Sitting of 20 May 1897

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  LLANDUDNO URBAN DTSTRTCT COUNCIL BILL.
  Considered as amended.
  Clause 2,—

  POWER TO SET APART LANDS FOR GAMES.
  (1) The Council may set apart for cricket, football, golf, and other games portions of any park or place of public resort or recreation for the time being belonging to or held by them (other than the recreation ground known as the Happy Valley), and may purchase or take on lease additional lands and lay out and improve and set apart the same, or any portion thereof, for the like purposes, so, however, that all lands so set apart shall be open to the public when not in use for such games.
  (2) The Council may make bye-laws for regulating the use of any lands so set apart, provided that no bye-law which shall restrict any existing right to military user shall have effect until approved by the Secretary of State for War.
  (3) The Council may erect, provide, and maintain on any such lands set apart for games and recreation any pavilion or pavilions, building or buildings, or any refreshment or other room or rooms or conveniences connected therewith.
  (4) The Council may make, or authorize others to make, such charges as the Council may deem reasonable for admission to such pavilions and buildings or refreshment rooms or other room or rooms or conveniences connected therewith, or may let on lease for any term not exceeding five years, any such pavilions or buildings or refreshment rooms or other room or rooms or conveniences connected therewith.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)moved in Sub-section (2) to leave out the words "any existing right to military user" in order to insert the words "the military user in case of national or local emergency."
  MR. REGINALD McKENNAsaid that, as a member of the Police and Sanitary Committee before whom the Bill had come, he objected to the proposed Amendment. When the
  904
  Bill originally came before the Committee it contained the words now sought to be inserted, and they were informed that they were inserted in it at the instance of the War Office with the consent of the promoters of the Measure. The difficulty in which the Committee found themselves placed was that if they retained the words in the question they would be either sanctioning an important alteration of the law or be making a declaration of the existing law. In the latter case, of course, the words now sought to he inserted were absolutely unnecessary, and, moreover, the Committee were directly prohibited from making such a declaration by a Resolution of that House. On the other hand, if by retaining the words they would be making an alteration in the existing law, and would be conferring new powers upon the War Office, they believed that such an alteration of the law should be effected by means of a public Bill and not by a clause in a Private Measure. It was on that ground that they had struck out the words which it was now sought to reinsert. The House was aware that the Police and Sanitary Committee, although not absolutely bound to do so, felt themselves constraned to act upon certain rules of procedure, under one of which they would not allow to be introduced into a Private Bill any proposal to alter the general law of the land, unless the peculiar local circumstances were such as to induce them to make a change in that law. The question before the Committee, therefore, was, was there any peculiarity in the local circumstances of Llandųdno as would entitle the War Office to have powers over the open spaces of the district other than those which they had over such open spaces in the country generally. The Committee had come to the conclusion that there were no such special circumstances in the case as would justify them in giving the special power asked for by the War Office. Had the Committee acted otherwise than they did, what reasons could they have given to the House in their Report for making this change in the general law of the land in this particular Private Bill? It it were thought desirable that the War Office should have these special powers over open spaces all over the country, the right hon. Gentleman should

  905
  bring forward a public Bill upon the subject, and not seize upon the opportunity for giving them in reference to a particular locality afforded by the introduction of a private Bill. The Committee objected to the promoters of private Bills being compelled, under the threat of having their measures opposed by the War Department, to assent to any terms which the War Office might choose to impose upon them. In one instance the Under Secretary for War had written a letter to the Chairman of Committees instructing him to take such steps as he thought necessary to require a Select Committee appointed by that House to introduce into a private Bill such changes in the general law of the land which were desired by the Department without any special reasons being given for that course being adopted. On these grounds, on behalf of the Committee of which he had the honour of being a member, and also in defence of the privileges of that House, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the Amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman pressed the matter he should be compelled to divide the House on the question. ["Hear, hear !"]
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid that the hon. Gentleman opposite had endeavoured to make a great deal out of what was, after all, but a very simple question. The various local authorities frequently came to that House, asking for powers to deal with open spaces in their districts, and the War Office thought it only right that in such cases power should be reserved to the Department to use the lands so dealt with for military purposes in case of local or national emergencies. The hon. Member complained that the War Office had been asking for special legislation by means of this Bill. There was no demand for special legislation at all; on the contrary, the clause had been accepted by the promoters of the Bill; as had been the case in other similar Bills. The contention of the Department was that it was necessary to reserve power to the War Office to use open spaces in case of national or local emergencies. The mayor of a town might telegraph for troops for the purpose of assisting the police in the maintenance of local order, and the troops sent in compliance with that request might find themselves without shelter and without any place but the streets to remain in.
  906
  Such a state of things would be most inconvenient from every point of view. It was, moreover, usually of importance that the troops should be so placed as to be out of sight of the public and out of the range of missiles which might be thrown until their services were actually required. As there were in most instances no barracks in which they could obtain shelter for the night, it was both desirable and necessary that they should be encamped on such open spaces as were available for the purpose. In his opinion, the Committee had taken a very narrow view of their functions in connection with this matter, and had struck out these words against the wish of the promoters. He hoped that the House would insert the Amendment he had moved in the Bill. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that, although he agreed that the War Office should have power to make use of open spaces for military purposes in times of local or national emergencies, he thought that such power should be conferred by a public and not by a private Bill. He believed that under the common law of the land the War Office already possessed such a power in the case, at all events, of national emergencies, and that in any case the Department would not hesitate to use the lands if necessity required. If the hon. Member opposite divided, he should vote against the Amendment. ["Hear, hear !"]
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILLhoped that the House would not accept the Amendment. He objected to pressure by the War Office being brought to bear upon small localities to consent to the insertion of such clauses in their private Bills. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. T. R. LEUTYsaid that those who represented small districts were sure to give way to pressure from the War Office in order to smooth the way for their Bills. He trusted that the House would support the decision of their Committee to strike out these words. ["Hear !"]
  MR. W. JONESsuggested that the matter should be postponed until fuller information on the matter could be laid before the House.
  *MR. SYDNEY GEDGEthought that the objections to the proposal of the War Office had been very

  907
  much exaggerated. The War Office was not asking for additional powers. The Town Council was doing so, and the War Office proposed a limitation in the public interest. If this Amendment were rejected and the War Office required to use the lands under its common law right, it would be met by a bye-law having the force of an Act of Parliament unless it could prove the state of things at the time of passing the Act. Inter arma silent leges, and no difficulty ought to be put in the way of the troops in cases of emergency.
  Question put "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 96; Noes, 124.—(Division List No. 211.) Words inserted.
  Bill to be Read the Third time.

QUESTIONS.

