, failed to carry out the common intention of all the parties.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREhad the following Question on the Paper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his attention has been called to telegrams produced at the late trial of members of the Reform Committee at Johannesburg, which passed between certain persons connected officially with the Chartered Company of South Africa and members of the Reform Committee; what action is proposed to be taken in view of the complicity disclosed in these telegrams of Mr. Cecil Rhodes, managing director, Mr. Beit, director, and Dr. Rutherford Harris, secretary of the Company in South Africa, in preparations for an armed inroad into the Transvaal Republic; and whether, in view of the fact that the Company is in possession of a Royal Charter, he will agree to the appointment of a Committee
  444
  of this House to investigate the complicity of the Company, or of any of its directors, or of its secretary, with the proceedings which terminated in the raid of Dr. Jameson into the Transvaal? The hon. Member said:—I beg to postpone this Question, as I gather that the right hon. Gentleman wishes, until Thursday.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether there are any Papers in the Colonial Office in regard to the communications which took place in 1894 between Lord Loch, then High Commissioner in South Africa and Governor of the Cape Colony, and certain Uitlanders in Johannesburg, with respect to the armaments procured by the Uitlanders; and between him and President Kruger as to any possible action of the Imperial Government with a view to protect the Uitlanders in case of danger to their lives or property; and whether, if so, he will lay them upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to thank the hon. Gentleman for postponing the Question; and, with regard to his second Question, there is a record in the Colonial Office of the conversations between Lord Loch and certain gentlemen from Johannesburg in June, 1894, but this record makes no mention of armaments. I will lay on the Table such Papers as I have relating to these occurrences, and including the report of the conversations referred to. Lord Loch has stated in the Press that no such communications as are referred to in the Question ever actually took place between him and President Kruger.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) whether his attention has been called to the telegram from S. W. Jameson, Johannesburg, 26th December, to Jameson, Pitsani, stating that it is absolutely necessary to postpone "flotation" until they had C. J. Rhodes' absolute pledge that authority of Imperial Government will not be insisted on; (2) whether Her Majesty's Government have any information showing whether Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes did actually give such a pledge (3) whether Her Majesty's Government received at any time previous to Dr Jameson's raid into the Transvaal any communication, either from Mr. Cecil J.

  445
  Rhodes or from any other person, relative to the exercise, or the forbearance of exercise, of the authority of the Imperial Government in the event of such a raid being made; (4) whether Mr. Cecil J. Rhodes had himself any power to give any pledge as to the exercise of the authority of the Imperial Government; (5) and, whether he can give any further explanation in regard to this telegram?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second, third, and fourth paragraphs is in the negative. In answer to the fifth paragraph, I would refer the hon. Member to the letter which appears in The Times this morning from Dr. Wolff, a member of the Reform Committee, who explains that when Dr. Jameson was asked to come to Johannesburg it was suggested in some quarters that the giving of this assistance might be made a pretext for proclaiming direct Imperial supremacy in the Transvaal; but that the platform of the Reform Committee was to maintain the independence of the Republic, while obtaining the redress of grievances.
  MR. JOHN ELLIShad given notice of the following Question: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has received any information from Sir Hercules Robinson with respect to the telegrams put in evidence, on 27th April, at the trial of the Reform Committee at Pretoria, and will lay it before the House; and, whether, having regard to the grave position in relation to the armed incursion into the Transvaal which those telegrams apparently place the then Prime Minister of Cape Colony, he can with prudence now state what action the Government propose to take in the matter? The hon. Member stated that, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman, he would postpone the latter part of the Question.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the hon. Member for postponing the second Question. I have received a telegram from Sir Hercules Robinson in which he states that, amongst the telegrams published, he finds one from Colonel Rhodes to Charter of December 21, and a reply from Harris of December 23, in both
  446
  of which the "Chairman" and a letter of invitation are mentioned. Sir Hercules Robinson proceeds to state as follows:—
  "I understand Chairman to mean Jameson and invitation to mean letter addressed to him by the five members of Reform Committee. I cannot state too explicitly with regard to this matter that I never received from anyone in any shape a hint even of what was about to take place. I was so completely kept in the dark that I never had the slightest suspicion of what was going on or intended, and the discovery on Monday, December 30, that Jameson had entered the Transvaal on the previous evening came on me like a bolt from the blue. If there should be any insinuation to the contrary, I rely upon you to protect my character in my absence."
  [Cheers.] I have only to add that I place the most implicit confidence in this statement from Sir Hercules Robinson, and I never for a moment attached the slightest importance to the rumour. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has received from Sir Hercules Robinson any Dispatch or communication with respect to these telegrams?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, nothing but very general telegrams stating that they were published, and that they contained incriminating matter.

  KAFIR SLAVE TRAFFIC.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether advantage will be taken by the British Government, or the Government of India, of the favourable disposition of the Amir in discountenancing, as far as he can do so, the traffic in Kafir slaves, by urging upon him, as the ally of an anti - slavery nation, to restore the recently-deported Kafirs to their homes, and to devise means for eventually terminating the institution of slavery itself throughout his dominions?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The hon. Member is aware that the Viceroy intends to avail himself of any favourable opportunity to exercise his influence on behalf of the Kafirs; but it is improbable that the object contemplated by the hon. Member would be promoted

  447
  by any interference of the Government of India in the internal administration of Kafiristan in the direction indicated in the Question.

  VOTERS' LISTS (IRELAND).
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, under the present rules of the Local Government Board, there is at no time during the revision of the Voters' Lists, or upon the counting of the votes, an opportunity given to candidates or their legal advisers to appear and give evidence for or against parties claiming to be rated, or claiming to be registered as voters, or claiming to vote; and whether, in the event of his introducing any Measure having reference to the Local Government Board in Ireland, he will, as regards the election of Poor Law Guardians there, make provision that candidates, or their legal advisers, shall be given the opportunity of producing before the Returning Officer, and at a properly-constituted Revision Court, evidence on oath, in favour of, or in opposition to, all claims to be admitted to the Poor Law Franchise?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under the Poor Law Code there is no opportunity given until after a poll has been taken to object to the qualification of any voter, but candidates and their legal advisers may, on the counting of the votes, make their objection, and on appeal to the Local Government Board the validity of the return can be determined. Some change in the law in the direction indicated is desirable and will be taken into consideration.

  LE MARCHANT BARRACKS.
  MR. CHARLES COLSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that for the past two years and upwards the sewage from the Le Marchant Barracks, near Devizes, has, owing to a complete breakdown of the sewerage system provided there, been discharged in a crude state into the Kennett and Avon Canal about a mile from the town; and that the canal flows downwards from that point through the
  448
  town and supplies the water for a public bathing-place for the inhabitants; and whether, having regard to the serious danger to health, and the annoyance that has arisen, he will forthwith take such measures as are necessary to abate the nuisance?
  MR. BRODRICK: The measures contemplated in the reply made to my hon. Friend a year ago were duly carried out, but from the nature of the sub-soil and other circumstances they have not been successful. The case is not quite so bad as represented in the Question, for no actual sewage passes to the canal from the barracks where the latrines are on the dry-earth system. The general officer commanding has been given full authority to take any necessary measures, and no efforts will be spared to provide a full remedy for the existing admitted evil. The co-operation of the local authorities is needed, and has been invited.

  VOLUNTEER OFFICERS' OUTFIT.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the grant made to Volunteer Officers in aid of outfit will be available for officers joining at any period during the present Volunteer year, or only for officers joining since the 1st April?
  MR. BRODRICK: The allowance to Volunteer officers in aid of outfit is limited to subalterns gazetted on or after March 13th, the day on which the Resolution granting the money for its payment passed this House.

  EMIR OF ILORIN.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will inform the House as to the cause and extent of the Military operations against the Emir of Ilorin on which the Lagos Government is now engaged; and whether these operations are being conducted in conjunction with the Royal Niger Company, which claims that the Ilorin district is part of its territory?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: A detachment of the Lagos constabulary stationed at Odo Otin, in the Lagos sphere of influence, has been twice attacked by a party of Ilorins, who have

  449
  been repulsed without any casualties on the side of the constabulary. The officer in command of the detachment has been instructed to act on the defensive, and Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the Royal Niger Company on the subject. The cause of these attacks is not clear, and I am waiting for further information on the subject.

  AGRICULTURAL LAND RATING BILL.
  Mr. J. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the estimate of the ratable value and the acreage of the agricultural land in Ireland to which the relief proposed to be given by the Agricultural Land Rating Bill would extend if Ireland were included in the Bill?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The estimated total ratable value of Agricultural land in Ireland is £8,937,000, and the estimated total ratable area is 20,052,000 acres. This estimated area includes mountains, bogs, and waste lands, on nearly all of which there is some small valuation placed. It does not include 119,816 acres, the area of some 129 towns which have defined boundaries, but it does include that of the smaller towns and villages. The area deducted for the larger towns includes a considerable quantity of agricultural land not held as town parks, which would probably counterbalance any land held as town parks round the smaller towns and villages. The land under railways and canals has been deducted in arriving at the above total.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES ACTS.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the working of the Corrupt Practices Acts and of the laws governing the trial of Parliamentary Election Petitions?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. A. J. BALFOUR,: In the opinion of the Government it would be desirable to have an Inquiry into the matter, but I do not think that it could be conveniently started upon
  450
  this Session. Communication has been opened with the Judges, but their reply has not yet been received.
  SIR W. HART DYKEasked whether the precise date on which a candidature for Parliamentary honours might be said to commence could be fixed; would it not be possible to place this matter in the forefront?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I have no doubt that that is a point which the Committee have to investigate; but I should be sorry to commit myself, as the Committee cannot be appointed until next Session.

  NATIONAL PORTRAIT GALLERY.
  MR. WILLIAM LECKY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the St. George's Barracks being removed, he will bear in mind the claim of the National Portrait Gallery to some portion of the ground with a view to future extensions?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand that negotiations are now going on with the War Department with regard to this site. At the end of three years part of the site will revert to the National Gallery. We have now no ground for supposing the remainder will not be required for military purposes. If this should prove not to be the case, the claims of the National Portrait Gallery will be considered.

  COLONIAL OFFICE VOTE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Colonial Vote will be set down for next Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Government were prepared to give next Friday for the discussion of the Colonial Vote, but since then the Secretary for the Colonies informs me that the Papers cannot be got ready until Friday morning the earliest, and under these circumstances it might be more convenient to alter the arrangement of business and defer the consideration of the Colonial Vote until Members have had the Papers in their hands. If that is the wish of the House I would

  451
  give notice to proceed with the Education Bill and put down the Colonial Vote for Tuesday next.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdid not understand the Papers were necessary for the discussion on Friday. It had been represented to him that a large number of Members desired some explanation on the part of the Government of the circumstance relating to the cipher telegrams, and of the course which had been taken in regard to them. It seemed to him to postpone that explanation would not be expedient, and Friday certainly was a late day on which to have a statement from the Government on the subject. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the original arrangement, and set apart Friday for the discussion of the Vote.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYwas disposed to think it would be more convenient to defer the discussion till next week, but, in the face of the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman and of the numerous pledges he had given to the House, he could not for a moment stand in the way of the accomplishment of the right hon. Gentleman's wishes. The Papers had only an indirect and remote relation to the telegrams published on Friday last, but at the same time there were some hon. Gentlemen who wished to speak in regard to them on the Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether it was not understood that they should adjourn the discussion from Friday to Tuesday if necessary.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYdid not think it would be necessary to finish the discussion of the Colonial Vote on Friday, but the Government could not well be asked at this stage of the Session to give two days to the discussion.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether, as the Papers could not be laid on the Table before Friday, it would not meet the general wishes of hon. Members, apart from a section on the other side of the House—[cries of "Oh, oh!"]—that the Debate should be postponed until Tuesday, as suggested by his right hon. Friend.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYunderstood the section of Members to which his hon. Friend referred was the
  452
  whole of the Opposition. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He imagined his hon. Friend would probably be able to give his views to the House with considerable completeness on Friday, even in the absence of the Papers. [Laughter.]

  MAJOR LOTHAIRE.
  MR. H. D. GREENEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government had received any telegraphic or other communication with reference to the trial of Major Lothaire at Boma?
  MR. CURZONsaid the Government had received from Her Majesty's Consul at Loanda a report confirming the result of the trial as it appeared in the newspapers, but they had not received any telegram from the Vice-Consul who officially attended the proceedings at Boma. Until they received a Dispatch from that gentleman he regretted he had no information to give the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  INDIAN ARMY PENSION DEFICIENCY.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. JOHN ELLIS in the Chair.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the charge on the Consolidated Fund of an annuity of £65,000 (beyond the present amount of £150,000 authorised by the Indian Army Pension Deficiency Act, 1885) towards discharging the liability of the Consolidated Fund in respect of certain Indian Army Pensions; and to provide that the rate of interest for any money lent after the 1st day of April 1896, under Section 5 of the said Act, shall be such as the National Debt Commissioners may determine"
  MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGEasked that some explanation should be given of the Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he did explain the matter in introducing the Budget, but he would be happy to give the explanation again. Up to 1884 India discharged her liability for that part of our soldiers' pensions which was earned by

  453
  service in India by the payment of a capital sum calculated on the probability of the lives of the pensioners. In 1884 it was discovered that, owing to delay in the calculations, to the omission to calculate some pensions which fell due before 1870, to the calculations being based on too high a rate of interest, and to the fund not having been properly invested, the fund was practically bankrupt, and there was nothing left to bear the charges of the pensions of soldiers which it was necessary should be borne. By an Act of 1885 Parliament set up an annuity of £150,000 for 60 years on which the Commissioners of the National Debt were authorised to borrow sufficient sums to pay the pensions as they become due, but it had been found lately that the calculations on which that annuity was based were themselves defective, and that in a very short time, if the fund was allowed to go on as now, it would become bankrupt, and there would be nothing left with which to pay future pensions. It was, therefore, necessary to provide a fresh annuity of £65,000, to close in 1941. What had happened was, of course, the fault of their predecessors, and they had no option in the matter. The provision of this annuity was an essential part of the finance of the year, and a clause would be founded on the Resolution which, according to recent practice, would be included in the Finance Bill.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported to-morrow.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  MR. T. LOUGHproposed an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words—
  "this House is not prepared to accept a Bill which makes no adequate provision for the divergent economic conditions existing in
  454
  Ireland as contrasted with Great Britain, and fails to establish a just fiscal system for Ireland in accordance with the avowed principles upon which the Act of Union was declared to be founded."
  The hon. Member said that, notwithstanding the praise that was justly bestowed upon them, the financial statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had one great defect. His figures, though accurate in themselves, gave an entirely false view of the progress and condition of the nation, when they remembered that he was speaking, not of a single country, but of two islands joined into one United Kingdom. Let him give one or two illustrations of this grave defect in the right hon. Gentleman's figures. Speaking of the last 50 years, he said that the population had increased about one per cent. This was not true of either island. What he meant to say was that, in the larger island, where seven-eighths of the people reside, there had been an increase of 1 l–10th per cent, per annum, or some such proportion, while in the smaller island there had been not only no increase, but a steady decrease of one per cent, per annum during the same period of 50 years. Take another example. The right hon. Gentleman stated that indirect taxation was 52 per cent, and direct taxation 48 per cent, of the total sum collected last year. This was not accurate anywhere; the proper statements were that, in the larger island the proportion was somewhat under 50 per cent., while in the smaller island the proportion of indirect taxation was 75 per cent, of the whole sum collected. These examples led them at once to the fatal defect of the Bill now before the House. It not only did not exhibit, but it concealed, almost every important fact connected with the progress which the two communities were making. Sufficient justice was not done to the wealth and resources of the one, and the poverty and suffering of the other was entirely obscured. Therefore he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, which declared that they could not accept the Bill now before the House, because it "made no adequate provision for the divergent economic conditions" of the two islands, which all the figures, as well as those he had just quoted, illustrated. Practically the Amendment asserted that if equal

  455
  financial burdens were laid on two countries in which every vital condition was so different, as in England and Ireland, the effect must be that by the extension of the burden—which the strong, progressive and wealthy commercial people could bear—to the weak and declining agricultural community, terrible suffering must be caused. But the question here raised of placing different burdens, proportionate to their wealth, on each of these two islands, raised such a large issue and would be received by so many in the House with surprise, that he must first ask permission to explain how it was that what seemed to him the astounding proposition that the same rate of taxes could possibly be fair to communities so different came to be embodied in the Bill which they were discussing. Hon. Members who saw nothing questionable in the equal taxation of two such communities, would think that there was an easy answer to the question he had put to the House. They would not unnaturally suppose that the reason they were discussing a Finance Bill based on such principles, was because an Act of Union was agreed to between the two islands, and that we were only following out the system which was then mutually adopted. His Amendment, therefore, recalled to the recollection of the House that no such system was embodied in the Act of Union, and asked what they should substitute for the principles of the present Budget, the financial proposals on which that Act "was declared to be founded." Perhaps the best key to the financial principles which were embodied in the Act of Union was found in a sentence spoken in this House by Mr. Pitt, when the proposals were under discussion:—
  "To avoid suspicion of unduly loading our sister kingdom with more than her share of the expenses of the State, to obviate all imputation of partiality, the Parliaments of both countries have fixed proportions to be paid by each for a limited time."
  What were the arrangements to which this description was applied by Mr. Pitt? First, that equal taxation should not be applied to the two countries. Second, that Parliament should fix, from time to time, how much Ireland could fairly pay; and third, that her contribution should be reconsidered in a spirit of
  456
  justice and kindliness whenever it was necessary to do so. For seventeen years after the Union an arrangement of a separate character was maintained. In 1818 the new principle that equal taxation might be laid on both kingdoms was adopted, but for 35 years afterwards it was not carried fully into effect. Not until 1853, as was to be found by Clause 31 of the Finance Bill now before them, did the principles of equality, on which the present proposals were based, become an integral part of the practice of the House. The two dates since the Union, which he had named, showed that the progress to their present position had been gradual, and they divided the 95 years into three unequal parts which, perhaps, the House would allow him to glance at in a little more detail as illustrating the genesis of the present Bill. He had suggested that during the first period of 17 years, from 1801–17, a juster principle was adopted. But it was necessary to somewhat qualify this statement. A fair principle was indeed adopted, but practical effect was not given to it; in other words, although different taxes were demanded from Ireland as compared with Great Britain, yet, owing to a reason which he would explain to the House, the proportion that Ireland should pay was fixed too high. In estimating the figures Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh only took into account the amount that Ireland had paid during the two years 1799 and 1800, at which time the taxation of Ireland had, owing to special causes, reached an abnormal amount. The statesmen of the Union assumed that what Ireland was then paying she could continue to pay. The result was that too high an amount was fixed. This was proved by the fact that, to realise the sum required, taxes on spirits, tea, sugar, tobacco, and other articles had to be doubled, and when they were doubled they produced less than previously. So that every effort to obtain the money that was required failed, and huge additions were made every year to debt. The principle of equalisation adopted for the second period of 33 years, from 1818 to 1853, was also not carried completely into effect; the most striking examples of the differentiation in favour of Ireland being that the tax on spirits was not equalised with that of Great Britain, and in 1841