  FISHERY CRUISERS.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the names of the cruisers engaged in protecting the interests of line fishermen off the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland respectively?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. W. G. E. MACARTNEY,): The vessels so employed at present are the Jackel, Daisy, Hearty, Onyx, Leda, Beatrice, and Spanker, off the coast of Great Britain, and the Flora off the coast of Ireland.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the fact that, under the Public Health (Scotland) Bill, the majority of the black houses in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland will be liable to be condemned as insanitary dwellings, will he consider the advisability of introducing into the Congested Districts Bill a provision rendering the crofters and fishermen
  908
  assistance in the erection of suitable dwellings?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. GRAHAM MURRAY,): The point raised by the hon. Member will have the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Session a Bill to deal with the grant in aid of congested districts in the Highlands arid Islands of Scotland; and, if so, will he state when the Bill will be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I hope this Bill will be introduced in the course of the present Session. Whether time will be found for its discussion depends upon the reception, it meets with from hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. WEIRasked at what date the Bill would be introduced?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I hope before Whitsuntide.

  BALLINAMORE CANAL.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can state the facts that led up to the seizure of the Ballinamore Canal; whether there is any possibility of its redemption, considering that it forms an important link in the waterway from the north-western to the southwestern counties of Ireland, and in whose hands it now is vested; and, can he state the revenue, if any, derived from it?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. W. HANBUBY,): I regret that I cannot state the facts asked for, which led up to the seizure of this Canal—as it has never been seized. The facts as to its present abandoned condition, which are perhaps what the hon. Member desires to know, are these— It was finished in 1859 at a cost of £229,000. Of this sum the adjoining counties paid £30,000 and the remaining £199,000 was a free grant from the Exchequer. In 1860 it was handed over to local trustees. They advertised in vain for persons to establish boats upon it, and no use was made of it. Only five years later, in 1865, the Grand

  909
  Jury of County Cavan formally "expressed their unanimous sense of the utter inutility of this Navigation" and earnestly hoped that the Board of Works would not oblige them to maintain it as it "had boon fully proved to be totally valueless to the County." From the first there was no traffic worth mentioning, and from 1865 it was allowed to go from bad to worse, until in 1882 the Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into the Navigation between Coleraine, Belfast, and Limerick declared that it was in a condition of absolute uselessness. They reported that, while it would be useful as an arterial drain, it would, if restored, be of little benefit to the public for navigation, there would be no profitable traffic on it, and the local ratepayers would not support it. It is still in the hands of the local trustees, and of course no revenue is derived from the Navigation.
  MR. JOHN DILLON: Was not that canal charged against Ireland?
  MR. HANBURY: That is another question. I cannot answer it now.

  POST OFFICE (LEWIS).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to fact that the Postmaster General notified on the 29th ultimo that the extension of telegraphic facilities carries with it the extension of money order and savings bank business, is he aware that while the offices at Bach, Balallan, Barvas, Crossbost, Garrabost, and Portnagurran, Island of Lewis, are open for the transaction, of telegraph business, neither money order nor savings bank business is transacted at these offices; and, will he arrange for money order and savings bank business to be conducted at these offices at an early date?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is aware that neither money order nor savings bank business is transacted at the offices in question. It is the fact that, as a general rule, post offices which are telegraph offices do transact money order and savings bank business; but there are many exceptions to this rule, and the offices named by the him. Member are amongst the number.
  910
  As he has already been informed by letter, the transaction of money order and savings bank business can be authorised if a separate guarantee in that respect is forthcoming.

  STAMP ILLUSTRATIONS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General,(1) whether the Mulready stamp, the black penny stamp, and other postage stamps of the whole, issues are still available for postage purposes; (2) whether, for some months past, the Postmaster General and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have insisted that stamp dealers and others shall desist from publishing miniature and other size illustrations of these stamps, in black or otherwise, in their catalogues; (3) whether it is within the knowledge of the authorities that an illustration of the Mulready stamp is being largely distributed by the promoters of the Philatelic Exhibition, of which the Postmaster General is one of the patrons; (4) whether such imitations or illustrations are contrary to the regulations specifically laid down by the Post Office permanent officials and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and, if so, why a special exception has been made in this particular case, whilst stringent regulations are made against illustrations brought out by English Stamp dealers; (5) whether he is aware that vast numbers of catalogues containing illustrations of English stamps made in Germany, come by post to this country, the sale of which are not, and cannot be, interfered with; and (6) whether the Post Office officials can point to any case in which fraud against the Post Office has arisen, out of black illustrations of stamps which have appeared in the catalogues of English stamp dealers; and, if not, what is the reason of the present action of the Post Office?
  MR. HANBURY: The answers to the first two paragraphs of the Question are in the affirmative. It became known to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue within the last few days, that an illustration of the Mulready stamp was being distributed as stated in the Question. The Postmaster General is a patron of the Philatelic Exhibition, but he was not consulted as to the issue of this

  911
  imitation, and was not aware of its issue until informed of it by the Commissioners. He has informed them that he hopes no special exception will be made in favour of the Philatelic Exhibition. In preventing, as far as they can, the imitation of any postage stamps, whether of the United Kingdom, or of any colony or foreign country, the Postmaster General and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (with whom the enforcements of the law rests) are governed by the reasons which led Parliament to pass the 7th Section of the Post Office Protection Act, 1884, and which led Her Majesty's Government to enter into Article XVIII. of the Universal Postal Union Convention of Vienna, 1891. Nothing, but certain legal doubts, removed by the decision of the High Court in "Dickens v. Gill" a year ago, have prevented a stricter enforcement of the law of which warning was given to all known stamp dealers by public notice in November 1885. In the opinion of the Postmaster General and Commissioners of Inland Revenue there is grave risk if dies capable of producing exact imitations of postage stamps in black and white are allowed to be used by unauthorised persons, and a foreign Government has more than once pressed this view upon the attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is the case that fictitious stamps and materials for making them are imported into this country. The Judges commented upon this in "Dickens v. Gill," and nothing but the want of a convenient opportunity for legislation has prevented the introduction of a clause to deal with the matter by amending the Customs Consolidation Act.

  POST OFFICE ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. T. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General, whether, whereas under the Tweedmouth Report only two medical examinations were required for men on probation for appointment to sorterships, many who have already passed two examinations are now required to pass a third; and whether, if this be so, the Postmaster General will see his way to remove this obligation in the case of existing probationers?
  MR. HANBURY: The Tweedmouth Committee recommended that the probationary period of two years with three medical examinations should be reduced to one year with two medical examinations one at the beginning, and the other at the end of the period. Under the old system the intermediate examination was not quite so stringent as the other two, and the Postmaster General fears that it will not be possible to regard it as satisfying the requirements which the Tweedmouth Committee had in view. All concerned will, therefore, still have to undergo the final examination which is necessary before their appointments can be confirmed; but the probationers who have not passed the intermediate examination will of course be relieved from the obligation of undergoing it.
  MR. T. R. LEUTY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, has the Postmaster General considered the advisability of dispensing with guarantee from officers entitled to pension, as recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee; and, has the Post Office adopted the efficiency barrier, recommended by the Committee to be imposed when the wage is forty shillings, or is it likely that it will be adopted; if so, will the Postmaster General give information as to the nature of the barrier?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of these guarantees is under consideration, but the Postmaster General is not yet in a position to come to any decision. The efficiency bar referred to by the hon. Member has been adopted. The terms of the certificate under which an officer can pass that bar have been communicated to the heads of branches and surveyors; they are as follows:—
  "I certify that the officer named in the accompanying schedule is fully qualified to perform the highest duties of his class; that his attendance is regular, and that his conduct is in every respect satisfactory. There are no (or the following) official records of cases reported to head quarters against him."

  EDUCATION CENTER SUPERINTENDENTS (IRELAND.)
  MR. MICHAEL FLAVIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that on application to the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Board only

  913
  four copies could be obtained of a Return giving the names of centre superintendents; and whether, owing to the importance of the Return, as is shown by several hon. Members applying for the same, the Return will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The only application made to the Commissioners of Intermediate Education for copies of the Return in question was that made by the hon. Member himself, who, I am informed, was supplied with four copies, all they had to spare at the time. The Return is not considered to be of sufficient importance to lay on the Table as a Parliamentary Paper, but I have no doubt the Commissioners, if application be made to them by other hon. Members for copies of the Return, will be prepared to procure an additional supply.

  QUEEN'S DIAMOND JUBILEE.
  CAPTAIN CHALONER: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can see his way to grant special passes to Members of the House of Commons on Jubilee Day, to enable them to obtain access to their stands without having to start at an unreasonable hour in the morning?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The Question of my hon. and gallant Friend should properly have been addressed to the Home Secretary, who has desired me to say that no special passes will be given, but the police will have instructions to facilitate the passage of all those holding tickets for the House of Commons stand to their seats. Due notice will be given as to the hour at which all persons must be in their places.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the many interests represented in the cycling world, the Government will grant facilities for a monster Diamond Jubilee Cycle Demonstration, organised by the Cyclists' Parliamentary and Municipal Association, to be held in Hyde Park on Saturday 19th June; and whether, on that occasion, police could be placed
  914
  on duty for the better maintenance of order along the route?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to answer this Question as it affects the Royal parks. A similar request was made to and declined by me some weeks ago. I regret that I cannot reconsider the matter, and must again refuse to authorise such a demonstration in Hyde Park.
  SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, among the Members of the Colonial Services for whom seats are to be provided to view the Procession on Jubilee Day, any provision will be made for Members of the Indian Civil and Military Services?
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I have promised to place at the disposal of the India Office as many seats as can fairly be allotted to that Department, and, further, to find if possible some seats for the services specially alluded to by my hon. Friend. The distribution of tickets will be made by the authorities of the India Office.
  MR. J. H. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if, in view of the impracticability of obtaining anything like a full attendance of children at public elementary schools during the school week ending 25th June It 1897, of the consequent loss in grants payable on average attendance, and of the risk of not fulfilling the minimum number of school openings required by the code if schools be closed during the said week as well as during the customary vacations of the year, he is now in a position to intimate that in the opinion of the Committee of Council the week ending 25th June ought to be made a children's holiday, and that for school years which include that week the minimum number of school openings required as a condition of the grants will be 390 and not 400?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,): The Committee of Council will leave the matter to the discretion of the managers. There will, in ordinary cases, be no difficulty in making up the 400 openings required.

  KASSALA.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will be able to make any statement to the House with regard to negotiations with Italy as to the occupation of Kassala by Egypt?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. G. CURZON,): The Italian Government, who have acted with the utmost friendliness and consideration, have informed Her Majesty's Government that they do not desire to maintain their occupation of Kassala, but are anxious to consult the convenience of the British and Egyptian Governments as to the period of withdrawal. Her Majesty's Government have expressed their cordial acknowledgments, and the matter remains under discussion between the two Governments.

  QUEEN'S BIRTHDAY (MODEL SCHOOLS, IRELAND).
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Queen's Birthday, the 24th May, will be observed as a holiday in the Model Schools in Minister and throughout Ireland?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The reply to this Question is in the affirmative.

  EVICTION (DURNASCALLON, COUNTY DERRY).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the circumstances which led to the eviction of James O'Neill, of Dumascallon, Desertmartin, Co. Derry, in January 1896; whether he is aware that O'Neill has applied under the Land Act of last Session to the Land Commission to use their good offices as mediators between O'Neill and his landlord with a view to his reinstatement; and whether the Land Commission took any steps to bring about the reinstatement of O'Neill; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: O'Neill was evicted after the 1st January 1896, and the Land Commissioners have no
  916
  power, therefore, to proceed with his application. The provisions of Section 17 of the Land Act of last year would only apply if the eviction had taken place before the 1st January 1896.

  HONITON NATIONAL SCHOOLS.
  MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Department has received a complaint from parents Of scholars in the Honiton National School that on the 12th ultimo their children were without their knowledge taken with the other scholars to a service in St. Paul's Church, the service being held during the time allotted to religious instruction, and such parents having desired the withdrawal of their children from such instruction; and whether the Department will take steps to prevent the recurrence of a similar proceeding?
  SIR J. GORST: Complaints have been received from two parents, and the Committee of Council are at present in communication with the managers of the school.

  SCHOOL BOARDS (LOANS).
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education how much of the sum of £16,522,393 stated in the Education Report for 1895–96 to have been borrowed by School Boards from the Public Works Loan Commissioners had been repaid, such information having been given in previous Reports; and whether the Department will give similar information in the Report for 1896–97?
  SIR J. GORST: The amount actually borrowed from the Public Works Loan Commissioners was £17,940,913, of which £6,167,567 has been repaid. The information was omitted because misleading, a large portion of the repayments being met by re-borrowing.