  457
  the Income Tax was established in Great Britain without being imposed in the smaller island. The duties on tobacco, however, were equalised with those of Great Britain, and this was now, and was then, the second heaviest imposition laid on the country. A few examples might be given of how the principle had been carried out, and how injuriously it affected Ireland. First in regard to tobacco, the assertion of the principle of equalisation in this matter caused the amount levied by it on Ireland to be quadrupled. Exact figures had never been available since the change took place, but it was now estimated, on the highest authority, that a million and a quarter per annum was paid on it in Ireland—surely a most serious burden. In beer the equalisation took the form of reducing the rates in England. In 1830 the duty on beer was 5d. the gallon in Great Britain, in Ireland 2d. The duty was now the same in both, or 2¼d. the gallon, so that in this case a great relief was carried to Great Britain which Ireland did not share. Stamps were equalised in 1841 at a cost of £120,000 a year to Ireland, an amount which had been greatly exceeded since. Spirits were equalised between 1853 and 1860. As in the case of tobacco, the amount paid by Ireland was quadrupled, and some two and a half millions a year were now collected by this tax. Finally, however, it must be remembered that the principle of equalisation had never, up to this moment, been fully asserted. The Inhabited House Duty, the tax on carriages, armorial bearings and servants were not collected in Ireland, and one or two other duties were collected at a lower amount. Therefore, the principle of differential taxation was still recognised, but in a manner that gave no practical relief to Ireland. The full amount that she gained by the exemptions he had mentioned were lost in the allocation of the Licence Duty, under which nearly £200,000 was collected in Ireland, out of which only £40,000 was paid back to the local authorities, instead of the whole amount being handed over as in Great Britain. The variations which were still maintained were important, as showing that there was no principle except the exaction of too much from Ireland in the system which had been gradually developed.
  458
  Perhaps the general effect of the three periods might be most easily understood if he stated in a few words what was the spirit which dominated each. During the first period the just principle of differentiation was adopted, but not fairly carried out. During the second period the most unjust principle of equalisation, was declared but not fully carried into effect. During the third period, experience having been gained of the oppressive effect that equalisation of financial burdens might produce, that harsh provision was carried out in the most unscrupulous manner, and so it was found to be the broad principle of the Bill which they were now discussing. There were two reasons why it seemed to be indispensable that this question of Ireland's capacity to bear equal burdens with Great Britain should now occupy the attention of Parliament. The first reason was that there was no national representation of the country in this House when the arrangement of the union was broken away from, and the present oppressive system was adopted, therefore this system had no constitutional sanction so far as Ireland was concerned. In 1817 Catholic emancipation had not been granted, so that the vast bulk of the Irish people had no voice in Parliament. When thinking, however, of the change which Catholic emancipation made, Englishmen too often forgot that it was accompanied by the disfranchisement of the forty shilling freeholders, so that Parliament took away with one hand what she gave with the other, and no effective franchise was extended to the country till the year 1884. The second reason why this principle ought now to be discussed was that the experience of the period during which equal taxation had been in force proved that Ireland was unable to bear the fiscal burdens which had been imposed upon her. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his statement, said that last year was "a wonderful year." He was only speaking, however, of one island. In the other island the experience was gloomy in the extreme. The year had opened there with a famine, which this House had to make exceptional efforts to relieve. The process of depopulation, which had gone on steadily for half-a-century, was doubled as compared with 1894. The growth of

  459
  pauperism and just discontent were quickened, and the action of Her Majesty's Government itself, in many ways, proved that it was conscious that a grave economic crisis existed in Ireland. It was necessary, therefore, as there had been no discussion of the point that he was raising for half a century, that the House should consider for this suffering island, as indeed the Chancellor did for the other island, what had been the general tendency during the half-century, without, however, going into any detail. During these 50 years the population had steadily diminished, until now it had been cut down to half. Other statistics, which enabled them to judge of the progress of the nation, did not cover the whole half-century. Still, the progress had been the same all through, so that reliance might be placed on the few figures which he would lay before the House. During the last 40 years the average value of the crops had decreased by 35 millions per annum. The average annual value of cattle had decreased since 1869 by five millions. During the last 30 years the ratio of pauperism to the population had doubled. Statistics relating to the diseased sections of the population presented the most ominous contrast with similar statistics in Great Britain. In this country there were 340 lunatics to each hundred thousand of population; in Ireland there were 450. In England there were 50 deaf and dumb, against 71 in Ireland; 78 blind, against 113. It was sometimes assumed that agricultural depression accounted for the suffering. But, unhappily, the tendency of the nation in other departments showed even greater decay than in agriculture. In 1841 there were 690,000 people engaged in the textile manufactures in Ireland; by 1891 this number had sunk to 130,000. Other industries and manufactures had sunk in the same proportion. The cities along the southern and western coasts, and the inland towns in almost every part of the island, exhibited features of more complete ruin and decay than the purely agricultural districts. No class had escaped. By whatever tests they could measure the strength and dignity of a nation they were driven to recognise that Ireland was declining. It was not a case of
  460
  agricultural depression, but of national oppression. They must, therefore, look for the cause of this ruin, not to the natural difficulties which Ireland had had to contend with so far as her agriculture went, but to some other cause. It seemed to him that this cause was sufficiently explained in the financial burdens which had been thrown upon the country. Let them contrast the taxation in Ireland now with the taxation under her own Parliament. In 1795 the population of the country was four-and-a-half millions. The total local and Imperial taxation was two millions, or 9s. per head. This was under her own Parliament. In 1895, under this Parliament, her population was the same, but the total taxation was 11½ millions, or 49s. per head. If the figures he had quoted of steady decay during the last 50 years could be carried back farther still, it would be recognised that, in the day when those small taxes were paid, agriculture—which was the great industry—was prosperous everywhere. No competition with foreign lands existed. Practically all the manufactured goods which were used were made in the country, so that many sources of wealth existed which could not be found to-day. It might be said that it did not help much to contrast these times with a hundred years ago. This was a sentiment much more true of Great Britain than of Ireland. In Ireland, during the hundred years, there had been little change except the ruin of the country. Let them, however, take the last 50 years. In 1845 the total taxation collected in Ireland was under seven millions; the population was eight-and-a-half millions, so the payments were about 17s. 4d. per head. The result, therefore of the first half-century of the Union was to double the taxation, and that was one of the main causes of the frightful national catastrophe of the famine with which the period ended. The result of the second half-century had been to treble the amount collected in 1845, and by that means Ireland had been brought to its present condition. It was easy to make allowance for the cost of education, the poor, and other reasonable requirements of government which had arisen during the century, and when such allowance was made it would be found that

  461
  an effective government might be maintained for at least four millions a year less than would be exacted from Ireland under the Finance Bill which they were considering, and a saving of a million more might be made in local taxation, for which that House was just as directly responsible. Therefore it seemed to him that the second reason which he had quoted held good, and that, if they took a broad view of the progress of Ireland during the 50 years, they must come to the conclusion that this fiscal oppression, which the Bill continued, was the true cause of all her suffering. The gloomy history which he had summarised recalled the eloquent prophecy of Mr. Grattan on the subject—
  "That Ireland would stagger under a weight which was a feather on the shoulders of a wealthier people."
  The summary by the right hon. Gentleman of the progress during 50 years in Great Britain showed that, as population and wealth increased, taxes increased in a somewhat similar proportion. This would appear to be the natural progress in civilised communities, but in Ireland an opposite rule prevailed, and the fewer the people became the larger their burden grew, and the more they were sunk in poverty the more they had to pay. He would now turn to consider whether there were any serious difficulties in the way of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making some fiscal proposals to the House; which would be just to Ireland. The first standpoint from which the suggestion would be examined was that of the principles of Unionism which the Government were supposed to represent. Without going into any detail on this subject, surely no one who desired the continuance of the present Union, would be found to maintain that a necessary part of it was the maintenance of a system which had wrought so much havoc in Ireland. His Amendment only asked that other arrangements should be made within the House, and that they should return to the juster principles on which the Union itself was founded. Precedents of the last 50 years and the authority of Chancellors during that period might be quoted against the proposal which he was making, but, on the other hand, he was
  462
  supported by the authority of Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel, the greater Chancellors of a better time. A better time, at least, so far as Ireland was concerned, for, although there was financial depression then, her population continued to increase, her manufactures were not destroyed, and her agricultural interests were fairly protected. Therefore, so far as the principles of Unionism were concerned, there could be no difficulty in the adoption of a just financial system. A greater difficulty, however, was found in persuading this Parliament, which contained six representatives of the large commercial island for every one of the poor agricultural community, that there could be any real grievance in the system of levying the same duties on the same articles; six felt no oppression for one that did. "If the Irish did not wish to pay the duty, let them not use the article," was the response which was heard on all sides. If the Irish did not use tea, tobacco, beer or spirits, there would be no financial oppression! But this matter was not so simple as it looked. In one country these articles might be more necessary than in the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a very luminous remark in his Budget speech on this subject with regard to tobacco. He said that "everything spent on tobacco by those who had enough to eat is waste." There was much to be said for this proposition, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would go the full length to which it would carry him. It meant that, if tobacco was found to be largely used by a poor, ill-fed community, with them it was a necessity; whereas, when it was largely used by a rich and well-fed community, it was a luxury or waste. Therefore, equal taxation of tobacco among two such communities was highly oppressive. The same principle might apply to each of the other articles. Perhaps hon. Members would see the difficulties of this point best if they imagined the case, not of the two islands they were considering, but of two such communities as the English and the French, who lived nearer one another, and who were much more alike in many respects than the British and the Irish. Let them suppose, then, that England and France were placed under a common fiscal system, and it was resolved to levy

  463
  a large amount of revenue on tea. Then it would be seen that France would escape, because they used no tea. Or, if coffee were chosen, the English would escape. If light wines were chosen, a great French industry would be ruined and the English would suffer little. But, besides the difficulty of finding articles which were used in the same proportion by each of the two communities, there was the difficulty that the same duty was not just unless the purchasing power of the two communities was the same. Thus the Irish and the English might drink, on the average, about the same quantity of tea. Yet there might be infinite oppression in asking each to pay the same duty on tea. Let them inquire, then, what was the purchasing power of each. He would not repeat here what he had quoted to the House on a former occasion as to the total wealth of Great Britain and Ireland respectively. There were small figures, which now rested on high authority, which put the point more simply. It was found that, on the average, the gross annual income of every person in Great Britain was £42; the corresponding figure for Ireland was £15. If hon. Members reflected for a moment, few would be found to question that these two figures of 15 and 42 would probably represent, not unfairly, the available resources of the average of the population in each of the islands. From this it might be assumed that the taxable capacity of an individual in each of the two communities was as 15 was to 42. This, however, must not be assumed; an allowance of £12 must be made in each case for the necessary cost of subsistence. This meant that the capacity to bear taxation of the average person who lived in Great Britain stood to the average person who lived in Ireland as 30 was to 3, or as 10 to 1; so that, if absolute justice, according to this standard, were done, an equal system between the two islands would mean that on each commodity the tax paid by the Irish would be one-tenth of the tax paid on the same commodity in Great Britain. It might be admitted that it would be impossible to reach such an ideal as that, and, indeed, our difficulties would not be solved by such a rough arrangement; but the arguments were good to the extent of showing that the
  464
  system of equal duties between two such communities might be most oppressive. It was not right to turn from this question before pointing out that, without any intention to oppress, the opinion of the majority was likely to find expression in the light taxation of articles important to them, and that, in the case that the House was considering, they would find that this was true to no small extent if they contrasted the duties levied on the national drinks of the two countries. Roughly, the duty levied on beer was 2d. per gallon, and on whisky 10s. 6d. If the two articles were taxed strictly according to their alcoholic strength, the duty on beer would be raised to a shilling per gallon. Every person in England drank, on the average, 37 gallons of beer per annum. In Ireland the average consumption was 16 gallons. Both drank, on the average, the same quantity of spirits and wine. The Englishman only paid 6s. 2d. duty on his 37 gallons of beer, and the abstemious Irishman only saved 3s. 6d. by refraining from taking the extra 21 gallons that would bring him up to the Englishman. But, if beer were taxed according to the alcohol it contained, the English would pay, on the average, 37s. instead of 6s. 2d., and a corresponding relief would be carried to the Irish, and, in a smaller degree, to the Scotch. Other examples also tended to show that there was a disposition, unconsciously no doubt, to deal leniently with the predominant partner. There was a vague feeling that the principles of Free Trade required equal duties to be levied. A moment's reflection, however, would show that it was in the protective times of 1818 that the principle of equalisation was first asserted. It was because Germany and America were protective Powers that equal duties existed among the different states into which those countries were divided. Under a system of Protection it was felt to be impossible to allow exceptions to be made in one country against the others. The principle of Free Trade required duties to be imposed only for purposes of revenue; therefore, to lay a duty on a country simply because such a duty existed in another country, so different as Great Britain was from Ireland, was not in accordance with the principles of Free Trade, and was

  465
  only too likely to result in the evils of Protection. It might also be pointed out to the House that they had got, within the United Kingdom, examples of communities which enjoyed the advantages which might also be claimed for Ireland. In the Isle of Man different duties were levied on beer and spirits from those that existed in Great Britain. Yet all were collected under the same Customs authority. In the Channel Islands such articles were free from duty, and the prosperity of these little communities was due, in no small degree, to this exemption. There was one difficulty which loomed largely in the public mind, which was real, but the importance of which might easily be much exaggerated. That was the interruption to communication between the two countries which would be caused by restoring the Customs cordon. This, however, would be a slight difficulty. It did not interfere materially with the comfort of passengers going to or from the Channel Islands. There would be no examination going into Ireland, because few, if any, duties would exist there, and such as did exist would be less than in Great Britain, so that there would be no inducements to smuggle. On the whole, whatever discomforts passengers might suffer between the two countries, no one would seriously urge that this could be weighed against the advantage to the whole nation. He hoped that he had not delayed the House too long with these considerations, but they were really the basis of his argument, and surely they might now agree to the two conclusions—(1) that equal duties between two such communities might be very oppressive to one; and (2) that there was no difficulty under a Free Trade system in allowing each country to levy whatever duty was best for it. It would be necessary for him to suggest, however, briefly, the principle on which he thought the finance of Ireland should be managed if they were to put it on a different basis from that of Great Britain. It appeared to him, then, that it should be based on the following three principles:—1st. No help should be given by Great Britain to Ireland in meeting her financial difficulties, whatever they might be, and the country should pay its own way; 2nd. Whatever was judged to be fair as an
  466
  Imperial contribution should be paid by Ireland; and 3rd. After providing for the necessities of her own Government, any surplus that might appear in the finances of Ireland should accrue for the benefit of that country. The House would not be likely to entertain this suggestion for separate financial treatment if it would involve disturbing the fabric of British finance which had been slowly built up during the last 50 years. It must, therefore, be remembered that this was no necessary part of his suggestions. The financial arrangements of Great Britain, which, speaking broadly, appeared to him to be fairly well suited to the needs of the country, need not be interfered with in the slightest. The Irish receipts and payments were a small matter, quite apart from the vast bulk of what flowed into the British Treasury. Altogether some 7¾ millions would be received from Ireland this year. The payments for Irish purposes, when the Army was included, would probably amount to eight millions; certainly they would not be less than the receipts. Therefore, as much went out as came in, and there would be no loss to the British taxpayer, and no disturbance of British finance, if the suggested separation of accounts were carried into effect. The question would be asked whether, if this separation took place, there was reasonable ground for supposing that substantial economies might be effected in Ireland? Without going in detail into this matter, the merest glance at the way the money was spent there should satisfy any reasonable person that large economies were practicable. The cost of the military and police in Ireland alone was three and three-quarter millions. Of this, three-and-a-quarter could be saved. Apart from the increased cost of education and police, the cost of the civil establishments in Ireland had increased by a million and a half since 1860. A million could be saved in these central establishments if they were conducted in proportion to the cost of such establishments in England. A wise administration of the country could effect the economy of another million in the local expenditure, so that over five millions might soon be made available in relief of taxation, if the country were looked at according to the necessities of its own wants, which were

  467
  constantly decreasing as its population diminished. Perhaps it would be asked what form relief to the Irish people might best take. Suggestions had recently been made in favour of still continuing the collection of the large taxes that were now levied, and allocating a share for local purposes. He was not in favour of allocations or subventions of any kind. The whole principle of collecting more than was necessary and then giving back something seemed to him ineffective and wasteful. He would, therefore, give the relief directly by taking off taxes. He would suggest to hon. Members for Ireland a high authority for this course. In that historic document, the address of Mr. O'Connell to the electors of Clare in 1828, this greatest champion of Irish liberties promised, when he got to Parliament, as one of the greatest benefits he could confer on the nation, "to vote for every Measure of retrenchment and reduction of the national expenditure, so as to relieve the people from the burden of taxation." The country required the same help now as it did then, and the burden of taxation was three times as onerous. The reductions that would give the greatest relief would be to abolish the duties on tobacco, and what were called the "breakfast table" duties, and to fix the duty on spirits at 5s. per gallon, and beer at 1s. 6d. per barrel. This would at once reduce the Imperial taxation by three and three-quarter millions. In conclusion, it was desirable to explain that he had only broached many of these subjects for the sake of proving the practicability of adopting the principle which underlay the Amendment. He did not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to plunge this year into the whole question. He made only one request, which was embodied in a question asked on the night of the Budget. In this question, the right hon. Gentleman's attention was directed to the fact that, notwithstanding the great industry which the Royal Commission on the financial relations between the two countries had exhibited, it was impossible for them to discover even the accurate amount of the Irish taxation. Since the Customs cordon was abolished in 1818, this essential information was not at the disposal of the country. He
  468
  therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would undertake, with a view to adopting a fair system to Ireland, to discover, during the next 12 months, what it was that Ireland actually paid. If the right hon. Gentleman would thus accept the principle of his Amendment and undertake to provide this information, which the Royal Commission had declared itself unable to ascertain exactly, he would be satisfied, for the moment, in the hope that next year still further progress might be made. The case that he had presented might be summed up in the following manner. He had suggested that this Kingdom was composed of two islands, in which there was so much economic divergence, that it was impossible to lay the same fiscal burdens on each with justice. He asked that each island should be taxed according to its nature and capacity to bear taxation. There seemed to him to be no other means of avoiding oppression of the most cruel kind. He suggested to hon. Members for Ireland that this was a matter to which their energies should be turned from many of the occupations which had hitherto engaged them in and out of Parliament. Their appeals for relief and help in this House were constantly directed to the Irish Secretary, but he, after all, was only the instrument of the Government. He did not direct its policy, he was not even a Member of the Cabinet, and beyond displaying patience and good will, he could do little to promote the radical reforms which the country needed. He suggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the real oppressor of the country. Let hon. Members appeal to him. The Finance Bill which the House was now discussing destroyed every provision for the just treatment of Ireland which the Act of Union contained. By its nature the Bill was re-enacted every year, so that the facility for reform lay to their hand and was periodically presented to the House. If he had persuaded anybody that the imposition of these burdens had been oppressive to Ireland, this oppression had been entirely carried out by the House of Commons. The House of Lords had no jurisdiction in the matter. No one had interfered with the discretion of this House, and if a merciful