  MACROOM GUARDIANS (REMOVAL OF SICK PAUPERS).
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the

  917
  case of a pauper named Jeremiah Donovan, who having been a paralytic inmate of the Macroom Workhouse for eight years, was recently transferred to Clonakilty by car and rail in a most feeble and destitute condition at the expense of the Macroom Guardians; whether he is aware that the Macroom Guardians provided him with a new suit of clothes, a car to Bandon, and money for the journey, and that a relieving officer of the Clonakilty Union found it necessary to take him to hospital on his arrival at Clonakilty; and whether such transference by and at the expense of the Macroom Guardians is legal; and if not what steps will be taken to relieve the Clonakilty Union of the expense incurred in the maintenance of this pauper pending his removal to Macroom workhouse?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My attention had not been previously directed to the circumstances attending the removal of Donovan from the Macroom workhouse. "With the view of ascertaining the actual facts of the case, the Local Government Board's Inspector for the district has been instructed to hold an Inquiry, and the result of his investigation will be communicated to me in due course.

  LABOURES' COTTAGES (IRELAND).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is great need for labourers' cottages in the village and townland of Kilmanagh, in the Callan Union, and that the applications of two labourers in Kilmanagh named Walsh and Fitzgerald were refused by the Local Government Board inspector first on the grounds that two other cottages built by the union were not occupied for some time after the erection, and secondly that Walsh and Fitzgerald were unmarried; whether these are valid reasons for refusing to erect cottages where they are wanted; whether he is aware that in other parts of the Callan Union cottages have been erected for unmarried labourers, and that cottages are often left unoccupied for a considerable time after erection, especially in winter, to allow them to dry before being tenanted; and whether he will see that
  918
  Walsh and Fitzgerald are provided with cottages?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: On the 29th March last I replied to a somewhat similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member, and to that reply I have nothing to add, except that it is not intended to alter the decision already arrived at by the Local Government Board after careful local inquiry by their inspectors.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is great need for labourers' cottages in the Draperstown and Baneran divisions of the Magherafelt Union; whether an inquiry was held by the Local Government Board, and a scheme for the erection of a number of cottages in these divisions sanctioned; and whether he will explain the delay in having them erected, or say when the work of building will commence, and how many houses it is intended to erect?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A Provisional Order was issued by the Local Government Board, after due local inquiry, authorising the erection of three cottages in the Baneran electoral division and two cottages in the Drapers-town division. The solicitor acting for the Board of Guardians explains that the delay in erecting the cottages has been caused by the difficulty experienced in procuring titles to the lands to be acquired and also in arranging with the Land Commission, who have charge of the lands, as to the payment of the purchase money. The matter appears, however, to be now approaching completion and further delay is not anticipated.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that an application for a cottage under the Labourers' Act in the electoral division of Feddyglass, in the Union of Strabane, was lodged three years ago by Samuel Brown, and that the cottage in which Brown lives has been condemned by the inspector of the Local Government Board; and (2) will he explain why his application for a cottage has been refused?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The reason why this man Brown's application has been refused is that he is a road contractor, and as such does not come within the provisions of the Labourers' Acts.
  MR. JAMES DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he state how much remains unused at the Treasury of the sum that should have been devoted for the purpose of erecting labourers' cottages in Ireland. Will he explain why fewer labourers' cottages have been built in Ulster than in any other part of Ireland; and what course he intends to take with regard to Boards of Guardians in Ulster who have not yet erected labourers' cottages?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The amount unexpended on account of labourers' cottages in Ireland is £11,963. The reasons why the Labourers' Acts have not been utilised in Ulster to the same extent as in other parts of Ireland are that fewer applications for labourers cottages have been made by labourers in the province, and that the boards of guardians there are more unwilling to admit the necessity for providing cottages under the Acts. If any cases of default on the part of a board of guardians in Ulster to put the Labourers Acts into operation are brought before the Local Government Board they will, as they have hitherto done, at once cause inquiry to be made into the merits of such cases, and, if necessary, empower their inspectors to carry out the provisions of the Acts.

  TELEGRAPH OFFICE (BALCARRA, CO. MAYO).
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is a great want for a telegraph office in Balcarra, County Mayo; and whether he proposes to take steps towards the establishment of such an office?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster-General has not received any application for a telegraph office in Balcarra, County Mayo. He will be glad to make inquiry on the subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  LLANGOLLEN SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Llangollen School Board in reference to the acquisition of land for a playground; (2) whether he is aware that in consequence of frequent complaints from Her Majesty's Inspector the school board in question presented a petition in 1895 to the Education Department praying for a provisional order to enable them to acquire certain land under the Land Clauses Consolidation Acts, and whether after a local inquiry the Education Department issued a Provisional Order and that it was confirmed by Parliament; (3) whether he is aware, that the school board delayed carrying out the Provisional Order, and that they received in July 1896 imperative instructions from the Educational Department to acquire the land in respect to which they had obtained the Provisional Order; and the school board then asked for the sanction of the Education Department to buy a smaller quantity of land than what was specifically mentioned in the schedule of the Provisional Order, and that the Department replied inSeptember 1890 that they must require the purchase of the whole of the land referred to; (4) will he explain why in March last the Education Department took another view of the situation and sanctioned the purchase of the lesser quantity of land; and (5) whether such an alteration in the terms of a Provisional Order, confirmed by Parliament, can be sanctioned without an amending Order?
  SIR J. GORST: The facts are as stated. The consent referred to in the fourth paragraph was subject to the Board's being able legally to effect the purchase of a portion only of the land scheduled in the Provisional Order. The last paragraph is a, question of law, which the Committee of Council have no authority to determine.

  POLLEN ACT (LOUGH NEAGH).
  Mr. P. C. DOOGAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that distress and dissatisfaction subsist amongst the Lough Neagh fishermen, owing to the pecuniary loss which

  921
  is inflicted upon them by the operation of the "Pollen Act," which precludes them from selling fish under eight inches in length; whether he is aware that a special meeting was held on 6th March last and reported that in the opinion of the Board of Conservators no reason exists why fishermen should not be permitted to dispose of pollen of not less than seven inches, which may legally be killed by their legal nets; and what steps, if any, will be taken to give effect to the special report of the Board of Conservators to remove the grievance of the Lough Neagh fishermen by allowing them to sell pollen from seven inches in length upwards, instead of throwing them aside to rot as they are obliged to do now under the present state of the law?
  MR. GERALD BALEOUR: On the 1st February last stated in answer to a question put by the hon. Member that experiments had been made with a view of ascertaining the condition of pollen less than 8 inches in length, and that apart altogether from the consideration whether fish of less than that length would be useful as marketable commodity, the results of the experiments showed clearly that to reduce the size limit would be injurious to the pollen fisheries. The Pollen Act was passed in consequence of the enormous destruction of small and immature fish. The capture of a number of seven-inch fish is due to the fact that when the net is being drawn, the meshes become strained, and even if the mesh were smaller so as to allow for the legal capture of seven-inch fish, a number of six-inch fish would, for the same reason, be captured. Upon the information at present before me, I see no reason for an amendment of the existing law.
  MR. DILLON: As fishing is allowed would it not be better to allow the sale?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have already given all the information I have.

  CHARGE OF MURDER (OMAGH).
  MR. VESEY KNOX: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland (1) whether he is aware that two young men named Maguire were tried at last Summer Assizes on a charge of murder when the jury disagreed, and again at the Winter Assizes in Belfast
  922
  when the jury acquitted them; that they were again tried at Omagh Spring Assizes on a charge of larceny of money from the dead body on practically the same evidence when the jury disagreed; (2) whether they are still in prison awaiting a fourth trial, and for how long have they already been imprisoned; and (2) whether, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Crown will proceed further against them?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,): The facts stated in the first part of the question are substantially accurate, save that the accused were last tried on two charges, one for the robbery of Triston when alive, and the other for robbery from his dead body. It is quite true that all the facts relied upon to establish the case of robbery were given in evidence on the trial for murder, but the main defence of the prisoners on that occasion was that the deceased was not murdered, but died from natural causes. Though the only available evidence therefore might have been insufficient to prove a case of murder, this portion of it may be conclusive on the charge of robbery. The prisoners have been in custody since the 6th of March, 1896, and are now awaiting a second trial for the offence of robbery, with which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the charge of the learned judge who presided at the at the last trial, it is intended to proceed.

  QUEEN'S COLLEGES (IRELAND).
  MR. J. PINKERTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been directed to the Ministerial pledges given at the foundation of the Queen's Colleges, to the effect that the patronage of the Crown would be exercised to secure, if possible, the services of Roman Catholic professors and office-bearers in Gal way and Cork and of Presbyterians in Belfast; (2) whether he is aware that the first President, Vice President, and office-bearers in Galway were exclusively Roman Catholic, but that at present the President and office-bearers are now exclusively Protestants; and (3) whether any steps will be taken to redeem the pledges referred to?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am unable to find in the Ministerial statements made at the time when the establishment of the Queen's Colleges was under discussion, any pledge to the effect mentioned in the Question. I have no information regarding the statements in the second paragraph, though I am making inquiries.
  MR. PINKERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no effect has been given to the pledges?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I have no information.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these colleges are banned by the Roman Catholic hierarchy?
  [No answer was given.]

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General, having regard to the fact that, out of the 4,324,000 withdrawals estimated to have been made from the Post Office Savings Bank during the year 1896, only 25,000 are estimated to have been made to third persons, will he state whether it has been found necessary to make arrangements so that money withdrawn by telegraph may be paid to a third person; and, if such arrangements have been made, will he state to what extent money withdrawn by telegraph has been paid to third persons?
  MR. HANBURY: Money withdrawn from the Savings Bank by telegraph can be paid to a third person in the same way as money withdrawn by the ordinary means. No separate record is kept of such cases and the Postmaster General cannot, therefore, state to what extent money withdrawn by telegraph has been paid to third persons.

  PUBLICAN'S LICENCE (IRELAND)
  MR. D. MACALEESE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) what ground there is for the allegation that a licensed publican, named Jolly, refused the use of his post car to the police of Tempo, on the night of 28th August 1896, when, during a dangerous riot, they demanded the use of the vehicle to send for assistance to a neighbouring station; (2) has the refusal by publicans in recent, years
  924
  to give their cars for the conveyance of police and emergency men to evictions been made the grounds of objection to the renewal of the said publican's licences; and (3) did the police of Tempo oppose Mr. Jolly's licence for refusing them the use of his car at a time when life and property were in danger?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The allegation referred to in the first paragraph is founded on fact, though the demand for the car was made not by the police personally, but by the barrack servant. There have been many cases in which the police opposed the renewal of publicans' licences throughout Ireland under the circumstances mentioned in the second paragraph, but I do not think there have been any such cases in recent years, as the necessity for action on the part of the police has not arisen. The police did not oppose the renewal of Mr. Jolly's licence, because it was doubtful whether the objection could he sustained, in view of the fact that the demand for the car was made, as I have stated, not by the police but by the barrack servant.

  SUPPLY (ORDNANCE FACTORY VOTE).
  LORD HUGH CECIL: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the question of Superannuation will report; and, whether the Report will be published before the Ordnance Factory Vote is discussed?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. POWELL-WILLIAMS,): The investigation is being made by certain officials of the Department, but it is of a confidential character and their report will not be published. They hope to conclude their inquiry within a month. It involves other Departments than the War Office.

  INDIAN MIDLAND AND BENGAL-NAGPUR RAILWAYS.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India will he explain under what circumstances a portion of the interest charges in connection with the Indian Midland and Bengal-Nagpur Railways have now for some years been met out of the Famine Insurance Fund,

  925
  in view of the fact that shortly after the creation of the Famine Insurance Fund the Government of India requested the sanction of the Secretary of State to meet certain interest charges in connection with protective railways from the fund; that Lord Cranbrook, the then Secretary of State, withheld his sanction on the ground that such a step would be a complete inversion of the object with which the fund was constituted; and that this decision was upheld by two Parliamentary Committees sitting in 1879 and 1884 respectively?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The general policy of the Government is that to which the hon. Member refers as having been supported by the Committees of 1879 and 1884—namely, that money shall be borrowed for such railways only as are likely to be so productive that the net receipts will cover the charge interest on the debt incurred, and that protective railways charged on the Famine Insurance Grant shall be constructed out of the revenue. In 1885, however, the Government of India found it necessary to undertake an exceptionally large scheme of railways, two of which were intended for the protection of the country against famine. The Secretary of State in Council held that the circumstances were of a special character, which could not have been contemplated by the Parliamentary Committees; and, as the Government could not themselves construct the whole of the works, and he was unwilling to delay the two urgently needed protective lines, he authorised their construction by companies, the interest being debited against the Famine Insurance Grant. When the lines came into operation, the receipts were set against the interest, and the net charge was so debited. I should add that the Indian Midland and Bengal-Nagpur Railways traverse some of the worst famine districts, and without their distributing power it would have been impossible to have kept the people alive in those districts during the past months.

  LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the terms of reference to the proposed Royal
  926
  Commission on the Irish Land Commission and the names of the Commissioners?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not vet in a position to made a statement on the subject.
  MR. DILLON: Will he say when he is likely to be in a position to give the information?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot assign a day. The hon. Member is aware that these matters take time. There shall be no unnecessary delay.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Land Commission have adopted the practice of having fair rent applications heard and the holding inspected by only one lay Commissioner in some cases because of the want of a sufficient number of Assistant Commissioners; (2) will he explain why the Land Commission have not adopted the practice in all cases; and (3) whether the present staff of Assistant Commissioners is sufficiently numerous for the work to be done, or has any representation on the subject been made to the Irish Government or the Treasury?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In reply to the first paragraph of this Question, I have no doubt that the large number of applications is a factor in the case. The Commissioners, in the exercise of the discretion expressly invested in them by Act of Parliament, delegate the hearing of applications to one or two lay Assistant Commissioners as they they think fit. Some addition to the staff of Assistant Commissioners will shortly be made.