  469
  Measure of relief were undertaken, there would be no need to appeal to any other authority before it was carried into effect. His Amendment only went the length of asking that, while this House reserved to itself the right of fixing the financial burdens of the people of Ireland, the obligation remained of discharging that duty in a spirit of moderation and justice.
  MR. JOSEPH A. PEASEseconded the Amendment. Dealing with the Irish contribution to Imperial charges, he showed that, from a return issued recently by the Treasury, it would be seen that in 1860 the net Irish contribution to Imperial charges amounted to £5,400,000; in 1870 it had decreased to £4,500,000; in 1880 to £3,200,000; in 1890 to £2,684,000; and in 1894 to £1,966,000. Under the Home Rule Bill it was proposed that the normal contribution from Ireland should be £2,276,000. In the initial year the contribution was to have been £1,790,000. It would be found that in 1894–5 and in 1895–6 we received for Imperial purposes from Ireland a less sum than was proposed to be given under the much-abused Home Rule Bill. Financially, therefore, this country would have gained if Home Rule had passed. Great Britain would never get better terms. Our Government of Ireland was unduly costly, and money could be saved in many ways under a better system of administration. He congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his not having adopted the views expressed by Lord Salisbury in the summer of 1894. On June 8 in that year, alluding to the Budget of the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire, the noble Lord said:—
  "I condemn most heartily this Budget. It is nothing but an expression of the passions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Budgets come and Budgets go. They do not matter very much, and your blunder, if detected, can he set right in the Budget that follows."
  Those words seemed to imply that the Conservative Party, should they come into power, would reverse the financial policy of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the present Budget did not do that, and thus a tribute was paid by the present Government to the fiscal arrangements of their predecessors. He
  470
  wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the Treasury's estimate of the future revenue of the country. He would take the tax revenue and the non-tax revenue and contrast the proposals of the Government for the present year with those of the past year. The estimated increase of tax revenue in 1895–96, as compared with 1894–95, was £1,335,000; the actual increase was £6,461,000. Therefore there was an under estimate of £5,126,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated that the total tax revenue for 1896–97 would be £2,046,000 less than it was in the past year, and when allowance was made for the £1,275,000 in respect of the Estate Duty and the Land Tax, there would be a deficiency of £771,000. The estimated increase in the non-tax revenue in 1895–96 was £143,000; the actual increase was £829,000, and therefore there was an under-estimate of £686,000. The proposed estimated increase for 1896–97 was £552,000, but he calculated that after allowance for alterations there would not be this increase, but an actual deficiency of £219,000. Taking the total revenue of the year, he found that the estimated increase in 1895–96 was expected to be £1,478,000, and that the actual increase was £7,290,000, so that there was an error in the Estimate of £5,812,000, and with regard to the proposed increase in 1897 the fact was that there would not be an increase at all, but a deficiency of £219,000. He did not understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should anticipate that there would not be a growth in the revenue during the coming year. For the last three years the growth in the tax revenue had been £627,000 in 1894; £3,228,000 in 1895; and £6,461,000 in 1896; but for 1897 the estimate was a decrease of £2,046,000. In 1894–95 there was an increase of £2,512,000 in the total revenue of the country; in 1895–96 that rose to £5,817,000, and he did not understand why the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated that there was not going to be a further increase in the revenue of the country during the current year. To illustrate his point, he would take the increase of the Income Tax returns since that tax had stood at 8d. In 1894–95 the increase was £400,000; and in 1895–96

  471
  £500,000, but now the Chancellor of the Exchequer put the estimated increase at £100,000 only. It appeared to him that there was no sufficient reason for believing that the increase from the Income Tax would not be maintained during the coming year. In time of peace the wealth of the country increased with the population, and therefore additional revenue might be anticipated. There was no sufficient reason to doubt the expansion of the revenue, even if it should not expand at the same rate as it had recently. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the revenue increased in the past year in consequence of the gambling spirit that prevailed on the Stock Exchange and elsewhere. He believed that that spirit was as rife to-day as at any time in the last 12 months. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that he had received certain large windfalls, in the shape of Death Duties, and he had made an enormous reduction in his estimate respecting the Death Duties for the current year. But there were as many millionaires to-day as in previous years, and he agreed with the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire that the item from the Death Duties was more likely to increase than to diminish. It seemed to him that the advisers of the right hon. Gentlemen at the Treasury had not taken advantage of their experience. The estimates of revenue should, no doubt, be kept within the mark, but they ought to be fairly accurate. The object of the Government in framing their Estimates seemed to him to be to endeavour to secure another large surplus in order that they might thereby gain credit in the country and make capital with their supporters. If there was a large surplus next year the nation at large would no doubt attribute it to the ability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He held that the right hon. Gentleman and the Treasury ought to deal fairly with the House by placing before it as accurate an Estimate as possible of the probable revenue of the coming year. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had dealt as he ought to have done with the anticipated surplus, and that was one of the reasons why he opposed the Second Reading of the Bill. If the growth of the revenue went on increasing at the
  472
  same rate as it increased last year, there would be an increase of something like £7,000,000. Even if the increase were only half that amount it would be sufficient to justify the abolition of the Tea Duty. He objected to that duty, because he held that all such indirect taxation was detrimental to the interests of the community as a whole. It failed to tax men according to the protection afforded them by the State. It was often argued that the farmers needed relief as compared with town residents because they were not interested in local expenditure. That argument applied equally to the practice of indirect taxation. Men who had wealth and property needed the protection of the State more than poor men, and therefore they ought to pay more in direct taxation. The cost of the collection of indirect taxation was greater than the cost of collecting direct taxation, and it pressed most heavily on the industrial and poorer classes of the community. It also tended to reduce the volume of trade. A tax placed upon the necessaries of life increased the prices of articles by more than the amount of the tax. The reasons were that the cost of collection had to be paid for and that the trades required interest on capital required to pay the tax. Indirect taxation restrained trade, and thus promoted monopolies. Even assuming that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was correct in his estimate of the revenue of the coming year, something might have been done in the direction of reducing this indirect taxation. Substitutes for it could have been found in the taxation of ground rents and mining royalties, and a tax could and ought to have been levied upon all property conveyed by a man during his lifetime to his son or heir with the object of evading the Death Duties.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I understand the Amendment having been moved the discussion must be confined to the subject with which the Amendment deals, and, therefore, I am about to address to the House a few observations with regard to the speech of the hon. Member who moved it, rather than in regard to the speech of the hon. Member who seconded it, who used the opportunity to discuss

  473
  every other subject under the sun, and said nothing with regard to the Amendment itself, except that the state of Ireland as regards taxation, when compared with Great Britain, would be worse under a Home Rule system than it is now. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. A. PEASE: On a point of order, may I ask is it not the fact that the whole Bill as well as the Amendment is before the House at the present time?
  MR. SPEAKER: No; I think not. It would be so usually upon a reasoned negative, but the Amendment here is of so specific a kind that it is convenient to confine the Debate to its terms. But the hon. Member was strictly and technically in order in speaking on the main question, because in seconding the Amendment he was speaking on the question before the Amendment was put.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: At any rate I am unfortunately confined to the Amendment now before the House, and when I have another opportunity I shall be glad to notice the accusations the hon. Member has made against me of mala fides in dealing with the House in the matter of the Estimates, though I cannot do so now. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who moved the Amendment has no doubt raised a question of very great importance and one to which he has given, as I am aware, very considerable attention. But I confess I am utterly at a loss to understand what is his reason for raising this particular question at this particular moment. I do not think that in adopting this course he is doing justice to the views of those who agree with him with regard to the proportion of taxation between England and Ireland. I ventured the other day, when the hon. Member alluded to this subject in the Debate on the Budget Resolutions, to deprecate discussion upon it on the simple ground that it was now being considered by a Royal Commission, which we expect will report in the course of a few months, and that it was not ripe for discussion in this House until we had had time to consider not merely the evidence given before the Commission, but also the conclusions which the Commission might come to upon that
  474
  evidence. If I deprecated the action of the hon. Member then, I deprecate it still more to-night, when he has thought fit to raise this subject in the shape of an Amendment to the Budget Bill of the year, and to the financial proposals of the Government of the day—an Amendment which, if successful, would obviously not only put an end to our financial proposals, but to our existence as a Government. ["Hear, hear!"] I will not follow the hon. Member into his review of the past history of this question. Whether at the time of the Union the provisions of the Act of Union were fair financially to Ireland, or whether they were not; whether later on the cost of the great war, was fairly apportioned between Great Britain and Ireland, by way of the creation of debt or by way of the sums levied in taxation; or whether that union of the two Exchequers, and the unification, so to speak, of the fiscal system of the two countries, which Mr. Pitt certainly contemplated as the result of the Union, was carried out at the proper time and in the proper way, are matters, which, no doubt, are interesting by way of historical retrospect, but which have only an indirect bearing on the present financial situation. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member seems to consider that the comparative poverty of Ireland, and the diminution of her population are due to the existing fiscal system of the two countries. If I thought it necessary to go into the subject I could find other and far more important causes. To my mind the most important cause for the poverty of Ireland is this—that Ireland is, unfortunately for herself, not possessed of the mineral wealth which we have in such an abundance in Great Britain. ["Hear, hear!"] But I do not wish at all to dwell upon that part of the question this evening. The hon. Member omitted to mention two very material points in his review of the situation. He omitted to remind the House that, although our annual Imperial expenditure has grown between the years 1864 and 1894 from £64,000,000 to £100,000,000, yet Ireland contributes to the common purse very little more now than she did 30 years ago. ["Hear, hear!"] He omitted also to mention that

  475
  even if you take half the cost of the Irish Constabulary as an item of Imperial expenditure, Ireland now only contributes l–23rd part of the total Imperial charges as against 1–11th part of them in the year 1869. Of course I admit, as I did the other night, that Ireland is a poor country as compared with Great Britain. The hon. Member is aware, I think he then stated it, that the Imperial taxation per head in Great Britain is now £2 5s. per annum, while the Imperial taxation in Ireland is only £1 8s. 10d. per head. That is a considerable difference. From his point of view it is not nearly sufficient. From his point of view every inhabitant of Great Britain should be taxed 10 times as much as every inhabitant of Ireland.
  MR. LOUGH: According to his wealth.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is the proportion the hon. Member suggested to the House.
  MR. LOUGH: I said if taxed according to wealth.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member's contention was that that was the relative capacity of the inhabitants of the two countries to bear taxation. It appears with all deference, to be an extravagant contention. But let me point out to the House what the real question is. It is not a question as between the countries. The countries do not bear the taxation; it is a question as between the inhabitants of the two countries, who have to bear the taxation. Does the hon. Member say that direct taxation weighs more heavily on the inhabitants of Ireland than it does on the inhabitants of Great Britain? I noticed he carefully avoided that point. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not attempt to show that any single Irishman whose income or property brings him within the scope of direct taxation pays one penny more in direct taxation than an Englishman or Scotchman of similar means. I can say something to the contrary. I would venture to say, and the hon. Member himself knows it, that direct taxation in Ireland is lighter than direct taxation in Great Britain, and for this reason, unless things have much changed since my connection with Ireland some years ago, that the valuation for the purpose of Income Tax in Ireland
  476
  is based upon what was called Griffith's valuation, which certainly bore, and I believe still bears, a much less proportion to the real value of property subject to the Income Tax than the similar assessment does in Great Britain.
  MR. LOUGH: No, no! The evidence was all against that before the Commission.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member, I think, has forgotten that no one in Ireland pays Land Tax, house duty, or railway passenger duty. These are direct taxes which are levied in Great Britain but not in Ireland. The hon. Member omits to notice this question of direct taxation and goes to indirect taxation, saying that indirect taxation presses more heavily upon the individual inhabitants of Ireland than it does upon the individual inhabitants of Great Britain. I should just like to observe that since 1860 the annual amount per head of indirect taxation levied in Ireland has only increased by 1s. 6d. That is not a very large increase. The hon. Member says that out of the total Imperial taxation raised in Ireland 76 per cent, is indirect taxation. That might be, but it was 87 per cent, in 1849. ["Hear, hear!"] The proportions of direct to indirect taxation have been distinctly altered in favour of Irishmen by the increase in the Income Tax and Death Duties in recent years. But then the hon. Member puts forward a most remarkable argument. He says:—
  "Where does your indirect taxation in Ireland come from? It mainly arises from tobacco and spirits."
  That, no doubt, is true. But he says that tobacco and spirits are necessaries in Ireland, whilst they are luxuries in Great Britain, and therefore they ought to be taxed here, but should be free from duty in Ireland, or, at any rate, taxed at a much lower rate. [Laughter.]
  MR. LOUGH: It was tobacco I used the argument about, and I was quoting from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. His words were that in a country where there was not enough to eat tobacco is a necessary.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The remark I made—which I am afraid was a very dangerous remark—["hear, hear!"]—and which

  477
  I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire does not approve of—was this; that where persons were sufficiently fed all expenditure in tobacco was waste. But are there no insufficiently fed persons in England and Scotland as well as Ireland? ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member forgets that the consuming classes include the richest as well as the poorest. Of course there are, no doubt, many poor persons in Ireland, and so there are in our great cities, in our agricultural districts, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and I cannot understand why in the world the hon. Member thinks that tobacco and spirits are necessaries of life to the Irishmen and not to persons in similar circumstances in England and Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] That I call a very extravagant contention. Let me go from the speech of the hon. Member to the proposition he laid before the House. He wants what he is pleased to call a just fiscal system in accordance with the principles of the Act of Union. And what is his proposal? He proposes what I will venture to say would be the most intolerable nuisance that could be conceived to both countries. He proposes the institution of a separate customs tariff in Ireland and in Great Britain. When right hon. Gentlemen opposite brought forward their scheme for Home Rule they distinctly refused to adopt such an absurd and retrogade policy as that. They proposed that the Customs of Ireland as well of Great Britain should remain under one system of legislation, under one management, under one Imperial control, and for the hon. Member, towards the end of the 19th century, to suggest that we should go back to the antediluvian system of a separate customs tariff for Ireland is a proposition which again I characterise as one of the most extravagant that could be submitted to this House. ["Hear, hear!"] No doubt there may be something in the suggestion that in our Customs and Excise Duties on beer, and on spirits, the subject that, we tax is the alcohol in the liquid rather than the liquid itself, and it has been frequently argued by those who have expressed reasonable opinions upon this subject that the taxation of beer, looked at from
  478
  that point of view, is too low as compared with the taxation of spirits. But it was only last year that the right hon. Gentleman opposite took a step in the very direction which this view suggests. He abolished the extra duty of 6d. on spirits, and he continued the extra duty of 6d. on beer. Well, I have not increased the duty on spirits, and I propose to continue the extra and on beer. ["Hear, hear!"] So far I have been acting in accordance with the views of the hon. Member. I do not think that as years pass by this argument, whatever weight may now properly attach to it, will be as strong as it was, in connection with the relative taxation of the inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland, because during recent years there has been an increased consumption of spirits in England and a very large increased consumption of beer and porter in Ireland and Scotland. But I have no doubt that it is a matter that may fairly demand investigation, and that it will be investigated by the Royal Commission, and I shall very carefully consider any suggestions they may make with regard to it. But what does the hon. Member propose to do with his new fiscal system when he has introduced it? He proposes to abolish the duty on tobacco in his Irish Custom House—[laughter]—and he proposes to reduce the duty on whiskey to 5s. a gallon. He is aware that he will make a very large sacrifice of revenue by these two propositions. What economies will he effect in order to make up the deficiency? He proposes to get rid of half of the Constabulary. [Opposition cheers.] I daresay that may receive some popular support in Ireland, though I think by no means as much as perhaps the hon. Member may suppose. Then he proposes to get rid of one-third of the cost of the civil government. That is a beautiful thing in theory—["hear, hear!"]—but I can never believe that it would be found practically possible when you came to work it out in Ireland, [Cheers.] And he proposes, finally, to take the whole of the troops from Ireland, and to cease practically all I the military expenditure for what he calls the "army of occupation" in Ireland. I do not believe the hon. Member could make a more unpopular

  479
  proposal. [Cheers.] The troops must be somewhere. They are not maintained, as the hon. Member seems to suppose, for the coercion of Ireland. They are maintained for the defence of the British Empire and the United Kingdom, of which Ireland forms a part. [Cheers.] When he has got rid of them from Ireland and when he has devoted all the revenue he is going to raise in Ireland from Customs, Excise, and other sources to purely Irish purposes, what is Ireland, under his scheme, to concontribute to the defence of the United Kingdom and of the Empire and to Imperial administration?
  MR. LOUGH: I said what was fair. [Ministerial laughter.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: But the hon. Member has written a book—[laughter]—and he has done me the favour of sending me a copy, appropriately bound in green with a beautiful shamrock border. [Laughter.] In that book he calmly proposes, instead of the £2,370,000 a year which Mr. Gladstone proposed to take from the Irish Customs Revenue for Imperial purposes, that Ireland should make to Imperial purposes the generous contribution of £20,000 a year. [Laughter.] That is the fiscal system which the hon. Member considers not an extravagant proposition to make to the House. [Laughter.] I turn from these wonderful notions to the general question which is raised by the Amendment. I admit its importance. It is now under the consideration of a Royal Commission appointed on the recommendation of our predecessors. I am aware after what happened last week, that the recommendations of Royal Commissions appointed at their suggestion and composed of Gentlemen they had selected do not always commend themselves to their mature judgment. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not complain of this; for neither the Government nor the House of Commons is ever bound to accept the recommendations of any Royal Commission—[Opposition cheers]—but this Royal Commission has been considering this subject for some time. It has published some evidence upon it, and it is now considering its conclusions. Could there be a less appropriate time to ask this House to express an opinion upon what,
  480
  I will venture to say, is one of the most difficult problems with which we can possibly have to deal? I am anxious when the time comes, to approach this question with an open mind. I have been forced by the hon. Member to express to the House, to some extent, the views which I hold upon it, but I am anxious to consider fairly both the evidence and the conclusion of the Royal Commission and to do justice, if it be shown that in any way justice requires to be done. I ask the hon. Member, in his own interest, not to press the House to come to a vote which must necessarily be unfavourable to his own view, which may prejudice in the eyes of the country the opinions which he and those who agree with him hold, and which certainly cannot possibly further any relief which he desires should be given to Ireland in the matter of Imperial taxation. [Cheers.]
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid it was only by protesting time after time and raising this question time after time that they could hope to get any result. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a Royal Commission sitting on this Question. That Royal Commission had already published its evidence. The evidence was completely before the right hon. Gentleman, but he ventured to doubt whether he had read a single line of it. The evidence they had published by itself was sufficient to show that there was an enormous injustice to Ireland. There had been no attempt to show that the present system was, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, fair. Even the English officials had practically admitted that the present system was a grave injustice to Ireland, and consequently he thought the House would be somewhat surprised to hear that, nevertheless, no relief, no provisional relief, was to be given until the whole question had been decided by the Royal Commission. Why did they not have that theory applied to the Agricultural Rating Bill? The Royal Commission had to inquire into all the details of urban and rural rating in the United Kingdom, but because the right hon. Gentleman believed there was a great and frequent injustice to the agricultural interest of England, he asked the House immediately to devote

  481
  a large sum of money to the relief of a particular class of ratepayers. If that policy had been adopted in the case of the English agricultural interest, if they were being provisionally relieved while the question was being further inquired into, why should not the taxpayers of Ireland be provisionally relieved while this question was being further inquired into. He could not expect the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, while the Commission was still considering its Report, to give a final answer and to bring into his Bill a scheme dealing with the whole question, but he did say that the mass of evidence which had been given before the Commission, even by the English witnesses, had been so great that there was a pressing and immediate problem that ought to have presented itself to his mind to give, pending the report of the Commission, some sort of provisional relief to the Irish people. He would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the evidence of Sir Robert Giffen before the Commission. That evidence entirely overthrew the position which the right hon. Gentleman took up. In the first place the right hon. Gentleman said that Ireland was insufficiently valued for the purposes of Income Tax as compared with England. Sir Robert Giffen was not an Irishman or a Home Ruler. He was, he believed, an Englishman or a Scotchman, and he was a Unionist. He was the head of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade; he was a skilled man, and the evidence he gave before the Commission was the result of his mature consideration. Sir Robert Giffen absolutely contradicted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the right hon. Gentleman had read his evidence and had known that one of the permanent officials of the country had absolutely denied his proposition, he thought he would hardly have put it before the House in such a confident way. Sir Robert Giffen said that he had considered the question of the Income Tax assessment of Ireland some years ago and the conclusion to which he then came was, that, on the whole, Ireland was more strictly valued than Great Britain, and he went into elaborate figures to show the total annual income
  482
  of the people of Ireland and the people of Great Britain. Sir Robert Giffen said:—
  "Before you arrive at the fair taxable capacity of the two countries, you must deduct the minimum necessary for subsistence. There is a certain sum which cannot be taken in taxation, and that ought to be regarded."
  And then he went on to show that the gross income of Ireland was one-twenty-second of that of Great Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by his Budget of this year, asked the House to levy on Ireland one-eleventh of the taxation of Great Britain, so that even if the gross income was taken and no allowance was made for the minimum for subsistence, still he would be levying on Ireland exactly double her fair proportion. But that did not state the whole case. Sir Robert Giffen, taking the fair minimum for subsistence at £12 a head of the population, deducted that sum in each case and worked out the figures in this way. He said:—
  "When you deduct that £12 a head from the, total gross income of Ireland you have only £22,000,000 a year left."
  Of that £22,000,000 one-third went In the Exchequer of Great Britain in the form of taxes. Sir Robert Giffen then showed that the gross income of Great Britain, after deducting the same sum, was £900,000,000, and from that he argued that the proportion of taxation that Ireland ought to bear to Great Britain was 22 to 900. Was it right then that this Budget should be allowed to pass without giving at least some provisional relief to the crying needs of Ireland? The Budget rather intensified the Irish injustice. Some little relief was given in connection with the Land Tax and the Death Duties, but on those Irishmen paid very little. The right hon. Gentleman had picked out those taxes to which Irishmen did not contribute much, and had left untouched those to which they did contribute largely, and therefore Ireland's proportion would be increased. It was the deliberate policy of the Treasury to choose for reduction those taxes to which Irishmen did not contribute. Although the right hon. Gentleman had a vast mass of evidence before him, and had the opportunity of giving Irishmen some

  483
  relief, he sought rather to increase the proportion which had to be paid by the unfortunate Irish taxpayer. A large sum of money was to be applied to the relief of local rates in England, but in Ireland a different principle was to be applied.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The proposal in the Budget is simply this: A certain annual sum is to be devoted in England from the Imperial revenue to local purposes, and a corresponding sum will be devoted in Ireland and Scotland from the Imperial revenue to local purposes.
  MR. KNOXcontended that what was being done was really very different. A large sum was to be given, in the case of England, to a distinct local purpose, namely, the relief of agricultural rates. The agricultural industry in Ireland was suffering equally with that in England. The principle on which the Government professed to act was that the people of England and Ireland should be treated as the same people, and dealt with equally. Why, then, should they not give as much to the Kerry farmer as to the Kent farmer? He ventured to think that there had never been a more grievously unfair Budget presented to the House. The principle his hon. Friend sought to establish was that Ireland, as the poorer country, ought not to be overtaxed; but the right hon. Gentleman was increasing the proportion Ireland would have to pay in the year of his great prosperity, when something could easily be spared. It might be suggested that Ireland paid less than was spent on her in the various services. But English ministers had put those services there. It was the work of Englishmen, not Irishmen, and therefore, having indulged in such luxuries, Englishmen ought to pay. France treated Brittany as a part of that country, and if the English people really believed that Ireland formed a part of the United Kingdom in any real sense of the term they would treat her fairly in this matter of taxation; but the truth was that they regarded Irishmen as an alien race and as a conquered people, out of whom as much tribute as possible was to be squeezed. As far as civil expenditure was concerned, any one looking at the Irish Estimates would say that in the course of years the expenditure might be
  484
  considerably reduced. If Ireland were really a part of the United Kingdom, it was only fair that she should be made to bear a just proportion only of the general taxation and not an excessive part of it. But if the Irish were really regarded as a conquered people, the dignity of that House required that the fact should be stated openly. Why did not Englishmen boldly state that Ireland was a conquered province and that they intended to bleed her to her last drop of blood, because Irishmen were too few to resist. Such a declaration as that would, at all events, be one that could be understood. But it was impossible to understand all this talk about union and equality between Ireland and England, and then to require the former to pay more than her fair share of taxation. It was absurd to talk about equality when we were bleeding the very life-blood out of Ireland by over-taxation and were forcing her people to emigrate, and were thus diminishing her population year by year. He could not understand how any Irish Unionist Member could get up in that House and support an unjust Budget of this kind, which maintained an unequal taxation between the two countries. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. B. L. COHENsaid, that he should not follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Islington in his elaborate figures on the financial relations between England and Ireland, because any hon. Member who had studied the evidence that had been given before the Royal Commission now sitting to consider the financial relations between the two countries would recognise most of them as having been given by that hon. Gentleman in his evidence before the Commission. It would be obviously useless and not a little misleading to pursue the investigation into those figures until the Commission had reported, when the House would learn what were the recommendations of the Commissioners who were able to balance and to compare the hon. Gentleman's evidence with that of other witnesses—an advantage which that House did not at present possess. He, on the other hand, should like to give the House a very few, but at the same time some very significant figures which he had taken from a Return presented to Parliament last August, which referred to

  485
  the financial relations that existed between England and Ireland. Those figures showed that the expenditure on local services in Great Britain in 1819–20 had amounted to 6s. 3½d. per head of the population, while in Ireland they had amounted to 4s. 7d. per head. Therefore, the expenditure in Ireland in those days amounted to 73 per cent. of the amount per head that was spent in England. In the year 1889–90 the expenditure per head in England was 14s. l0½d., while it had risen to £1 2s. in Ireland, or a little more than double the percentage of 1819–20. The fact was that at the beginning of the period to which he had referred the administration of Ireland cost the Central Government appreciably less per head of the population than that of Great Britain, while in recent years the average expenditure of the Central Government for local purposes in Ireland far exceeded that in Great Britain, and tended still further to increase. But let hon. Members look at the matter in another way. In 1819–20 out of every £1,000 raised from Imperial imposts from the inhabitants of Ireland £298 was spent on the local services in Ireland and £702 on Imperial services. In 1889–90 the expenditure for local purposes in Ireland had risen to £658, nearly double the percentage of 1829, while the expenditure for Imperial charges had fallen to £342, or less than half of what Ireland paid in 1829. But it must not be supposed that the State got for this generous treatment of Ireland—which he should be the last to deplore—a larger percentage of income than formerly. In 1819–20 the revenue collected in Ireland was 9·18 per cent, of the total revenue of the United Kingdom, while in 1889–90 it was only 9·68 per cent., a difference of only a half per cent. He thought it was significant to quote these figures to the House, as hon. Members had tried to convey the impression that Ireland was being financially oppressed during a period in which it had been most generously treated.
  MR. J. C. FLYNNsaid, that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member who had just sat down ignored to a great extent the main point of the discussion. That point was not exactly the net amount that
  486
  Ireland contributed; the main question which the Commission had been inquiring into was the taxable capacity of Ireland as compared with that of Great Britain, and not whether the respective amounts which they contributed were larger or smaller than they were a certain number of years ago. In ignoring that hon. Members ignored the central point of the controversy. They were informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the amendment of his hon. Friend would, if carried, lead to the displacement of the Government; in view of the fact that the late Government were displaced on such a subject as cordite, he did not think it would be an unmitigated evil if the present Government were displaced on the much larger question of financial injustice to Ireland. The hon. Member who had last spoken had quoted some figures, but he did not think he had made them very clear. At the beginning of the century Ireland's population, as far as the figures could be ascertained, was much about what it was now, perhaps somewhat larger. After 20 years' experience of the Union, the figures, taken from official sources, were as follows:—In 1819 the indirect taxes per head were in Great Britain £2 8s. 7d., while in Ireland they were only 11s. In 1893 the indirect taxes had fallen in Great Britain to £1 4s. 1d. per head, but in Ireland they had risen to £1 2s., which was double what they were 74 years ago. The total taxes in 1819 were in Great Britain £3 10s. 3d. per head, and only 14s. 5d. in Ireland; but in 1893 they had fallen in Great Britain to £2 4s. 10d., and had risen in Ireland to £1 8s. 10s. He thought these figures proved to demonstration that, as Ireland's population diminished, and as her poverty increased, the financial burden was laid more heavily upon her in the form of indirect taxes, and the total tax revenue increased year by year, and became more intolerable to the people. The hon. Member opposite had spoken as if there was no difference as to whether a man lived in Islington or in the county of Kerry; but they maintained that, in regard to these taxes Ireland had a distinct claim founded on the promises contained in the Act of Union, and that these, promises had been violated. Sir Robert Giffen had said that the taxable income

  487
  of Ireland must bear a smaller proportion to the taxable income of Great Britain than did the gross incomes or capitals. Sir Robert Giffen defined the taxable income as the income remaining after allowing for the minimum necessary to maintain a population in a given standard of living, and in this sense he showed that Great Britain had a taxable income of 800 millions, and Ireland of only 15 millions. A considerable sum was to be set aside for agricultural land this year. They had proved that the taxation per head in regard to indirect taxes had fallen in Great Britain 50 per cent., but had been doubled in Ireland during the same time. They were told that in regard to taxation Ireland must not be treated as a separate country, but when a sum was voted from the Imperial Exchequer for the relief of agricultural land that principle was abandoned. If they applied totally different principles in this manner, they were perpetuating the injustice to Ireland.
  MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, it had been his business on two occasions to consider, in connection with Bills for the better Government of Ireland, the various problems that arose in regard to Irish finance and the proportions between the contributions made by Ireland and by Great Britain. He was, therefore, well aware, as was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the enormous difficulties and intricacies in which all these problems of Irish finance were involved. He only rose for the purpose of putting to his hon. Friends whether it was worth while, after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised, to press this Motion to a Division. A Royal Commission had been appointed, and great pains were taken in constituting that Commission to make it thoroughly representative, and he had never heard from either side of the House that every attempt was not made that could be made to get gentlemen of all persuasions to serve upon it. The Commission had taken a great deal of evidence, and were now almost on the eve of producing their Report. A Draft Report, as the newspapers informed them, was submitted by the late Chairman to the Commission. How that Report would be dealt with under the circumstances he did not know, but it was perfectly cer-
  488
  tain that the Commission would report long before the end of that Session. Of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that he would consider that Report with what he called an open mind; and, when the Report was drawn up and presented, he would undoubtedly consider it. Whether it would be dealt with before the end of the Session he could not say, but, in view of the presentation of the Report of a carefully-constituted Commission, he did not think his hon. Friend would gain anything by pressing his Motion to a Division.
  MR. LOUGHwithdrew his Amendment.
  MR. J. E. JOHNSON-FERGUSONadvocated the payment of the Duties in one payment. As to the redemption of the Land Tax, difficulty had been put in the way by the Clerks to the Land Tax Commissioners. This should be as easy as the redemption of tithes. It was the difficulty of redemption which prevented the Land Tax being redeemed. The Bill, in Section 21, provides for the occupier of agricultural land assessed under Schedule B to get relief without going under Schedule D. He recognised that as a very great boon. The Bill provided that the owner of land, buildings, etc., should have right of appeal, although not directly assessed. He recognised that as a great boon also. He drew the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the unequal and, in many cases, unjust manner in which Schedule A operated, and to the heavy expense involved by its separate maintenance. Let them take the case of a commercial concern with mills and machinery. Persons assumed that profits shown in balance-sheets were the same on which Income Tax was paid, but that was an entire mistake. Take the case of a concern with works the annual value of which is assessed at £3,600, and whose gross profits, as shown in balance-sheet, averaged for three years £8,000 per annum. That firm paid under Schedule A on £3,000, and under Schedule D on £5,000, making up the total profit of £8,000. But suppose a succession of bad years comes, or an exceptionally bad year results in heavy loss, the average gross profits of three years may be reduced to £2,000, £1,000, or a vanishing quantity.

  489
  Yet the Income Tax, Schedule A, is still charged on £3,000. There was no use appealing, they were told that their works were worth that amount, and that if they had not made £3,000 they ought to have done. That was no imaginary case, it was constantly going on; and, the larger the amount of fixed plant, the greater the risk of such overpayment under Schedule A. Take again the case, brought within his notice within the last few days of a small occupying owner of a farm. The annual value of the farm was £180 a year, the house being assessed separately. The annual amount at which the farm was assessed, therefore to Schedule A was £180 less one-eighth—£158. The occupying owner would be assessed to Schedule B at fine-third of the £180—that is, £60 a year, or, together, £218. But this particular man went under a clause of a former Act, and claimed to be assessed under Schedule D, and showed that his total profit of the preceding year was £208. Now, one of the most popular provisions of the Act brought in by his right hon. Friend was the extension of the total exemption to £160, and the reduction of the assessment of an occupying tenant to one-third of his rent. That being so, a tenant paying a rent of £624 would have been assessed under Schedule B at £208 from which he would have been entitled to a deduction of £160, and would have paid Income-tax under Schedule B at £48. Had this man been a small tradesman, with an income of £208, he would have had a deduction of £160 and paid on £48. Had he been a tenant farmer, paying £624 rent, he would have been assessed under Schedule B at £208, and only have paid on £48. But in this particular case, the man held a letter from the Inland Revenue Department, maintaining that because he was assessed under Schedule A at £158, and showed a total profit of £208, he was not entitled to any deduction whatsoever, and the whole Income-tax under the one schedule at £158, and under the other schedule at £50 a year, had to be paid. The House might remember that at the time the Finance Bill of 1894 was being discussed, the question of the amount of deduction which ought to be made as between the gross and net revenues of agricultural land was raised on both sides of the House. Since then they had
  490
  had the reports of the Sub-Commissioners appointed by the Commission on the Depression in Agriculture, and if the right hon. Gentleman had read these reports he would see some extraordinary statements as to what the real difference between gross and net revenue of agricultural land really is. Mr. John Speir in his report on the counties of Ayr, Wigton, Kirkcudbright, and Dumfries, says (p. 5):—
  "The most absurd ideas appear to possess the minds of the public regarding the incomes which landlords draw from their estates. It is often considered by those whose knowledge of estate management is rather limited, that because a landlord has a rent-roll of £10,000 a year, he has an income of that amount, whereas the facts of the case show this is very far from the truth. The estates of which I have had returns are nearly all considered to be very well managed, and the average net income to the proprietor from these at the present time is 56·7 per cent, of the gross income. Many estates are yielding their proprietors very much more, but others are very much less, the highest I have received being 85˙3, while the lowest is 23·3, both being calculated for an average of three years."
  Mr. Wilson-Fox, reporting on the county of Cumberland (p. 27 and 28) says:—
  "On the Netherby estate the total sum spent on all out-goings between 1879 and 1894 represent 27½ per cent, on the gross rents received in that period."
  "On the Underley estate, in Westmorland, the total outgoing in 1894, excluding Income-tax, represented 36·2 per cent, of the rent received, whereas in 1880 they represented 33 per cent."
  Mr. Hunter Pringle, in his Report on South Durham, and the North and East Riding, stated that the outgoings on estates in those districts ranged from 40 to 63 per cent, of the gross income. These, and other reports of the Sub-Commissioners, showed that while in some cases one-eighth amply covered, and might even more than cover the necessary expenditure for the maintenance of the land in a cultivable condition, there were many other cases where it was very far indeed from representing the expenditure necessary to be made. Take, again, the case of buildings in towns. It was becoming usual for buildings, let as offices to many tenants to be rated as a whole, the rate being collected from the owner, who recovers it along with the rent. So long as the building was entirely occupied no hardship could arise. Take as an illustration a building, let in offices, the total rent of which was £1,200

  491
  a year. The rateable value of that building would be £1,000, and assuming the rates were 6s. in the pound, the total rates would be £300, less 10 per cent, allowed to the proprietor, which would make £270 a year. But now assume the offices were half empty, the rent then received would be £600. Income-tax, under Schedule A would be paid on £600, it being assumed that the rates were recovered from the tenants, but of the rate in that instance only one-half was being received. The other half was being paid out of the pocket of the proprietor. Also, to show the anomaly of the present system, take the case of a house. Whether the owner lets or occupies a house, it was assessed under Schedule A, on what was called the gross annual value. The contents, however valuable, of the house, were not assessed to the revenue at all unless they were let with the house, in which case the difference between the gross rent and the annual value was assessed separately under Schedule D. It was stated by Sir Alfred Milner, in his evidence before the Commission on Agricultural Depression, that it was estimated that the value of that class of property which was not called upon to contribute to the Imperial taxation was £1,000,000,000. Sir Alfred considered that an excessive figure, and was inclined to put the value at £600,000,000. Take another case, that of a man who spent large sums of money in forming a collection of pictures, that collection would not be assessed in any way whatever to the Imperial taxation. If the same man, however, instead of spending say £100,000 upon pictures, were to spend any part of the money in building labourers' cottages, or anything of that sort, he would be very highly assessed indeed. The injustice of the present incidence of taxation under Schedule A, as compared with that under Schedule D, was undoubted. When he raised this matter on a previous occasion, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer argued, and he believed the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to some extent agreed with his right hon. Friend, that the great difficulty in dealing with Schedule A arose from the fact of the enormous number of assessments under that Schedule. He believed it was stated that in the opinion of the advisers of the Government, the Inland Revenue Depart-
  492
  ment would almost break down were a system of assessment different to that which existed at the present time adopted. He did not altogether share that view. The back of the Inland Revenue Department was a good deal stronger than it was sometimes credited with being, but if injustice was shown to exist, the convenience of the Department had no right to stand in the way of its removal. He could give one or two instances to show what he called the extravagance of the present system of assessment. The figures in the first case were those relating to a well-known concern in the north of England, and they were taken out specially for him. That concern paid Income-tax under Schedule A on 3,285 assessments to 24 collectors, in 27 townships, while under Schedule D, it paid on one assessment to one collector. The amount that concern paid in January last, under Schedule A, was £1,642, or an average of 10s. per assessment, and £324 per collector, whereas under Schedule D it paid £7,776 in one assessment, and to one collector, and that figure was arrived at by taking the profit shown in the published balance sheet, and deducting the £1,642 which had been paid on the 3,285 assessments under Schedule A. Then in the case of a house let with furniture in it, Income Tax was paid under Schedule A on the gross annual value of the house when empty, but the tax under Schedule D was paid to a totally different collector, possibly miles away from the collector under Schedule A, on the difference between the gross rent and the annual value. If a factory was let empty, and the occupier put machinery in it, when paying his Income Tax under Schedule D, he was entitled to deduct depreciation at the rate of 5 per cent, from the amount of his return. If, on the other hand, the owner put machinery in and let the place with the machinery, the owner was entitled to depreciation at the rate of 5 per cent., but was not allowed to deduct it when the payment was made. He had to go to all the inconvenience and cost of making a claim for the deduction to the Inland Revenue Department, and some six or nine months afterwards, he might get the sum repaid to him. He would be told, he knew, that the number of assessments made under Schedule A was between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000, and that the