  TURCO-GREEK WAR.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has reached him in reference to atrocities alleged to have been committed by the Turkish soldiery in Epirus?
  *MR. CURZON: No such information has reached Her Majesty's Government. As I have previously stated it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to have official information at first hand of incidents of the war, as they have no representative on the spot.
  MR. DILLON: Are there no British Consuls in Epirus?
  *MR. CURZON: Yes; but I do not think they have been at the scene of active operations.

  CHARITY SCHEME (THORNTON-IN-CRAVEN.)
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire whether the Charity Commissioners have decided that the Charity known as "Crowther's Charity," situated at Earby, in the parish of Thornton-in-Craven, is not a parochial charity; and if so what kind of charity they deem it to be, since the accounts of the said charity have been laid before three successive annual parish meetings, thereby complying with Section 14, Subsection 6, of the Local Government Act of 1894; and whether Section 5, Subsection 20, of the same Act applies to this charity?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. J. GRANT LAWSON): Crowther's Charity is not in the view of the Charity Commissioners a parochial charity within the definition in the Local Government Act 1894, because its benefits are open to persons who shall at any time have resided within the parish of Thornton, and are not therefore confined to inhabitants of any single parish or otherwise, as required by that provision. The charity is, moreover, within the exemption created by Section 14 (8) of the same Act, having been founded within 40 years before the passing of the Act. The Commissioners therefore, deem the Charity to be modern and non-parochial. The Rector and Churchwardens are by the foundation the Trustees of the Charity, and Section 5 (2) (c) of the Act, to which provision it is presumed the Question refers does not, therefore, apply.
  MR. PHILIP STANHOPE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division of Yorkshire whether the Charity Commissioners have arrived at a decision that the present is a suitable time for establishing Robert Windle's Free School upon a new scheme, seeing that the endowment is by foundation for a grammar school, whereas the annuity of £20 per annum is being appropriated and spent for the purpose of providing elementary education in the parish of Thornton-in-Craven; and whether it is
  928
  the intention of the Charity Commissioners in their contemplated scheme to sell the said school and land connected therewith, and transfer the same when realised, together with the annuity, to some technical school or college there to be established as a scholarship?
  MR. GRANT LAWSON: The Charity Commissioners do not think the present is a suitable time for making a scheme for this school. They are led to this view by the considerations mentioned in paragraph 34 of their annual Report for last year, the endowment being very small, the matter being one of some difficulty and apparently contentious, and more fit to be dealt with hereafter as part of a general system of secondary education in the district. Should a scheme eventually be made by the Commissioners it might be found necessary to adopt the course indicated in the last part of the Question.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE (GLASGOW).
  MR. FAITHFUL BEGG: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General if he can now state the exact form of inquiry which will be held in Glasgow in connection with the request of the Corporation for a telephone licence, and their complaint regarding inefficient service against the National Telephone Company; and when the inquiry will be held?
  MR. HANBURY: As the Glasgow Corporation now appear to think an inquiry unnecessary, it is, of course, also unnecessary to state more than I have already stated a few days ago, namely, that the Government were willing to agree to a public independent, inquiry into the complaints made by the Corporation.

  MOHILL BURIAL GROUND (CO. LEITRIM).
  MR. JASPER TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed by the Mohill Board of Guardians to the action of the select vestry in desecrating the graves of the Catholics buried in the Mohill graveyard, South Leitrim, by employing men to level the graves and cart away the crosses and headstones; what action, if

  929
  any, has been taken by the Local Government Board in the matter; and whether he is aware that a number of policemen were engaged in preventing the relatives of the deceased from entering the graveyard to examine the desecrated graves, and by whose authority the police were directed to pursue this course?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The attention of the Local Government Board has been directed by the Guardians to the removal of tombstones and other marks from the burial ground at Mohill. The Board have informed the Guardians that the case was not one in which the Board had legal authority to interfere, and have suggested that the parties aggrieved by the action of the churchwardens should be guided by legal advice as to the proper mode of procedure. I understand that the burial ground is vested in the Representative Church body, and it appears to me that the parties aggrieved might usefully place themselves in communication with that body. With regard to the last paragraph, I am informed that the action of the police, who promptly reported the occurrences referred to, has been strictly confined to the preservation of the public peace.

  POST OFFFICE (DUNDALK).
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how long the question of providing a new-post office for Dundalk has been before the Department; whether another eligible site was recently brought before the Postal authorities; and is there any intention of providing the long promised improvement in regard to this office during the present Administration?
  MR. HANBURY: The question of a new post office at Dundalk has been before the Department since 1893, but such sites or premises as would otherwise have been suitable could not be obtained at a reasonable cost. The necessity for a new post office at Dundalk is admitted, and for some time past endeavours have been made to obtain a suitable site or premises at a reasonable cost, but hitherto without success. A scheme, however, which apparently promises a satisfactory result, is now under consideration. The question has not yet been laid before the Treasury.

  SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  MR. G. MURNAGHAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) has his attention been called to the fact that the Irish fishing industry is in a very unsatisfactory condition, as shown by the return relating to the sea fisheries, lately published by the Board of Trade; (2) whether he is aware that the chief cause of the decline of this industry is due to the fact that the small Irish boats are obliged to fish near home as they can neither follow the fish to their constantly changing feeding grounds, nor when a good catch is made can it be taken to the best market; that the resources of the Irish sea fisheries remain undeveloped for want of capital; and that the number of first-class Irish boats, though always small, diminishes year by year; and (3) in view of the grave interests involved will the Government make a grant to encourage and build up this decaying industry?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It is not correct to describe the Irish sea fisheries as being a declining industry. The Board of Trade return mentions that the quantity of fish landed on the Irish coasts in 1896 was 843,062 cwt., but explains that these figures are subject to alteration. I have now ascertained that the correct figures for 1896, which were not available when the return, was published, are 986,692 cwt. These figures show an increase over former years, amounting to 41 per cent, over the quantity landed in 1895, and to 62 per cent, as compared with 1892. With regard to the number of boats employed, it is true there has been a slight decrease in the number of first-class boats, but if boats of the first, second, and third classes be taken into account it will be seen that there has been no diminution in the aggregate. In reference to the last paragraph, the hon. Member has overlooked the fact that a considerable sum of money has been expended by the Congested Districts Board on fishery schemes. The steps taken by the Board to promote the Irish fisheries are fully detailed in their various published reports, and a reference to the last report will show that down to March 31st, 1896, the total expenditure on fishery schemes amounted to £53,290.