  493
  work involved in merging Schedule A in Schedule D would almost break down the Department. He had had inquiry made in two counties in Scotland as to what the effect would really be. In Scotland the whole of the rates and taxes were levied on what was known as the Valuation Roll. In Dumfriesshire there were 10,502 separate assessments under Schedule A. If grouped, as they would be under Schedule D, they would be reduced to 2,357. In the upper ward of Lanarkshire, there were 15,658 assessments, and they would be reduced to 3,064, or, taking two counties together, the number of assessments would be reduced to one-fifth. He was perfectly aware that such a change as he suggested could not be introduced in a hurry, but only after very careful inquiry and a great deal of consideration, but he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might introduce into his Bill the principle of Clause 21, and give to the owners of land, tenements, and hereditaments used for the purposes of trade or agriculture, the right to apply to the general Commissioners in any case where it could clearly be shown that the income arising in the course of the year has not amounted to the amount of the annual value charged under Schedule A. By doing that the right hon. Gentleman would go a long way to meet the cases of injustice arising under Schedule A.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he voted in favour of the principles of the equalisation and graduation of the Death Duties, and the proposals had been more than justified by experience, but he approved of the effort to remedy any cases of particular injustice which might have taken, place in the administration of the Act. He certainly thought this Bill dealt with one or two points which called for remedy, and which, un-remedied, would be productive of very considerable hardship and injustice He was struck by the interpretation given by his hon. Friend opposite with the possibilities of Clause 14. Generally speaking, he was no great believer in attempts to evade the duties, and he had never believed that landowners would part absolutely with their property in order to ultimately evade the payment of the Death Duties. But the case was different if the owner was able to preserve a life interest, and then escape the duty, as under the words of this clause he
  494
  would be able to do. With regard to scientific collections, he knew the view prevailed that such collections had better be in the hands of the public, rather than in the hands of private individuals. He did not altogether share that view. Such collections, made with great personal skill and knowledge, had generally been very accessible to the public, and if the State obtained benefit from the maintenance of the unity of the collections, as compared with their dispersion, he did not think the burden ought to fall on the collectors, especially where the collections had not only a family, but also a national interest, and ought to be kept intact. The value of a collection often consisted in its integrity, and this clause in the Bill might result in benefit to the State. The provision giving facilities for the payment of Succession Duty by enabling the payer to take a charge on the estate was a good provision; but he doubted whether it was quite fair to a prior mortgagee, who would thus become a second mortgagee. He regretted much that the Bill did not deal with the Income Tax, but still maintained it at an abnormal peace rate. He hoped the time would soon come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to deal with this question more favourably, especially for industrial incomes under Schedule D. He believed the depression in agriculture to be great and acute; but there were other interests in which the depression had been equally felt—in shipping, for instance. It had been said in the Debates on the Rating Bill that ships bore no proportion of local taxation; but that was a mistake. The docks were rated, and ships paid through the dock dues, and by the tax on incomes derived from freights. Except as a temporary measure, he should object to the differential treatment of real and personal property. He was sorry that the promised inquiry was not to extend to the whole question of the incidence of rating. The inquiry, as he understod, was only to deal with the possibility of rating personal property; and with that limitation, the class who might suffer would be the same class who were differentially treated, to their disadvantage under the Rating Bill, and also under this Bill. They would have nothing to gain and something to lose by such an inquiry. The

  495
  wider inquiry had been remitted since 1840, and during the interval there had been continual subventions disadvantageous to personal property. In considering the whole question, to redress the many anomalies of local taxation, the tradesmen in the large towns had perhaps the greatest claim to attention. The burden of the rates on that class, who had to face the stress of competition, was more oppressive than on the agricultural classes. A rate of 7s. or 8s. in the pound was not unusual in the boroughs. He thought the provisions of the Bill in regard to the Land Tax were good, though here again the landed interest were treated preferentially. It was to the public interest that the tax should be redeemed; but the Bill would still leave grave inequalities. In connection with the Light Railways Bill, he had appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to fix the interest payable for local loans, at 3 per cent.; but the right hon. Gentleman would not assent. Yet, in respect of the instalments of the Land Tax remaining in arrear, the interest was now to be fixed at 3 per cent. The lowest rate charged by the State in connection with loans for local improvements was 3⅛ per cent, under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, yet by landowners for land tax instalments it was only to be 3. On the whole, however, the Bill had dealt with taxation in a way which should meet with the approval of the House, subject to the qualifications he had made.
  MR. T. P. WHITTAKERpointed out that according to Sir A. Milner' s Report, there were no grounds from the allegations of the farmers that they were heavily taxed. It was the owners of the land and not the occupiers who were heavily taxed; and if the relief given by the Government's proposals was really to go to the farmer and not to the landlord, it would go to the man who did not need it. Why should the farmers be almost exempt from Income Tax? Sir A. Milner stated that the whole of the farmers of this country only paid £190,000 a year in Income Tax, on a total value of more than £15,000,000. They were assessed on a third of the rent; so that a farmer who paid a rent of £480 would be exempt from the tax altogether; while another rented at £900 would pay on £300, less £160
  496
  abatement, or £140. The manufacturer or trader earning £900 a year would pay on the whole. Sir A. Milne showed that the land was overtaxed; but, curiously enough, he classed the farmers among those who were under-taxed; and yet the farmers were to be still further relieved. According to the same authority, the Imperial taxation on the capital value of property was on land ·95d. in the pound; on other rate able property ·81d. in the pound; on non-rateable property, ·54d. in the pound. So that the Imperial taxation on non-rateable property was about half that on land; and the farmers non-rateable property was only taxed to the extent of ·10d. in the pound; or one-fifth of other non-rateable property. Sir A. Milner said that Schedule B of the Income Tax was rapidly becoming a farce; and that certainly was the case, when a total rent of £45,000,000 only paid £190,000 a year. There was no class in the country so easily let off in respect of Imperial taxation as were the farmers. If they made profits, they ought to pay Income Tax like other people. The farmers were taxed far more lightly than any other portion of the community, and, if they were to be relieved in regard to local rates, he contended that it was only fair that the exceptional treatment they received in regard to the income tax should be reconsidered. Under the circumstances, the farmer ought to pay on the Income Tax in the same proportion as other traders.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to refer in a few words to the question of the Death Duties only. He was not surprised that it had been found necessary to amend the Finance Act of 1894, for he had always anticipated that amendments would be necessary. He had always believed that too high an estimate of the ultimate and permanent return from the duties had been made, that this year would be found to be the high-water mark, and that the return from these duties would go on decreasing. During the past financial year the Death Duties had returned £14,000,000, which was £1,500,000 more than the Inland Revenue had estimated—a very serious and quite unprecedented mistake. For the current financial year it might well be found that a similar mistake had been made, but in the opposite direction, and he thought it

  497
  quite likely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find that the return from them was £1,000,000 less than he counted upon. He still held that the principles of that Act were mischievous and false fiscally, but he held that they should not be attacked, or amendments destructive of them proposed at this stage or until their full effect was seen, which could not be for several years. He believed, however, that it was absolutely necessary now to remove some of the more crying injustices and complications of the Act, and the Government had certainly taken some steps in that direction. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not gone far enough in his proposals of amendment. The net results of the finances of the year were that the right hon. Gentleman had finally in his hands to dispose of a sum of £1,708,000. He contended that the first claimants on that surplus were the contributories to the Death Duties, so far as those duties involved injustice—he was about to say iniquities and extortions. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not recognise those claims. He gave to relieve rates on agricultural land £950,000; he gave to education £400,000, and to the Land Tax £100,000, leaving only £200,000 for the unfortunate victims of the Death Duties. He gave all to land and learning and left nothing for the widow and the orphan who had been despoiled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. The right hon. Gentleman should have limited Death Duty taxation to property which was actually in possession of the deceased, and which actually passed on death; he should have limited the aggregation to such property as the deceased had been competent to dispose of, and had disposed of, since the passing of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman should also have abolished the provision which made duty payable on any gift made within 12 months of death, which ousted all consideration of the facts and made an assumption false in most cases, in favour of the tax collector. The true test was the test of facts. In a case of a true donatio mortis causa duty should be paid, but in all other cases gifts should be freed from taxation. He also thought the right hon. Gentleman should have abolished the retroactive effect of the Act. Still, he had done something to amend the Act of 1894, though it
  498
  was very little. He had proposed to abolish the duty which at present had to be paid when a man's own property reverted to himself in the same way as if it passed by death; to provide for the return of duties which had been merged in the Estate Duty when these former had been paid in advance; and to exempt property of the nature of heirlooms, yielding no income and enjoyed in kind only, though as to this he suggested that the Treasury should be made the deciding authority, which would have to be reconsidered. This was little, but still it was something, and he (Mr. Bowles) proposed to move some further small amendments, whose modesty would, he hoped, procure for him support from all sides. He was not satisfied, but he supposed he must take what he could get. He trusted that, having thus generously acknowledged what little the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done for them, he should be able to get from the right hon. Gentleman an amicable consideration for the few Amendments to the Bill which he had placed upon the Paper. One Amendment dealt with the difficulty, trouble and hardship which was often caused by a very small amount of property leading to a very large amount of duty. If by a few shillings an estate was brought over the maximum of a given category at a given rate, an extra rate and extra duty of £250 might now be levied. He proposed to increase the margin to £100. He would also make a small exemption in small classes of estates, to which he was sure no one would object. There were two rates of duty in the Bill. Some were called upon to pay three per cent, and others to pay four per cent., but as the revenue never paid more than three per cent, interest, clearly the rate of interest should be that of 3 per cent, and the same in all cases. He was glad that some attempt was being made to make some amendment in the Finance Act of 1894. He was sorry that those Amendments did not go further; but he was glad that, at any rate, a beginning had been made in the right direction. More amendments would have to be made next year, but he trusted that about the year 1900 a Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in office, who, finding himself in the presence of a vastly diminished revenue and enormously increased grievances, would practically repeal the Act altogether.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be too much alarmed at the sinister prognostications of the hon. Member for King's Lynn as to the yield of the Death Duties in the future. The hon. Member has always been the reverse of sanguine on this subject. [Opposition laughter.] When the Measure imposing the Duties passed its Third Reading in 1894, he stated first that the yield might be £700,000, and afterwards said he felt sure that that figure was too high. He said the Act would be defeated by evasion and avoidance, and that the main result of that ill-considered and foolish scheme of taxation would be that in future years the Chancellor of the Exchequer would get less instead of additional Duties. I hope that after the experience we have had of the result of the Act the hon. Member for King's Lynn will pluck up courage and have more confidence in this source of revenue. [Opposition laughter.] Let me say, in the first place, that if there are in the working of this Measure of taxation things which prove unnecessarily oppressive. I would be the first to desire that they should be remedied. But I will reserve my opinion of these particular Amendments until we get into Committee, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer states the reasons by which he has been led to propose the alterations. The hon. Member for King's Lynn urged that property which reverted to the original possessor ought not to be taxed. But a case arose before the Act of 1894 in which such property was taxed—the well known case of Lord Stowell, who made over his property to his son; but the son died first, and Lord Stowell of course became liable for the duty on that property, which came to him by process of law from his son. As to the proposal in regard to landowners, I would ask whether it is not tantamount to a gift to millionaires? Take the case of a man of immense fortune who has acquired a collection of this kind of great interest and value. You may be making that man of enormous wealth a present of £80,000. ["Hear, hear!"] Turning to the general aspect of the Budget—which I do not at all view in any hostile spirit—I would say, first of all, that it is to be regretted that in the financial
  500
  arrangements of the year you are creating liabilities in the future for which you make no provision. [Opposition cheers.] When in our Budgets we proposed undertakings which required in the future a larger expenditure than arose in that particular year, I had the satisfaction to feel that the growing produce of the Death Duties would supply the additional sum to meet the increased expenditure as the years went on. But here you have proposed an expenditure in future years for which you make no provision. There are two millions of uncovered expenditure in future years for the relief of agricultural rating and for increased demands for primary education. What are those two millions to come out of? [Opposition cheers.] But that is not all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a man of unlimited faith. He said the naval expenditure next year is to be less than this year. Great indeed is his faith. [Laughter.] I did not observe that that particular assumption was received with any enthusiasm on his own side of the House. [Laughter.] He is also perfectly confident that only a trifling expenditure will come upon the Exchequer in regard to South Africa; I suppose one must not say the conquest of the Soudan, but the advance on the Nile—[Opposition laughter]—but that, also, in the belief of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is not going to bring increased charge on the Estimates. Here, in my opinion, are matters of certain expenditure of indefinite extent, without any provision having been made for them, and I say that that, with our constantly growing expenditure and our very limited expectations of increased revenue, is a rather formidable condition of finance. [Opposition cheers.] With regard to the question of local taxation, complaint has been, made before that subventions do not appear in the public accounts in connection with the Budget. I take some blame for that myself. I always intended to remedy it but did not. It is, I think, a misfortune that, considering the great growth which has taken place in that particular charge upon the public revenue, it does not appear in the annual Financial Statement. We have, apparently, a revenue of nearly £112,000,000 and an expenditure of nearly £110,000,000; but that does not appear on the face of the account.

  501
  In former days, when the grants in aid were something like, £3,000,000, we credited ourselves with revenue and debited ourselves with grants in aid; and that is the proper way. Formerly you used to deduct all expenditure in collecting the revenue, and only show the net revenue; now the fundamental principle is to show the gross revenue and to show the charges against it. The First Lord of the Admiralty first adopted the plan of assigning taxes, which was really taking them out of Imperial revenue. One does not know exactly what phrase to apply to it; but call it a fallacy, and a mischievous financial fallacy it was. In the account which is presented at the close of the year, you have it added to the account of the revenue of the United Kingdom which includes the local finance. The contribution to local finance last year was £7,366,000; but it is Imperial revenue which is handed over to local taxation. It is not local finance; it is Imperial finance; and I submit that the public accounts ought to show it. In the weekly accounts of the receipts of the Inland Revenue and the Customs to the Exchequer, it is always shown at the foot how much has been paid over to Local Taxation Account, thus showing that it is Imperial revenue handed over under Parliamentary authority to local taxation. This is really a matter of great importance in dealing with local taxation and Imperial taxation. I foresee that the claims and charges upon Imperial taxation in respect of these local charges are going to become a verey serious matter in the finance of this country—["hear, hear!"]—and there is great danger of ruining your Imperial finance altogether. In the Statistical Abstract you see that the contribution by 1892 to local taxation was nearly £11,000,000. To that you are going under this Bill to add £2,000,000; you will, therefore, be giving £13,000,000 out of Imperial taxation to local account. I venture to say the inevitable consequence of this will be that you will have to give another £13,000,000, because it is impossible you can refuse to the towns what you are giving to the country—["hear, hear!"]—and that is a consequence which we must face. The £13,000,000
  502
  you are giving already is equivalent to 6d. on the Income Tax; that is what you are giving at present to local taxation. Do you believe you get your money's worth in the relief of local taxation? Could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer distribute the money in a manner which would be more advantageous to all classes of the community? Why, the local authorities hardly thank you for giving it to them. The reduction in the rates has been comparatively insignificant. Why, the contribution you are making to local rates is more than the whole Poor Rate of this country. What might you not do with that £13,000,000? You might have a free breakfast table, and take 4d. off the Income Tax, if not 5d. You might take off the Tea Duties and have £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to spare for other purposes. I must profess my profound conviction that there never was a greater waste of money than these subsidies are. I am not looking at the advantages anybody derives from them; it is impossible to speak of them until you deal with the money in a different manner and distribute it so as not to squander it; but you might have given infinitely more relief with it. Landowners would have appreciated 2d. or 4d. off the Income Tax, as compared with 1s. reduction of rates. It is obvious the relief to the same classes would have been greater by removing the Tea Duties or one-half of them. I believe experience has shown that these subsidies have given very little relief or satisfaction. You will have, in due course, to nearly double these subsidies if you are to do justice to the urban communities. What a prospect that is for Imperial finance! Instead of taking 6d. off the Income Tax you may have to put another on. Under this aggravated system of subsidies I look forward to the future of Imperial finance with the gravest apprehension. It is said now it is a matter of urgency to afford relief to the agricultural community. Two years ago I was treated as the sworn foe of the farmers and of the agricultural interest, because, finding myself with a temporary deficit, I proposed a temporary duty of 6d. upon beer. The representatives of the agricultural interests were up in arms. The hon. Member for the Epping Division said that 6d.

  503
  was equivalent to 1s. 2d. on the Income Tax, and that it would cripple an industry already taxed beyond endurance. The hon. Members for South Essex and for the Woodbridge Division made similar assertions. Yet a Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a surplus of millions, supported by these friends of the agricultural interest, makes the temporary duty a permanent one, although it was said that 6d. a barrel was equal to 2s. a quarter on malt. The First Lord of the Admiralty then said the value of a concession made by a Chancellor of the Exchequer depended upon the Government that might be in power. [Laughter.] It depends upon the Government whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes this temporary duty permanent. ["Hear, hear!"] The First Lord of the Admiralty also said:—
  "I believe we shall be able to supply the deficit caused by diminishing this tax by one-half by some other method."
  Well, what is the method which he said they would resort to when they came into Office? The secret has not yet come out. Then he said:—
  "There is a great hardship in the proposal to put this particular tax on brewers. I think it hard and unjust that that particular tax should again be selected to supply the needs of the Exchequer."
  When the extra 6d. a barrel was put on beer, hon. Gentlemen opposite said it was equivalent to a duty of 2s. on barley. Now, the most urgent desire of the Government is to relieve agriculture, and yet they proposed as part of their Budget to renew what they all, with one accord declared was a tax of 2s. a quarter on barley. If you work it out you find that these friends of agriculture are striking a heavier blow at the agricultural interest than the boon they are conferring upon it. They must do one of two things—either admit that the language they held and the policy they pursued in 1894 was a most factious proceeding based on statements that had no foundation, or admit that they are going to impose a heavy and most unjust duty on the agricultural interest. For my own part I think the duty is perfectly fair. I think it is a duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the earlier part of the discussion, referred to
  504
  as one which might be considered with reference to the taxation of Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The real truth is, this duty on beer—I do not care to ask whether it falls on the brewer or consumer or on the farmer—gentlemen opposite pledge themselves to the opinion that it falls on the farmer—as regards the brewer there is no doubt that it is not a burden upon him beyond that which he is able to bear. With reference generally to the arrangements of the Budget, I do not object to the duty on beer. I do not at all object to consider reasonable Amendments which may be proposed in regard to the Death Duties. With regard to disposing of the surplus of the Budget entirely in the interest of one class and relieving agriculture alone, upon that I said what I had to say on the other part of the Bill. I must say I look forward, as I have already mentioned, with serious apprehension as to the consequences likely to flow from the commencement of the policy contained in the proposals of the Budget, and I regret that in the flourishing state of the finances of the country at the present time it should have been found necessary to enter on liabilities which there is no certainty you will be able to meet in the future. Of course, the revenue may largely increase so that you may cover those charges. That is not certain, and the charges are there, and you have made no provision for them in the revenue. That, to my mind, is not a satisfactory condition of things. The next may be worse than the present. For the present, at all events, there is no doubt the resources of the country are marvellous. I think there is one moral at least to be drawn from the present state of the finances of the country. It shows that our principles of finance are sound, that the condition of the people is sound, and that you ought not to overload a willing horse in the matter. The great principle of the finance of this country is its simplicity. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for St. George's, holds that it is well to have a great many sources of taxation. I do not think so at all. The whole of the reforms of Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel were in the direction of simplifying our finances. When I proposed the Budget of 1894, I ventured to say that if you wanted

  505
  readily to increase your revenue, your object should be to deal with the great fabric and skeleton of your finance. Certainly, the resources of the country answered to that appeal, and I hope that under all circumstances you will adhere to the general leading principles of taxation in this country, and that you will not be led away by ideas of raising revenue on a great number of commodities which will certainly destroy the springs of your industry—and, above all, I feel entire confidence in the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will not be induced to tamper with the fundamental principles of the finances of the country or with the currency on which your prosperity depends. [Cheers.]
  DR. CLARKurged that in Part 6 of the Bill, under Clause 25, there would be a loss of one-tenth in the amount of Land Tax, owing to a fall in the valuation. It should be remembered that the valuation on which the Land Tax was based was made two centuries ago, and something should be done in the direction aimed at in Clause 25 to make the tax more fair than at present. At present it was very high in some districts and low in others; and he contended that it should be made fair all round. He further called attention to Clause 26 for the redemption of the Land Tax and the reduction of the term to 30 years' purchase, instead of 37 years as formerly.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: With regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member, I have to say that so long as Consols remain at their present price the reduction of the term to 30 years' purchase will cause a loss to the State in the matter of redemption; but the money will be devoted precisely as in the past to the reduction of the National Debt. We do not anticipate that redemption will be very rapid, even at the price of 30 years' purchase, but the probable loss is one reason why we have not been able in lowering the price of redemption, to put it below 30 years' purchase. I will undertake to consider the points which have been raised with regard to the Income Tax, but the matter is more for Committee than for Second Reading. The hon. Member for King's Lynn is not absolutely satisfied with the proposed
  506
  alterations in the Death Duties. I explained, in introducing my Budget, that I did not feel justified in attacking the main principles of the Finance Act of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and certainly, if I felt myself in that position, I should not be inclined to endeavour to destroy that Act by affording opportunities for evasion. I think that the particular suggestion so dear to my hon. Friend for amending the Act of 1889 with regard to the limit of 12 months is one which I could not reconsider. It appears to me that there could be no greater encouragement to evasion than an alteration of the law in that respect. He mentioned some points with regard to the amount of interest charged, the margin in settling the different scales of duty, and one or two other points—which may fairly be considered, and might, no doubt, improve the working of the law. I will not deal with the particular clauses which I have embodied in the Bill with reference to the Death Duties, because it seems to me that all of them raise technical points of detail which it will be much better to discuss in Committee. The point raised by the hon. Member for Leicestershire as to the chance of evasion under one clause will have my careful attention. The right hon. Gentleman opposite repeated the criticism of his right hon. colleague the Member for Wolverhampton that I have not made any provision for future expenditure, because I have consented to certain Bills for dealing with the surplus of the present year which will involve further expenditure in future years, without having made provision for that expenditure. I can only say that it passes my understanding to see how I could have made any such provision. I can only provide in these matters for the finance of the year. I have provided for all the expenditure which, either under legislation or in any other way I am able at present to anticipate, will come within the financial year. The finance of next year will be a matter to be considered in the next year.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: My point was that you have committed yourselves to the expenditure of next year, for which you have not provided.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I could not. Supposing I put on an additional tax this year for the expenditure of next year, the right hon. Gentleman would have said that the proposition was absurd. It is possible that the good fortune which attended me last year may attend me again; but if it does not and I have to provide for a greater expenditure next year than I have to provide for this year, my only resource is an increase of taxation, and that is the only answer which I can give to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with three points in which he subjected me to more severe criticism. The first was as to the mode in which the account of Imperial Revenue and expenditure is presented, together with the Budget Statement, to Parliament; the second was my action in continuing the Beer Duty, and the third was my action in increasing the subsidies to local taxation. I listened with some astonishment to that criticism, because in every one of these cases I have followed the example of the right hon. Gentleman. Take the first. The form in which the Estimates of the Imperial expenditure of the year is presented to Parliament has been inherited by me from him, and by him from previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. It does not show, on doubt, that part of the total produce of Imperial taxation which goes to the relief of local taxation. It never has done so, and it could not do so, because this is a balance sheet of revenue and expenditure for Imperial purposes only. It would be possible, no doubt, by a note or separate heading to show that there is a sum of several millions levied for the purpose of aiding local taxation, as well as the Imperial revenue that is shown in that statement. But I believe that in all Budget speeches it has always been the custom to state the amount of revenue raised for that purpose, and certainly I stated it in my speech. There was no attempt at concealment; only it was not shown in a paper, to which I suggest that it does not properly belong. The right hon. Gentleman recalled with great unction, speeches that had been made when we were in Opposition on the effect of the increased Beer Duty on the prospects of
  508
  agriculture. He spoke of the continuance of the additional Beer Duty in a more hostile spirit than the brewers themselves; and yet he admitted that in his belief we were acting rightly in continuing it, only we were acting, as he considered, inconsistently with our past principles. When my hon. Friends commented on the right hon. Gentleman's increase of the Beer Duty as an act injurious to the agricultural interest, they knew that the right hon. Gentleman was also proposing to increase the burdens on that interest by his Finance Act. He was not proposing to give any relief to that interest as we are proposing to do this year. ["Hear, hear!"] We propose, no doubt, to continue the additional Beer Duty, but we propose at the same time to give some very substantial relief to agriculture. For that reason, the comments and the criticisms which were passed on the right hon. Gentleman's finance have not been brought to bear upon us either by the brewers, who are glad to promote the interests of agriculture, or by hon. Members behind me who represent agricultural constituencies, and believe that their interests will be served more practically and directly by the proposals that we have made, than by a change in the amount of the Beer Duty. Then the right hon. Gentleman dwelt at considerable length on the question of Imperial subsidies to local taxation. He calculated that next year £13,000,000 levied by Imperial taxation would be devoted to subsidies towards local taxation. I do not know on what figures this calculation is based, but, assuming it to be correct, the right hon. Gentleman is himself responsible for £11,000,000 of that expenditure. He did not begin it, but he continued it, and he was three years in office as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He dealt with this matter to some extent in a section of the Finance Act of 1894, yet he felt himself bound to continue those very subsidies which he denounces this evening as being in, his judgment "a greater waste of money than it is possible in any other way to conceive." I do not wish to use this as a mere tu quoque argument. Why did the right hon. Gentleman continue these subsidies? [Sir W. HARCOURT: "I protest against extending them."] But why did the right hon. Gentleman continue them? He could

  509
  not help it, because they afford that relief to the particular kind of property which alone is subject to local taxation which, in the judgment of Parliament and the country, personal wealth ought to give. I sympathise to some extent with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman as to these subsidies. I do not think that the granting of subsidies is the best form that such relief could take, but the matter has been considered by the right hon. Gentleman himself, by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, by myself, and by many abler and more experienced Chancellors of the Exchequer, and no one has yet been able to find any way to give relief from the personal wealth of this country to the property which is subject to rates except by means of these subsidies. I do not, however, despair that some means may be found which may be simpler, more economical, and better; and I look forward to the Inquiry which it is our intention to institute, with some hope that it may have such a result. Meanwhile, we can only give this relief in the form already adopted, and, where we believe that additional relief is required, in that way, for the present, at any rate, it must be given.
  MR. B. L. COHENsaid, he regretted the suspension of the Sinking Fund, and recognised the force of the observation of the Leader of the Opposition, that possibly there might be no surplus next year to apply to the purposes of the Fund. He did not think that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton was justified when he described the rise in Consols as being due to artificial means. The rise of Consols from 105 to 110 was a gradual, continuous movement. It was due to the absorption of Consols by the process of investment in connection with the Post Office Savings Banks. It was likely that the rise from 110 to 114 in a few weeks was due to speculation, but he did not believe that the speculative purchases due to the temporary operations of the Money Market justified the use of the phrase "artificial means." He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the possibility of preventing the Unfunded Debt from being entirely in the hands of the public. His right hon. Friend was entitled to great credit for
  510
  having reduced the Unfunded as distinguished from the Funded Debt of the nation, and he would suggest that the Unfunded Debt offered a very suitable reserve for the investment of the funds of the Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks Commissioners of the National Debt to resort to. If the Savings Bank Commissioners were compelled to purchase the Unfunded Debt of the country, a reserve fund would be formed against depreciation in the price of Consols, and probable loss from the purchase of stock at present prices would be guarded against. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not listen to any suggestion that the funds of the Post Office Savings Banks should be placed in securities not having the direct guarantee of the Consolidated Fund. He was only sorry to have intruded with some observations that did not appear to be entirely approved by his right hon. Friend; still, he trusted that the points he had raised would receive a little attention before the Bill got into Committee.
  Main Question put, and agreed to:—
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  NAVAL RESERVE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (SITE) [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee:—
  [Mr. JOHN ELLIS in the Chair.]
  MR. HANBURY MR. HANBURY moved:—
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of money to be provided by Parliaments, of any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Works under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the acquisition of a Site for public, offices in Westminster, and for purposes connected therewith."
  MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, he wished to put two or three questions to the First Commissioner of Works. He understood that a sum of £450,000 was to be applied to

  511
  the purposes of this Resolution. He wished to know who had made the valuation on behalf of the Treasury of the buildings proposed to be purchased; also, what was proposed to be done with the site, and what sum of money would ultimately be expended on the erection of buildings? He would also be glad to know what contracts had been entered into between the ground landlords and the Treasury?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,said, that this Resolution was to authorise the money clauses in the Bill, which was read a second time a few days ago, for the acquisition of the Parliament Street site. The hon. Member would remember that the proposal was that the block of buildings between Parliament Street and King Street should be removed, making the road as wide as that between the Home Office and the other side of Whitehall, and that the land which was bounded by such new road, Delahay Street, and Gt. George' Street, should be devoted to the erection of public offices. The valuation for the actual sites of the buildings had been made by the responsible officer of the Office of Works; but it was impossible to say what would be the cost of the professional interests in some of the buildings. There was, however, every reason to believe that the sum named last year—£450,000—would amply cover them. Of course, no arrangements had yet been made with the various ground landlords, for this reason—that until this Bill was passed the Treasury had no power to deal with them. Since last year arrangements had been made voluntarily with four interests, involving a sum of £50,000; but there were, of course, a large number of other interests which could not be acquired until the Bill was passed. This was not a Party Bill—["Hear, hear!"]—it having been previously proposed by the right hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and the more the Bill was delayed the more would have to be paid, because the owners were constantly putting a few bricks on to the tops of their houses and coats of paint in order to compel the Treasury to pay for these so-called improvements, plus 10 per cent. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not stated who were the ground landlords of this site. He understood the Crown was practically the ground landlord of the greater portion. He would be glad of a little information as to the changed attitude of some Members of the Government on this question. If there was any alteration in the proposals of the late Government, the House was entitled to know what they were, and also upon what grounds the present Government had departed from the proposal of their predecessors. When the Bill of the late Government was introduced, the Attorney General complained that a private company had been harshly dealt with. The hon. and learned Gentleman actually divided the House upon the Bill, and he believed every Member on the present Government Bench voted with him. [Several RIGHT HON. GENTLEMEN: "Oh dear no!"] He was glad to hear these disclaimers, but he believed if the Division Lists were consulted it would be seen that a large proportion of them voted with the hon. and learned Gentleman. He, therefore, wanted some information on two points—first, whether any alteration had been made and what considerations induced the right hon. Gentleman to depart from the proposal of the late Government, and, secondly, whether the Attorney General adhered to the statement he made on the occasion referred to, and if he did not, what considerations had induced him to depart from it. In view of the very strong speech the hon. and learned Gentleman made on that occasion—in which he almost impugned the good faith of the Government, and in view of the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman was, to some extent, responsible for the present proposal, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would not consider it an unfair suggestion that the House should have some explanation of the changed circumstances.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,said, there had not been the slightest change of opinion on his part. On the occasion referred to by the hon. Member there was a Bill before the House—a private Bill to extend the time for exercising the powers of a previous Bill

  513
  which had been obtained by a company for dealing with this site, and he ventured to express the opinion that the promoters of that Bill had been somewhat hardly treated, and he was supported in that opinion by many Members on both sides of the House. The Government of the House did not agree with that view, and a large number of Gentlemen who now sit on the Treasury Bench voted against him, and a majority of the House refused to extend the time for the private Bill. That Bill was lost, and a Bill was brought in by the Government. The hon. Member was quite in error in supposing that there had been the slightest change of front on the part of anybody in connection with this Bill. He might say that the principal owners on the north side of the site were the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and not the Crown.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that part of the plan of the late Government was to sell the site of the present War Office and the Carrington House site, which would have made the cost of acquiring the King Street site extremely moderate. It was rather important from a financial point of view to know whether or not that was still the view of Her Majesty's Government, because, of course, if it was intended to spend £450,000 without disposing of the sites he had referred to, it would make an enormous difference in the expenditure. Three sites had to be dealt with. There was the Pall Mall site, on which the War Office stood, which would be valuable for the erection of private edifices; there was the Carrington House site now vacant, and there was the site lying behind King Street. The plan of the late Government was to acquire the King Street site at a moderate expense, and to make the sale of the other sites go a long way towards the actual building of the War Office. But if it was intended to spend £450,000 and still keep the War Office and Carrington House sites, of course the sum of money involved would be very large.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, that he wished to know what sort of public offices were going to be erected on this site. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information on this point. The Education offices at South Kensington might well be brought to the buildings about
  514
  to be erected. He did not know whether matters were sufficiently advanced to enable the right hon. Gentleman to make any statement with regard to the South Kensington offices. He hoped at all events that proper steps would be taken to prevent the public money from being wasted. Considering that there had been no discussion upon the earlier stages of the Bill, he thought that the Government should give the Committee such information with regard to it as it lay in their power to communicate. This was not a matter that should be settled in a hole and corner fashion, because both sides of the House ought to have all possible information with regard to it laid before them. Could not a larger Committee, not the Committee to which the Bill would be referred, be appointed to inquire as to the best mode of utilising this site.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid that he had no objection whatever to the proposal that was embodied in this Resolution or in this Bill. But at the same time he wished to point out that, at all events, the Government ought to state what they intended to do with the money they were now asking for. It was not enough that the Government should merely say that they proposed to acquire this site for public offices. Hon. Members were entitled to something more explicit than that, and to know what was going to be done with the money and with the site. It had been stated that it was proposed to pull down certain buildings for the purpose of widening the street. But it was also stated that new public buildings were to be erected on the site so obtained. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor had certainly not made it clear to the Committee what was going to be done with this large sum of money. One thing, however, was perfectly clear, and that was that the House was asked to make itself responsible for the initial expenditure of £450,000. That would cover only the preparatory expenses of the transaction. If the site itself was going to cost £450,000, he should like to know how much the buildings that were going to be erected upon it would cost. Had the Government made up their minds with regard to the subject at all? He did believe that they had.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. JOHN ELLIS): Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is travelling outside the Resolution.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that what he wanted to know was how much the Government proposed to expend upon this matter altogether. Of course, the Bill that was to embody the intentions of the Government on the subject was not before the Committee, and he knew nothing about it. He should be out of order if he did refer to the Bill, but he thought he should be in order in asking the Government how much they intended to spend upon this site and the buildings to be erected upon it altogether.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. JOHN ELLIS): The hon. Gentleman is now out of order.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid, that in that case he should content himself with opposing the Resolution, because it was perfectly clear that the Government not only did not know what money they intended to spend upon the site, but did not want the Committee to know either.
  MR. DALZIELthought that in a matter of this kind the Government would serve their own interests by giving the fullest information. He had said that they congratulated the right hon. Gentleman in proceeding with this improvement, but when the proposal was first put before the House of Commons a number of offices were enumerated, and it was pointed out that the Education office, and other offices were very inconveniently placed at present. He should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman was going to do with this site. He was perfectly satisfied that he would use it to the best advantage, but perhaps he was not prepared to make a full statement at present. He should also like to know whether he had any estimates as to the possible cost of the improvement.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid that they proposed this Session, or at the commencement of next Session, to ask for the assistance of a Committee of that House to locate the offices to be built on this particular site. There were many offices which were now very improperly and inconveniently housed, and it was desirable to group them round Wesminster. This was a great opportunity for carrying out that policy, and they proposed to
  516
  take advantage of it. He was not prepared to say exactly what offices were to be erected on that site, because he would prefer to consult Parliament before he made up his mind. He would remind hon. Members that the Committee to which the Bill was referred was only a Committee to consider the clauses of the Bill, and it was unusual for a Hybrid Committee for that purpose to consist of a larger number of Members.
  MR. LOGAN: Do the Government intend to acquire the freehold of this site?
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported to-morrow.

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS NAMES BILL.
  On the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  SIR CHARLES DILKEprotested against the continuance of the law in its present form. The importance of the land tax Commissioners was a double one, the Land Tax importance was very much less than the Income Tax importance. The Commissioners in some parishes had to assess a Land Tax, which was increasing in amount upon the small freeholds because it was diminishing in amount upon the, larger estates. The Commissioners of Land Tax might be said to belong to one class of the community, in addition to which the qualification was objectionable, and in some few counties did not exist.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGEasked whether the Land Tax Commissions were ever summoned in his district. They did not know who imposed the tax.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, the practice was that the county Members of that House actually had the power of electing the Land Tax Commissioners for a particular county. That did not seem to him a very desirable state of affairs. He did not think the county Member was most qualified to do this work. They never knew the persons who were going to be nominated. Could

  517
  the right hon. Gentleman do anything whereby the actual names of the Commissioners might appear? He hoped he would give them an assurance that these appointments by county Members should be entirely abolished.
  MR. H. C. F. LUTTRELLwished to point out the difficulties in which county Members, at least on his side of the House, were placed. The names of those who were eligible were extremely small. They ought to have a larger choice. He thought the day was past when they ought to have these property qualifications. They ought to give to the people the power to select the best men. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would select an Amendment which he trusted would be moved that there should be no property qualification whatever to hamper the people in the choice of a suitable man.
  MR. HANBURYsaid that the Bill providing for the appointment of additional Land Tax Commissioners was introduced at the beginning of every Parliament. A list of the proposed names was prepared by the Clerks to the Commissioners and submitted to the local Members of Parliament, who had to approve it and to deposit it at the Public Bill Office in that House. The names were nowadays never mentioned in the Bill, for it would make it too long, but they were ultimately published in the London Gazette. That was the whole process. As to the remarks of the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke), who drew attention to the importance of the fact that these Land Tax Commissioners had to nominate the Income Tax Commissioners, he had given directions that special attention should be called to the fact. Then it was said that the Land Tax Commissioners were nominated locally. That was so, the Government had no control over the nomination. As to the qualifications, they were mixed up with the qualifications of the justices of the peace and of Income Tax Commissioners. All these qualifications must stand or fall together.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTShoped the right hon. Gentleman, would give them some further assurance as to the intention of the Government to deal with this
  518
  very unsatisfactory state of affairs. In Wales it was a great grievance.
  Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  Ordered, that the Members for counties do prepare Lists of the Christian and Surnames of Commissioners for executing the Land Tax Acts for their respective counties.
  Ordered, that Members for boroughs and places having Commissioners executing exclusive jurisdiction within the same under the said Acts do prepare similar Lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts within such boroughs and places respectively.
  Ordered, that Members for other boroughs and places do prepare similar Lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts for the counties in which such last-mentioned boroughs and places are situate.—(Mr. Hanbury.)