  DOG MUZZLING.
  MR. J. W. LOGAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the Board of Agriculture proposes to extend the Muzzling Order to the County of Leicester, with the exception of the petty sessional division of Belvoir: and if he will inform the House why, if the order is necessary in the county at all, a small portion of it should be exempted?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,): A Muzzling Order applicable to the County of Leicester, with the exception of the petty sessional division of Belvoir, was made on the 11th inst. We did not think it necessary to include the petty sessional division of Belvoir, inasmuch as its geographical position in relation to the rest of the county, and the fact that it is comparatively remote from any recent case of rabies, led us to conclude that it cannot at the present time be regarded as a dangerous area.

  CRETE.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Admirals at Crete have decided not to request the Turkish troops to leave the island until the insurgents have laid down their arms?
  MR. CURZON: No such decision has been taken by the Admirals.

  LETTERBREEN PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. J. P. EARRELL: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland will he cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which the election for the Petty Sessions District of Letterbreen, county Fermanagh, held in January last after due advertisement, has been annulled by the Irish Government, on the allegation that the advertisement was bad, and a new advertisement and summons have been issued for another election on the 25th instant; and will he state wherein the first advertisement was bad, and if it is legally competent for the Irish Government to so change the old form of summons, by the new advertisement issued in April last, as wholly to
  932
  alter the conditions for the election in this case?
  *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND: I am quite familiar with the particulars of the case, so that all further inquiry is unnecessary. The election was annulled because it was informal and irregular. A new advertisement has been issued and a fresh election is about to take place. The first advertisement omitted to state, that an exception to the limit of age was made in favour of persons already acting as Petty Sessions clerks. It is in my opinion perfectly competent for the Government to take the course they did, namely, to annul the election and state expressly in the advertisement for the new election this exemption in favour of persons already holding the office of Petty Sessions clerks in another district, which it has been always the custom to act upon.

  WORKMEN (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
  MR. H. SETON-KARR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the new and important principles and the wide-reaching effect of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, and the great number of men and large amount of invested capital affected thereby, the Government will postpone the Committee stage of the said Bill to a later date, in order that adequate time may be given to those affected thereby to fully and carefully consider the provisions of the Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I understand my hon. Friend's Question is as to whether the Committee stage of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill can be deferred from Monday. This is really more a question for the House than for the Government to determine. The Government desire to meet the convenience of the House. I am extremely anxious that the Committee stage should be taken at the very earliest date—[cheers]—and I can hardly believe that any serious inconvenience will be inflicted upon any trade or any interest by taking it on Monday. If it be deferred I am afraid it may greatly interfere with the comfort of the House

  933
  in connection with the Whitsuntide holidays, and I should be very sorry to bring back hon. Members for very important business on the Monday following Whit Monday. At present my idea would be that the House should indeed meet on the Monday following Whit Monday, and that during that week we should as far as possible take business of a wholly uncontroversial character— Supply, or largely Supply—and that the majority of Members need not, therefore, curtail their holidays. Of course, if we do not make much progress, if we do not finish the Committee stage of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, or, at all events, make so great progress that the end was within very measurable distance, I am afraid I shall have to ask the House to take that Bill in that week, which I do not think would be very convenient to hon. Members. I hope, therefore, that Members who have amendments to put down will do what, I am sure, they can do if they exert themselves—that is, frame their amendments in time for discussion in the House on Monday and following days.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to ask the House to reassemble for some business on the Monday after Whit Monday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As far as I can foresee from the progress of public business, that will probably be the best course.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Is that final?
  MR. SETON-KARR: May I ask whether, in the event of the right hon. Gentleman receiving representations that individual industries which are seriously affected by the Bill desire longer time to consider their amendments to that Bill, he will postpone the Committee stage?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is difficult to answer that question. I would point out to my hon. Friend that in any case there will be a Report stage for anything that is omitted in Committee. I still think that the general convenience of the House should be considered in this matter, and f cannot easily imagine the sort of amendment it would be impossible to construct before Monday, ["Hear, hear"!]

  PORT NESS HARBOUR (LEWIS).
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the statement made by the engineer of Port Ness Harbour works that the huge concrete blocks which fell into the harbour have not been removed owing to the weather not being suitable and that the blocks are not a source of danger to the fishermen, will he take steps to obtain information from the fishermen who are compelled to use the harbour?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement I made to the hon. Member last Thursday from the report of the engineer of the works, but if any authoritative representation in writing be made to the Secretary for Scotland by the fishermen on the subject he will give it his consideration.
  MR. WEIRasked whether Messrs. Stevens and Co., Edinburgh, were the engineers for the harbour in question?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE: Yes, Sir.

  COMPENSATION ALLOWANCE (EUROPEAN AND INDIAN OFFICIALS).
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that the salaries of the European officials in Ceylon, Singapore, and Hong Kong are paid in silver currency, will he state whether any compensation allowance has been granted to them for the depreciation of silver, as has been granted by the Government of India to its European employés?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN): European officials in Ceylon are at present paid half their salaries at 1s. 6d. the rupee, and in Straits Settlements and Hong Kong at 3s. to the dollar.
  SIR WILLIAM WEDDERBURN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Comptroller and Auditor General to the Government of India raised any objection to the payment of compensation allowance to the 40 Indian officials whose salaries are by statute fixed in rupees; and whether he took any stops to stop these payments and surcharge the officers concerned; if so, upon what grounds have these payments been continued for nearly four years?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Doubts as to the technical legality of the payment of exchange compensation allowance to the officers whose salaries are fixed under statute in rupees were raised, not by the Comptroller and Auditor General himself, but on two separate occasions by two of his accounting officers. The result of the doubts thus raised was a reference by the Government of India to the Secretary of State in Council; and as I have already informed the hon. Member, the matter is still under my consideration, with a view to the procuring of further legal opinions. The payments have hitherto been made in India under the impression, confirmed by legal advice, that they were not only equitable but legal, and until the question is finally decided it is obvious that no steps of any kind can be taken.

  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT.
  MR. J. W. SIDEBOTHAM: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether Voluntary Schools are exempt from rates from the date on which the Voluntary Schools Act received the Royal Assent, 8th April; and whether in the case of a rate levied on 1st April, a Voluntary School would be liable for the whole half-year's rate, or for one week's proportion only?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): In my opinion the liability is complete as soon as the rate is levied, and in the case put by my hon. Friend the school is liable for the whole amount of the rate levied on April 1.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether any record is kept of the proceedings of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament on Statute Law Revision Bills and Consolidation Bills; and, if so, whether such record has been, or will be, presented to either House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: The Minutes of Proceedings of the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision and Consolidation Bills are reported to the House and then printed, when the Committee makes it first Report.

  LAND RATING (IRELAND).
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he expects to be in a position to make any statement on the subject of Irish rating and the relief grant to be applied to Ireland under the Land Rating Act of last year?
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, after the almost unanimous vote of Irish Members that was given on Thursday night, that the money that had been allocated to Ireland in 1896 should go to the relief of rates, it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill and the Agriculture and Industries (Ireland) Bill, under which this money would be allocated to other purposes; and, if not, whether the Government are prepared to reconsider the position taken up on Thursday night, and make provision for the reduction of agricultural local rates in Ireland on the same basis as has already taken place in England and Scotland?
  MR. KNOX: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the strong condemnation by the Press of all parties of the Government's refusal to give to Irish agricultural ratepayers the same relief as has already been given to English ratepayers, the Government will still persist in refusing equal treatment to Irish farmers?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: In reference to these Questions, I have to say that I hope to make a statement in connection with Irish business to-morrow at Question time.

  INDIA (EXPENDITURE).
  MR. M. M. BHOWNAGGREE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any likelihood of the Royal Commission on the Expenditure of India completing their Report before the end of the present Session; and, whether, in that case, he will give special facilities for a Debate on the Report, apart from the usual discussion of the Indian Budget?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I understand there is little chance of the Report being issued in time to permit of its proper consideration by the Government before the close of the Session.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL.
  GENARAL RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have come to any decision respecting the introduction of a Manœuvres Bill this Session, so as to allow for arrangements being made in good time to permit manœuvres on an extended scale being practised next year?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I think it would be desirable to introduce this Bill in its new and, I hope, more acceptable form in the course of the present Session. Whether it will be possible to make any progress with it, will depend upon the reception it meets with. I could not promise any important fraction of Parliamentary time for its discussion.

  WHITESUNTIDE HOLIDAYS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can conveniently state to the House when the Whitsuntide holidays will begin?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: As I think I have already intimated, in answer to a previous question, we shall probably rise on the Friday before Whit Sunday.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will there be a Morning Sitting on that Friday?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: No, Sir.
  MR. HENRY LABOUCHEREasked if the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what was in his mind in respect to Whitsuntide? [Laughter.] He did not quite gather what holidays they were going to have.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I thought I had already informed the House that much will depend on the progress we make with the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill. We rise on the Friday before Whit Monday. If we have either finished the Committee stage of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, or, as I have said, made such material progress with it that the completion of the Committee stage is obviously not a matter of any lengthened discussion, I shall then propose that the House should meet on the Monday after
  938
  Whit Monday—the 14th of June. On the Monday, Thursday, and Friday, which are the only three days remaining to the Government in that week, Supply will be taken, and I shall do my best to make it of as uncontroversial a character as possible. That would enable hon. Gentlemen who are not interested in the particular Supply taken to prolong their absence from the House until the Monday following. The House would still be in Session, and I should again take Supply. That would be the Monday before the Jubilee Celebration. We shall adjourn from the Monday to the Thursday after the Jubilee Celebration. The House will see that, if that arrangement be carried out, a very large proportion of the House will not be burdened by attendance within these walls during a considerable time before the Jubilee Celebration. But the possibility of carrying out this arrangement depends on the progress we succeed in making before the Whitsuntide holidays with the Accidents Bill.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. gentleman say, on the supposition that the Second Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken to-night, when the Committee stage will be put down?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It must be some time after Whitsuntide.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Under the scheme he has laid down to hand over Wednesday, the 16th, to private legislation, including a Female Suffrage Bill. [Laughter.]
  MR. LOUGHasked whether, if the favourable progress which the First Lord of the Treasury anticipated was made, it might not be possible to meet on the Thursday week after Whit Monday. [General cheers.]
  The FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If the House showed any great enthusiasm for the transaction of public business, I would not say that such a plan would be absolutely impossible. [Cheers.]

  SUPPLY (CIVIL SERVICE VOTES).
  MR. KNOXasked the Secretary to the Treasury the order in which the Irish Votes would be taken to-morrow.
  MR. HANBURYsaid the votes for the Local Government Board and criminal prosecutions would be taken first. The votes in Class 2 would be taken in order, but those for the Chief Secretary, the Public Works Board, and Education would be postponed.

  DUNGARVAN AND LISMORE RAILWAY.
  MR. POWERasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he could make any statement with regard to the negotiations which were pending between the Treasury and the Dungarvan and Lismore Railway.
  MR. HANBURYsaid he had already told the hon. Member that they were confidential, and until a result was arrived at be could not make any statement. All he could say was that it would be arrived at before the Public Works Vote was taken.

  PRISONS BILL.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,)in asking leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to prisons, said this was an important measure embodying certain amendments which had been under discussion both in the House and in the country, and which, he need hardly remind the House, were the result of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leeds. He could not expect to make substantial progress with the measure this Session, but he was very anxious that the House and the country should be in possession of his proposal. [" Hear, hear!"] He might say that he should couple with the Bill a memorandum explaining its objects.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Matthew White Ridley and Mr. Jesse Collings; presented accordingly, and
  940
  Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 262.]

  THE POLICE AND STOLEN PROPERTY.
  *SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYalso asked leave to introduce a Bill to make further provision with respect to the disposal of property in the possession of the police. He said this was a small Bill which had been made necessary by the observations of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee with reference to certain property found in the possession of prisoners which, under the present law, could not be satisfactory disposed of. Under the present law, property found in the possession of a prisoner could not be legally disposed of and restored to its owner or otherwise dealt with if it exceeded £15 in value, and was not charged to have been stolen. Consequently, a large fund had been accumulated in the hands of the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police, and the Comptroller and Auditor General having called attention to this matter before the Public Accounts Committee, the authorities had been bound to take action. As the result of a Departmental Committee certain proposals were made which had been embodied in this Bill. The object of the Bill was to enable the Court to restore such property to its rightful owner, if such owner could be found, of whatever value, and, further, to enable the police to dispose of the property and to use the proceeds for certain objects specified in the Bill if the proper owner could not be found. It also provided for a satisfactory audit, and he might add that, as far as he was aware, the proposals for the audit had the consent of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Matthew White Ridley and Mr. Jesse Collings; presented accordingly and Read the First time; to be Read a Second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 263.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill,
  MR. JOHN HUTTONsaid he desired to enter an earnest protest against the working of the Bill with regard to small rural School Boards. In the