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

  TRUCK BILL.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS,THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Birmingham, Bordesley) moved the Second Reading of this Bill, the object of which, he explained, was to correct certain omissions in the Truck Acts, requiring that wages should be paid in coin, and not in kind. He believed the Bill was accepted on both sides.
  SIR C. DILKEwas struck by the fact that the Bill only applied the existing definition of "workman." Yet it could not be denied that shop assistants suffered as much as, perhaps, on the whole more than did workmen so-called from the practice of fines and deductions. The Home Secretary, he believed, admitted that the case of shop assistants was a hard one, but he saw great difficulty in dealing with their case in the

  519
  same Bill as workmen were dealt with. No doubt if shop assistants were included it would be difficult to exclude other classes, such as waiters and domestic servants, in some cases, but whatever the difficulties might be, when ones they got beyond the definition of "workman," undoubtedly the case of shop assistants deserved the attention of the House. The first great question, therefore, was whether shop assistants ought not to be included in the Bill. Some of the books which came into his possession containing the greatest number of fines were those relating to shop assistants, and they were for offences of the most trivial description, and so vexatious as virtually to amount to a system of slavery on the part of employés who had to submit to them. The great difficulty was that judicial decisions had continually cut down what was supposed to be the law until there was really nothing of value left in it. He congratulated the Home Secretary on having made a good try at producing a real amendment of the law, and though he himself was not satisfied with the Bill as it stood, because he was an advocate of the complete abolition of fines and deductions, he hoped the Standing Committee would be able to make out of it a substantial improvement on the existing law.
  SIR JOHN BRUNNERobserved that the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, a year or two ago spoke very strongly against legislation by reference, and he was in hopes that our system of legislation would have been improved in consequence of what the noble Marquess then said. He found, however, that Clause 4 of the Bill incorporated a clause of the Truck Act of 1831. He did not think any harm could follow if the words so incorporated were copied into the present Bill. An hon. and learned Gentleman opposite indicated dissent, but he (Sir J. Brunner) could not conceive why the words of an old Act should not be repeated in order to make this Act clear. This was intended to be an Act for the benefit very largely of workmen who were entirely unfamiliar with the interpretation of Acts of Parliament; and it did seem to him it would be great hardship that those men and their advisers should be compelled to refer
  520
  back to an Act passed in 1831 in order to ascertain what Parliament meant today.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that from one standpoint the Bill seemed to be one to permit, rather than to prevent, fines and deductions for damaged goods and materials. He heartily re-echoed the hope expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, that in Committee the clauses intended for the protection of the workmen would be made more stringent. In spite of laws, there was a great deal of tyranny, and, therefore, he would be glad to see the Bill of a more thorough character than it really was. If he made careful inquiry as to a workman before he employed him, an employer could always protect himself, besides which, he always possessed the power of dismissal. He earnestly hoped that when the Bill got to Committee the right hon. Gentleman would facilitate every effort to make the Measure a more real protection of the workman than it was at present.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid there was no desire to prevent the Bill going to a Grand Committee. He agreed that judicial decisions as to fines and deductions had been of such an extraordinary character that the only clear way in which the matter could be dealt with was to abolish fines and deductions altogether. But he felt that, if they did that at the present moment, they would go considerably beyond what public opinion, either on the part of the masters or the men, would justify. Therefore, he was quite prepared to support the Second Reading and the reference of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Trade, from which he was sure it would emerge improved in many respects.
  MR. W. ALLANsaid, he had no desire to oppose the second reading, but there were one or two clauses which particularly deserved attention. For instance, Clause 1 (sub-section C) provided that—
  "the fine imposed under that contract is in respect of some act or omission which causes or is likely to cause damage or loss to the employer, or interruption or hindrance to his business."
  There was a sub-section which was very badly drawn, and very unfair to the workman. Suppose a turner was mending

  521
  the belt of his lathe and there was interruption of work and loss. Who was to decide what the loss was? First of all they compelled a workman to sign a contract and then they fined him because he produced a loss to the employer. That was not fair to the workman or to the employer. He, personally, would not like to take advantage of any workman under such a clause. Clause 3 was also a very badly drawn and unjust clause, for sub-section C said—
  "the amount of the deduction or payment is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the case."
  Who was to decide what was fair and reasonable? Was the workman to go to the court over every fine imposed upon him? If so, who was to pay the man's expenses? The clause was one sided, and not fair, and not honest. The Bill altogether was one-sided, and stronger provisions for the protection of the workmen ought to be introduced.
  MR. REGINALD MCKENNAsaid, that he had come to the conclusion that fines ought to be abolished altogether. If the Government would not accept that principle, he would suggest that a clause should be inserted similar to that in the Hosiery Act, which provided that all wages must in the first instance be paid in full, and that any fines must afterwards be collected from the workpeople. He had had a case brought before his notice that day which nothing short of the abolition of fines would meet. One firm in the fancy-leather trade had a system of keeping the women workers waiting for their wages for several hours on Saturday afternoon, unless they consented to a small deduction from the full amount.
  COL. J. M. DENNY, thought that the hon. Member wanted a little more experience of the management of workmen. If fines were abolished where several hundred people were employed, there was no way of maintaining discipline unless dismissal were resorted to. A light fine was a proper punishment for a breach of rules, where the fine was of no benefit to the master, but was devoted to the workmen's benefit fund. To dismiss a man for breaking rules was too severe, because it prevented him from earning the daily bread of himself, his wife, and his family.
  MR. W. ALLENsaid, that the Factory Inspectors had declared the discipline to be as good in factories where there were no fines as in the factories where there were fines. The inspectors were quite as strong on the abolition of fines as on the abolition of deductions for bad work. The Bill of the Home Secretary was not at all perfect; but it was one that should be sent to the Grand Committee, where it might be amplified and improved; and it might do something towards sweeping away those judicial decisions which had knocked such holes in the Truck Acts. He should, therefore, strongly support the Second Reading.
  MR. H. E. KEARLEYsaid that he had tried both systems—fining and not fining; and he had satisfied himself that the former system was bad. He was in favour of the abolition of fines altogether.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONasked those who argued against fines to say what they would do with workpeople who came late in the morning.
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON, thought it would be unwise to abolish the system of fines altogether, for in many cases the plan of levying small fines had worked well.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL,understood that the Bill was to be referred to a Grand Committee, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Measure whether he proposed to refer it to the Grand Committee on Law. The Bill seemed to be on the border line, as it were, of the two Committees of Law and Trade, but as the present unsatisfactory state of the law on this question had been largely brought about by judicial interpretations of the existing Act, he suggested that there would be special advantage in referring the Bill to the Grand Committee on Law.
  MR. LOGANsaid that in reply to the question asked by the right hon. Gentleman the member for Manchester, as to what a firm would do without fines, in the case of workpeople coming late in the morning, he would only say as a large employer of labour, that such people had better be discharged.—["Hear, hear!"]—for this reason that it would be impossible to apply a system of fines to

  523
  workmen coming late to work in the morning, fining the person 6d. who came a quarter of an hour after nine, 1s. for being half an hour late, 2s. for being an hour late, and so on. No firm could be carried on under such conditions. ["Hear, hear!"] It would be far better that such workmen should be warned to look for other employment. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not think a system of fines to be at all necessary; workpeople who needed to be fined for neglect or carelessness, had better be got rid of, for the sake of the firm and the other workmen. He should support the Bill as a step in the right direction, and he hoped hon. Members on both sides of the House would support any Bill that would abolish fines altogether. ["Hear, hear!"]
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYacknowledged the favourable spirit in which the Bill had been received in all parts of the House. It did not proceed on the assumption of the total abolition of fines, but on the principle that it was not possible, even if it were desirable, to make all deductions, whether by fines or otherwise, illegal. In fact, he went further, and thought it was very arguable whether it was desirable to make all fines illegal, although it might be possible in some cases for a good employer to be able to dispense with fines. ["Hear, hear!"] What the House had to deal with, however, was the existing state of the law, and the object of this Bill was to strengthen the law in the interests of the workman. In consequence of the interpretations that had been put on the old Truck Act, it had been thought desirable that an effort should be made, not only to make the law clearer in the interests of both employer and employed, but also to strengthen the law in the direction of protecting workmen against unreasonable deductions by fines or otherwise, and he was confident that careful legislation in that direction must prove beneficial. He did not apprehend any vexatious litigation over the expression "fair and reasonable." He felt sure that one or two decisions of the Courts of Law would settle the meaning of the expression. He also thought that the description of the Bill as "legislation by reference" was not quite fair. There was only one reference to another Act in the whole Bill. He hoped the House would give the Measure a Second Reading and allow
  524
  it to be referred to the Grand Committee on Trade. As there was no Bill before that Grand Committee it was reasonable to hope that in a short time a fair and reasonable settlement of a complex question would be arrived at. ["Hear, hear!"]
  Bill read a Second time.
  SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY moved that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  DR. TANNER: No, no! We want to hear something more about that. [Cries of "Order!"] Let us have some explanation. As a matter of fact, Sir, in this House of Commons we should not allow things to go by the board, and if Her Majesty's Government are paid for doing their duty let them do it. [Cries of "Order!"]
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS BILL.
  Consideration, as amended by the Standing Committee, deferred till Thursday.
  WEST HIGHLAND RAILWAY [GUARANTEE].
  Committee thereupon deferred till Thursday.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On the Motion for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. J. C. FLYNNasked for some explanation of its provisions, but was interrupted by—
  DR. TANNER, who rose and said: It does not matter. It is only an Irish Bill. I would appeal to my hon. Friend——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the hon. Member continues to interrupt the business of the House I shall have to take measures to repress him. [Cheers.]
  DR. TANNER: Of course; I know that.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid that under the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890 there was a doubt as to whether the sanitary authorities of small towns in Ireland had power to acquire land compulsorily in order to erect houses for the working classes, and the Bill was intended to set the matter right.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for Thursday.

  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES (IRELAND) BILL.
  On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. J. DILLONasked what was its object?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN ATKINSON,said, that in the Licensing Act of 1872 and some other Irish Statutes the term "Stipendiary" magistrate had been used, and it had been held that it did not apply to the ordinary resident magistrates. It was thought desirable for the purposes of that Act to substitute "resident" magistrate for "stipendiary" magistrate.
  MR. FLYNNsaid, he should like to know how it came about that it was necessary to make this Amendment now. A qualified resident magistrate ought to be equal to a stipendiary magistrate; but it was very different with the ordinary resident magistrates appointed under the present system—men who had been promoted from the lowest position to the very highest without adequate qualifications. What they wanted to know exactly was, what change was to be made in the law by making this change in the status of the resident magistrates. They regarded with well grounded suspicion a change in the status and position of magistrates removeable by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary. There were some resident magistrates who were qualified by knowledge and experience to administer the Licensing Act; but there were others, retired Army and Navy officers, who
  526
  were utterly unacquainted with law, and did not possess even an average share of common sense. They would resent any change with respect to resident magistrates unless fuller explanations were given.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, the Bill made no change in the status of resident magistrates. In the Bill of 1872 the draftsman made a mistake; he ought to have used the word "resident" instead of "stipendiary." He unfortunately used the words "stipendiary magistrates," and as there were none now, it was necessary to the working of the Act to correct the error. The stipendiary magistrates had exactly the same power as resident magistrates had now.
  MR. DILLONsaid, they were entitled to be told how it was, if the error were made in 1872, it had been necessary to alter it now. Why had it become suddenly necessary to make the alteration if the law had been administered for 24 years? It might seem strange that they should take objection to the alteration of the name of these gentlemen, but they had a certain tender affection for the old familiar name of resident magistrate in Ireland; and he did not like the idea of their being called stipendiary magistrates.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: It is the other way about.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The alteration is the other way. The Act speaks of stipendiary magistrates instead of resident magistrates, and the effect of the Bill is to restore resident magistrates.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLprotested against the change of name, and said there must be something at the bottom of it. He understood that there was a certain class of cases in Ireland which could be disposed of by the stipendiary magistrate alone, and there were other cases which only two justices could dispose of. It was a strange thing that the former state of things should have existed for 24 years without the House being asked to change it. He strongly appealed to his brother Irish Members to go to a Division if necessary in opposition to the Bill, because although the change seemed small and simple in itself, there must be some reason other than that given by the Attorney General

  527
  for Ireland for making the change at this time of day. There was a surplusage of paid magistrates in Ireland who had little to do, and their office was a sinecure for a class of political protéges of the Tory Party, who were not popular with the people of Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELANDsaid, he wished to explain the real necessity for the Bill. Last year or the year before the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland decided that an ordinary resident magistrate was not a stipendiary magistrate within the meaning of the Licensing Act of 1872, and that the Act might not be rendered practically abortive it became necessary to change the name of the paid magistrates from "stipendiary" into "resident." There was no deep design whatever in the change.
  MR. DALYsaid he was not satisfied with the explanation given by the Attorney General. Past experience had shown that the stipendiary magistrates in Ireland were willing tools in the hands of the Tory Party, and the more willing they were the better chance they had of promotion. It was singular to him that it was only when a Tory Government came into office that it was found that these men had been acting illegally. This Bill should not be allowed to pass without a Division. Many of these stipendiary magistrates had little knowledge of the law or experience of its administration, and they had merely been pitchforked into their positions.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I rise to a point of order. Are the qualifications of the resident magistrates in point? The question is how magistrates administering the Licensing Act should be described.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the Attorney General had explained that the object of the Bill was to confer certain powers which the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that these magistrates could not exercise. Therefore, surely their qualifications were in order.
  MR. SPEAKER: On the face of it the object of the Bill is to change the name, but I understand the effect will be to give the resident magistrates a greater jurisdiction. If that is so, the remarks of the hon. Member are in order.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: Not greater jurisdiction. But inasmuch as the Queen's Bench held that an ordinary stipendiary magistrate was not a resident magistrate, there was no one qualified to exercise jurisdiction under the Licensing Act.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the object of the Bill is to confer jurisdiction in Licensing matters, it is competent for hon. Members to speak of the qualifications of these magistrates. [Nationalist cheers.]
  MR. DALYsaid, that he did not object to the word "removable" or even "resident" magistrate, but he did object to these gentlemen being termed Stipendiaries. Having had experience of the way in which these officials had treated the people in the past, he could not, consistently with his duty, allow this Bill to pass its present stage, and he accordingly moved that it be read a Second time that day six months.
  DR. TANNERhad great pleasure in seconding the Amendment. The First Lord of the Treasury and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sat beside him were trying to relieve each other, but the extraordinary thing that this House had to take into consideration—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to any question before the House.
  DR. TANNER: All I want, Sir—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
  DR. TANNER: Thank you Sir, I am very much obliged.
  MR. J. DILLONobserved that the Chief Secretary had denied that the whole effect of this Bill would be to change the name of Resident to that of Stipendiary Magistrates; but he himself believed that would be the effect of the Measure. The whole difficulty had arisen because in the Act of 1872 these men were called Stipendiary Magistrates, and the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that the expression Stipendiary Magistrate did not include a Resident Magistrate. It was now proposed to enact that the former expression should include a Resident Magistrate, and if that was agreed to, Resident Magistrates would drop their

  529
  present appellation, and call themselves Stipendiary Magistrates, because under the name of Resident Magistrates they had gained their unpopularity in Ireland. It might naturally he concluded that the Government had not introduced this Bill for the sole purpose of pleasing the Resident Magistrates by changing their name. Simple as the Bill looked, they had now discovered its object. A decision of the Court of Queen's Bench had taken out of the hands of Resident Magistrates in Ireland certain important powers and functions, and it was proposed in this innocent little Bill, introduced late at night, to restore these important functions to the Resident Magistrates. The Attorney General informed them that there would be nobody to administer the Licensing Act of 1872 if they did not pass this Bill and restore these functions to the Irish Resident Magistrates. He fancied that certain proceedings he had witnessed at Licensing Sessions were carried on under the Licensing Act of 1872. He wondered was it under that Act the present First Lord of the Treasury, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, brought into the town of Tipperary every Resident Magistrate that could be whipped up for 30 or 40 miles around, for the purpose of denying licences to Nationalist publicans. If the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench should deprive the Government of that power to persecute unfortunate Nationalist publicans, he for one should hesitate before he did anything to restore it. If, however, the Government would give them an undertaking that the scandals which were witnessed under the administration of the present First Lord of the Treasury when he was Chief Secretary, and when these Resident Magistrates were used for such purposes as those he had described, should no longer take place, and that the Bench would not be packed with Resident Magistrates for the purposes of the Licensing Act, as was done in the old days, then they might consider whether it might not be possible for the Irish Members to withdraw their opposition to the Bill. So long as these men were to be used for the purpose of persecution, and brought out of their district to pack the Bench, so long ought they to offer every kind of opposition they possibly could to any increase which it
  530
  was proposed to give to the power of these Resident Magistrates. Until he heard a more satisfactory explanation of the purposes of the Bill, he, for his part, would oppose it in every way he possibly could.
  MR. LOUGHsaid, he was accustomed to the word "Stipendiary" and therefore, he had a prejudice to start with in favour of the Bill. He would retain the name of Stipendiary, and he did not think it ought to be swept away. He wanted to ask a question or two about the Bill. He wanted to know why it was retrospective in its operations. He was always jealous about Bills that were retrospective. Then there was another mysterious provision which said "unless the contrary intention appears," the words Resident Magistrate must always take the place of the word "Stipendiary." Who was to judge whether the contrary intention appeared or not? Altogether the Bill seemed to be mysterious, and he could not in the least understand why the Bill had been introduced here. The suggestion that gave him the most uneasiness was that these Magistrates were to interfere with licensing sessions. His hon. Friend had suggested that these Resident Magistrates generally refused licences to Nationalists. He would not quarrel with that, for he believed that the more licences that were refused the better, but he did not think they were in a position to discuss the Bill with the information they had got, and he thought a little more light might very well be thrown upon it.
  MR. D. KILBRIDEsaid, he should like to know why the Attorney General did not specifically set out in the Bill his statement that its object was to give effect to the decision of the Queen's Bench under the Licensing Act of 1872, that they did not consider Resident Magistrates as Stipendiary Magistrates, and that some difficulty had therefore been caused in the administration of that Act. The Bill provided, as far as he could see at first sight, that the word Resident should be synonymous with the word Stipendiary under any Act, whether passed before or after the Act of 1872. What was the necessity for that? The Attorney General had not explained the necessity for the change, nor had he shown any case for it. Perhaps if the hon. and learned

  531
  Gentleman had confined himself to the necessities of the case which had arisen under this decision, Members on that side of the House might not have opposed the Bill, but he had not done so. From their experience of these Resident Magistrates, they had no reason for extending their jurisdiction or their powers. On the contrary, they were very much inclined to confine both their powers and the area over which their powers might extend. It was a notorious fact in Ireland that the gentlemen who had been appointed to this position had been partisan and political appointments, though it was supposed that they had been appointed for the purpose of directing the local bench on questions of law. In these circumstances one would naturally suppose that these gentlemen had enjoyed a legal training. Instead, however, of lawyers, men had been appointed who had spent most of their time in India or South Africa, returning to Ireland to get a snug position as Resident Magistrate. If Resident Magistrates must be appointed in Ireland for the purpose of directing the bench on points of law, then the best men ought to be appointed, irrespective of what their politics might be. He heartily supported the Motion.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,said that the discussion was little more than a question about words. Last year the Stipendiary Magistrate was always held to include Resident Magistrate, but on a technical ground it appeared that this practice was illegal. The Government sought to remove that technical objection. It was objected that the Bill did not set forth what powers would be conferred on Resident Magistrates. He was not aware whether there were any other cases except those arising under the Licensing Act of 1872, but if the Second Reading was accepted he promised in Committee to set forth the Acts under which the Resident Magistrates received powers under this Bill, which they did not at present possess.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to alter the status of the men known as Resident Magistrates. The Stipendiary Magistrate was supposed to be a gentleman of legal training, knowledge, and experience,
  532
  versed in the law, and competent to administer it. The Resident Magistrate was quite of a different class; he might be a gentleman of knowledge and experience in the law, or he might not; in the vast majority of cases he was not. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make it appear as if this was a slight emendation of the law, to deal with the Licensing Act of 1872. The matters dealt with under this Act were such matters as illicit sales, adulteration, licences for six days, the question of entry, etc. Resident Magistrates in Ireland were often sent to localities where they had never been before, and sometimes the object of their being sent was to punish Nationalist publicans, whose political convictions constituted their chief offence. He could tell the House something about Captain Segrave—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going too far. He is going into an account of the conduct of a particular Resident Magistrate some years ago. That can hardly have any bearing upon the general question whether Resident Magistrates should have the powers of stipendiary magistrates.
  MR. FLYNNconcluded by moving the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. J. TULLYargued that the result of giving a Resident Magistrate sitting alone the proposed power to try cases under the Licensing Acts would be to exclude local opinion as represented by the local magistrates' bench. They had had bitter quarrels with local magistrates in the past, but in spite of that the bulk of the people would prefer the continued administration of the licensing laws affecting publicans by local justices rather than be placed at the mercy of Resident Magistrates, a great many of whom had no knowledge of the districts to which they were sent to administer the law. When local magistrates sat with a resident magistrate to administer the licensing law, no complaint was made, but it would be very different if the local magistrates were dispensed with.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  MR. SPEAKER: This is a very short and simple Bill. It has been

  533
  thoroughly discussed, and I think the House ought now to come to a decision upon it.
  Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 181; Noes, 51.—(Division List, No. 131.)
  Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 179; Noes, 49.—(Division List, No. 132.)
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 47.—(Division List, No. 133.)
  Bill read a Second time, and committed for Thursday.

  BURGLARY BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  CONCILIATION (TRADE DISPUTES) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  SUPPLY [1st MAY].
  Resolutions reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART- MENTS ESTIMATES, 1896–7.

  CLASS III.
  1. "That a sum, not exceeding £38,182, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, Queen's Proctor, and Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency,"—
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid, he should move to reduce the item
  534
  for the Law Officers' Department by the sum of £100, as a protest against the present system of remunerating the Law Officers of the Crown partly by salary and partly by fees. The system adopted by the present Government of paying the Law Officers a certain sum, and in consideration of the comparative smallness of that sum, permitting them to charge fees for contentious Government business, was open to great objection. Under the late Government the Law Officers were paid wholly by salary; they did the whole of the Government business for that salary, and that course was more satisfactory in every way. [Cries of "Divide!"] Besides, if the Law Officers charged fees, who fixed the amount of those fees? And who decided when fees were to be charged or not? There were cases sometimes in which the presence of the Law Officers might not really be needed, but if they chose to appear they would, under the present arrangements, get the fees. He objected to this system especially as a Scotch Member, because the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General for Scotland had fixed salaries and were not paid anything in respect of fees for contentious business. Why should there be different rules affecting this matter in England and Scotland?
  DR. TANNERseconded the Amendment.
  DR. CLARKin supporting the Motion said, the position was unsatisfactory. The Law Officers of the Crown in the various countries held their positions under various tenures. He thought there was a great deal to be said for allowing the Law Officers to take private practice if they had time at their disposal after the discharge of their public duties. It would at least keep up their knowledge of the law. [Laughter.] But it was a grievance to Scotland that after paying their own legal officers they should help to pay a portion of the salaries of the English officers, and he would, therefore, support his hon. Friend in the Division Lobbies.
  Question put, "That '£38,182' stand part of the Resolution."
  The House divided:— Ayes, 148; Noes, 39.—(Division List No. 134.)
  Resolution agreed to.
  2. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses."
  3. "That a sum, not exceeding £204,534, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1897, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Supreme Court of Judicature as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  Resolutions agreed to,

  SUPPLY.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday.
  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  CABS (LONDON) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  TELEGRAPH MONEY BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS BILL
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EDUCATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  TEACHERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
  COUNTY AUDITORS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 14th May.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 4th June.
  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1887) REPEAL BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  HOUSES IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 4th June.
  RIGHTS OF WAY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5th June.
  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Thursday.
  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (MARKS) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee (18th March) further adjourned till Friday.
  TROUT FISHING CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday, 3rd June.
  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND LABOURERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  PLACES OF WORSHIP (LEASEHOLD ENFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  INCUMBENTS OF BENEFICES LOANS EXTENSION BILL.— [H.L.]
  Read a Second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Five minutes before One o'clock.

DEYTHEUR GRAMMAR SCHOOL.
Her Majesty's Answer to the Address of the 3rd day of March last delivered by the Lord Steward (Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery), and read as follows—namely:
"I have received your Address praying that I will withhold my consent from the scheme for the management of the Deytheur Grammar School in the parish of Llansaintffraid, Montgomeryshire.
"I will comply with your advice."

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to make better provision for the regulation of chimney sweepers—Was presented by the Lord Teynham; Read 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 81.]
ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDI- TIONAL ENDOWMENT) BILL [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Thursday next.
METROPOLITAN COUNTIES WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
House to be in Committee on Monday the 18th instant.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY)THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY) Moved—"That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
THE EARL OF LEVEN AND MELVILLE, in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, said that it had undoubtedly been drafted on the Report of an exceptionally strong Committee. But the subject with which the
410
Bill dealt was of the gravest and widest importance to the commercial prosperity of this country. It touched the whole of the country's joint-stock enterprise, the paid-up capital of which was estimated by the Committee at 1,035 millions sterling. The object of the Bill was to discourage and prevent the formation of rotten companies, and to punish reckless directors and promoters, and to that purpose no one would object. But in carrying it out there was one great danger which must not be lost sight of—namely, the discouragement of good and honest directors. The Committee reported that the majority of companies were honestly formed to carry out legitimate enterprises, and that the business was conducted honestly and with reasonable ability and judgment. It would be a serious matter if these satisfactory results were interfered with in an attempt to protect a minority of uninquiring shareholders from the consequences of their own inaction. Clause 10 of the Bill laid it down that the directors should be personally liable to make good any loss resulting from their not using reasonable care and prudence in the exercise of their duties. Now these duties were nowhere closely defined, and there was an uncertainty which, under the existing law, deterred many first-rate men from taking directorships. On that ground he specially asked that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It was after the event that a director's action was judged; and that fact itself conveyed an uncertainty and risk which very few prudent men would take. An ordinary sound business company might have to spend money liberally in buying up opposition, and if it did not succeed after all there might be a grave question as to whether its directors had employed reasonable prudence. The loss of good directors would be a very serious thing to the joint-stock enterprise of the country; and while these risks and penalties might deter good directors they would have very little effect on the reckless and impecunious men, who had nothing to lose. The late Mr. W. H. Smith told the story of a person of small possessions and large family, whom he warned against the imprudence of risking his all in a company of unlimited liability. The man's answer was that, because of the

411
risk, he earned a much better income than he otherwise could, and that if he were ruined, he had nothing to lose. He hoped his Motion would be accepted by the House, and he believed that the reference to a Select Committee would in no way delay the Bill, as it was out of the question that it could pass this Session.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYsaid that he had no intention of opposing the Motion, which, he thought, would commend itself to the House. He heartily approved of the Bill as a whole, but he had been asked to represent to the House the views of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, of which he had the honour to be president. That Chamber represented about 100 limited liability companies, including three local banks with a capital representing not less than £15,000,000; and was composed of some of the ablest business men in the United Kingdom; and it was, therefore, a body entitled to some consideration. Within the last few hours he had received communications from the City of Cork Chamber of Commerce, who associated themselves with the representations of the Belfast Chamber, and asked him to express them to the House of Lords. He need not say that he appreciated sincerely the honour which the Cork Chamber had done him in asking him to be their spokesman. Both Chambers heartily approved of the object of the Bill; but they thought it eminently unwise in attempting to place impassable barriers in the way of fraud to damage and restrict the beneficial operation of the Companies Acts. The vast majority of companies were honest, and the Belfast Chamber hoped that the most extreme care would be taken not to hamper honest companies by so penalising the management as to place them at a disadvantage with private traders. Over regulation would make the difficulty of procuring solvent directors of character and capability so great that the companies would fall under the direction of men who might be insolvent and incapable, but who would certainly be reckless as to the consequences to themselves. The Belfast Chamber objected to Clause 10 of the Bill, and to the words "reasonable care and prudence" to which the noble Lord had called attention.
412
He had put down an Amendment providing that a director should be liable to make good any loss arising from culpable negligence or wilful default, but a director keeping within the limits of his authority and acting bonâ fide to the best of his judgment should not be liable for losses arising from any act done in that capacity. The Belfast Chamber pointed out many instances in which the Bill as it stood would be detrimental. For instance, a bank director might sanction an overdraft to a client who was perfectly solvent, but whom unforseen circumstances suddenly rendered insolvent, and the director would, under the Bill, be held responsible. Clause 10 would prevent private concerns from taking advantage of the Companies Act, and it might possibly induce public companies to go into liquidation in order to revert to the old system of trading as private companies. The Amendment which he should have moved if the Bill had gone into Committee provided a safeguard for shareholders in the case of culpable negligence or of wilful default on the part of directors, and of a safeguard for bonâ fide directors in the case of acts outside their control, and contrary to their expectations. Mr. Harold Brown laid great stress on this point in a recent article. He said:—
"That a prospectus ought to be a fair and bonâ fide statement, according to the best judgment of the directors, of the main facts relating to the Company, and of its general prospects, everyone will agree, also that it ought not to mislead either by statement or concealment; but to make directors responsible for anything save fraudulent misstatement, or concealment, reckless or gross negligence, or misstatements not covered by the Directors' Liability Act of 1890 would go far to render the position of a director untenable, except by the fraudulent, impecunious and reckless."
The remarks of Mr. Brown are endorsed by the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, and they desired to adopt the language of the Chamber of Commerce of London that—
"The main protection to shareholders and creditors must always be the securing of honest and capable directors,"
and that provisions which appeared to require directors to expose themselves to indefinite risks and to invite attacks upon them seemed most unwise. He

413
would also propose to omit from Clause 14—which provides specific requirements as to particulars stated in a prospectus—the words "every material fact known to a director" and the words "which would influence the judgment of a prudent investor." To his mind, and to the minds of the Chamber of Commerce over which he presided, the words "which would influence the judgment of a prudent investor" were incomprehensible. Mr. Harold Brown wrote on that point:—
"It is with something akin to dismay that I see embodied in a proposed Act of Parliament a provision that every prospectus is to set forth not, only the dates and the names of the parties to every material fact, but also the short purpose and effect of every contract, and every fact which might influence the judgment of a prudent investor."
Those words were so vague and indefinite that they were certain to lead to serious litigation; and he thought some definition of them should be made in order that they might be thoroughly understood. He would also move the elimination of Clause 14, as he considered it was included in Clause 13, and as questions of a delicate and difficult character might arise under it, owing to its indefinite character. In the opinion of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, questions might arise on this clause between A and B, as between two promoters or directors. 1. Was A known to B? 2. Was some particular fact within the knowledge of B? 3. Was the fact one that should have been disclosed in the prospectus. 4. Was the fact a material fact? Again—all those questions having been answered affirmatively—5. Was there any loss or damage to A? 6. Or to the company. And if there was—7. How much was the damage? Seven absolutely indefinable issues might arise out of seven lines, with costs and litigation without limit. The Belfast Chamber of Commerce rightly hold that the necessary contents of the prospectus ought to be clearly defined or definable, and no encouragement or basis whatever should be left to litigation on the "off-chances" with men of straw on one side and directors of substance on the other. In Clause 19, he also proposed to leave out, "the holders of not less than one-tenth," in order to insert "one-tenth in number of the shareholders on
414
the register holding not less than one-fifth." He did not think it fair that any one shareholder who might hold one-tenth of the shares should be able to call, when he chose, an extraordinary meeting of the company. He hoped, in conclusion, that the objections raised by the Chambers of Commerce would be attended to before the Bill left the House.
THE EARL OF DUDLEYsaid he did not oppose the Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. It was perfectly natural that Parliament, in the case of a Bill of this kind—intimately connected as it was with the interests of the commercial community—should wish to proceed with caution and care. It should be remembered that the Bill was the outcome of a very able body of gentlemen, representing the legal and commercial interests of the country; but still, if the House considered it would be of advantage to hear, through the medium of a Select Committee, the views of those who were daily engaged in promoting and administering public companies, the Government had no objection to that course being adopted. As, however, their Lordships had, by assenting to the Second Beading of the Bill, practically approved of the main principles on which it was drawn, and having regard also to the great public interest which existed in the Bill, he hoped he would before long be in a position to ask the House to pass the Measure through its final stages. He thought that the Committee stage of the Bill was the proper time for dealing with the points of detail raised in the speeches of his noble Friends.
LORD DAVEYfeared that referring the Bill to a Select Committee would probably delay its passing into law. But he could not deny the justice of the appeal that the delicate and difficult questions in the Bill would be better considered by a Select Committee than, possibly, by a Committee of the whole House.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid he did not complain of the conclusion at which the Government had arrived, because every body would agree that the subject was not only of great importance, but of very considerable difficulty. Nobody was more convinced than he was of the necessity for some legislation of this description, but some remarks he had

415
made on the Second Reading of the Bill were very strangely misunderstood to indicate a lukewarmness on the subject. All he had intended to do was to point to the fact that no legislation of this kind could take the place of that prudence and care which people ought to exercise, and that the more they could drive it into the minds of the public that a high rate of interest necessarily involved a risk to the capital the better. Of course it was quite consistent with that view that one should have the strongest desire to prevent any thing that would be dishonest, or even unfair, or calculated to do wrong. The difficulty in legislation of this kind always was to hit the right medium. They wanted to prevent what was unfair and injurious; they did not want to prevent what was legitimate; and it was not an easy matter so to draw the line as to secure the one without sometimes running some risk in regard to the other. It was the bounden duty of Parliament when grave evils had been made manifest, as they had in regard to some companies, to use their utmost endeavour to put such legislation on the Statute-book as would in the highest possible degree minimise them in the future. He rose to make a practical suggestion. The reference of the Bill to a Select Committee might render it impossible to pass in its entirety this year a Measure of this description. He was not sure, even apart from that, it was by any means certain that there was a prospect of such a Bill being passed, because it necessarily involved many topics giving rise to considerable controversy, and touching deeply so many interests that the provisions of the Bill were sure to be thoroughly threshed out in the other House. The committal of the time of the other House was already considerable; and it could only be at a late period of the Session this Bill could receive attention there. Therefore, he could not help suggesting to the Government, to consider whether it would not be desirable to attempt to pass at least only provisions which were urgently called for, and would not give rise to substantial controversy. Among these were the conditions of allotment, the requirements as to what should be in a
416
prospectus, the provisions for the winding-up of illegal companies, and others. These might be framed so as to stop the growth of present evils, and at the same time not to give rise to considerable controversy. That would leave over the more controversial matters for a subsequent Session. It was desirable to pass the provisions he had named as soon as possible for the additional reason that, as they had been suggested, there would be a risk of even greater evils than some of those which had occurred if it were known that in the meantime companies were formed of a kind and under circumstances which would soon become impossible. This was a reason, in addition to the desirability of the legislation itself, why it should take place as soon as possible. He therefore suggested that it should be an Instruuction to the Committee that they have powers to divide the Bill into two parts and report the less contentious part, so that it might be satisfactorily completed and passed.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): I do not think it necessary to take a pessimistic view of the result of referring the Bill to a Select Committee. I do not mean to say that the prospects of passing the Bill through Parliament, in view of the enormous amount of work which lies before the other House are very great, but I do not think they will be seriously damaged by the consideration of the Bill by a Committee of this House. The Bill cannot possibly be considered by the other House till late in the summer, when I confess, I hope our deliberations will be over. But I confess I think the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord seems to me to be open to some objection. It is not necessary to give the proposed Instruction to the Committee, because it is always open to the House on the Third Reading of a Bill to cut out all clauses which are necessarily contentious, and to send the Bill in its more restricted form to the other House. On the other hand, the dividing of the Bill into two parts involves, as I understand the noble Lord, the retention of that part which you are to pass of those very provisions which my noble Friend behind

417
me referred to with respect to the judgment of a prudent investor:—
"For the purposes of this section every contract and fact is material which would influence the judgment of a prudent investor determining whether he would subscribe for the shares or debentures offered by the prospectus."
Another matter in this Bill which has alarmed many in the commercial world is the tremendous penalty which is to be inflicted for a sin that is comparatively light. If a director makes any mistake, however small, or if he takes part with his brother directors in a mistake, however small, he runs the risk, if he meets with the adverse opinion of a Judge, of being condemned to make good all the losses that shareholders may show to have resulted from that error. Now, the matters with which these companies deal are so large that this probably means to an errant director not only great disgrace, but the utter destruction of his fortune. That is a very heavy penalty to inflict for a very slight mistake, and I can quite understand that there is some feeling of alarm on that point. I have no doubt noble Lords will feel, and probably all legal Members of the House will feel that the Judges will be so careful and judicious in determining the meaning of the words "reasonable and prudent" that no danger will come to an innocent man from that enactment. But we have to deal, not so much with actual danger as with the effect the apprehension of that danger may have on the minds of those who have to face it, and the fear is that there will be a panic in this matter, and that men will not, for the mere remuneration they obtain as directors run these tremendous risks, and you will find yourselves driven to men of straw as directors. I do not say this is a justified fear, but it is a fear which exists in many minds, and which we must deal with as a fact. We have not only to prevent evil, but to prevent the apprehension of evil, because the apprehension of evil will injure the working of our company system. We have hitherto relied on the maxtim caveat emptor; but this would be changed to caveat, director; and persons might not see that directors would have sufficient interest to warrant
418
them in exercising the extraordinary degree of caution that would be called for. For these reasons, I should not like to accept at once the view that this clause about the prudent investor is one of the non-contentious and accepted portions of the Bill; I should much rather that the matter were investigated by a Committee. I hope it will take the evidence and hear the views of those thoroughly acquainted with such affairs, and we have some in this House who occupy that position. Of course they can call to their aid officers of the Government who have a certain knowledge of these matters. When we are dealing with interests of the highest importance, I think we ought to hear what are the views of those who have a practical acquaintance with the working of the commerce of this country. I should, therefore, rather counsel the House to refer the matter to a Select Committee without imposing any conditions upon the action of that Committee. I believe that the labours of the Committee will be over in quite sufficient time to enable us to take advantage of any chance there may be of the Bill's passing through the other House, and we had better not restrain in any manner the freedom of their deliberations on a question that is of so much importance.
LORD HERSCHELLsaid that what the noble Marquess had suggested would entirely meet his view, which was that before the Bill left this House—[The PRIME MINISTER: "Hear, hear!"]—they would be able to consider what the chances of the Bill would be in the other House, and if expedient to send down the non-contentious part, in the hope that it would pass this Session. In making the suggestion he did not mean to imply that certain groups of clauses should be taken en bloc. In stating the objection to that course, the noble Marquess had assumed the answer he might give; but he was not sure he should have given that answer.
On the Question, that "now" stand part of the Motion, resolved in the negative; and Bill referred to a Select Committee.

LORD'S DAY ACT.
Moved:—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to further consider what Amendments it is expedient to make in the Lord's Day Act (21 Geo. III. c. 49).—(The Lord Privy Seal, Viscount Cross.)
Agreed to.
The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

Lord Chancellor.

Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.

Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cross).

Earl Cowper.

Lord Bishop of Winchester.

Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.

Lord Kinnaird.

Lord Hobhouse.

Lord Thring.

Lord Ashcombe.

Lord Farrer.

The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.

SAFETY OF NURSE CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
LORD HERSCHELL, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it had been promoted by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The Secretary to the Society was shortly to be examined before the Committee which was considering the Infant Life Protection Bill, and it was thought desirable that they should have the proposals made by the Society before them. His only object in asking for the Second Reading of the Bill was to move immediately afterwards that it be referred to the Select Committee to which the Infant Life Protection Bill had been referred.
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the same Select Committee to which the Infant Life Protection Bill [H. L.] stands referred.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Friday next.

DIVORCE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Monday next.
House adjourned at Twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock,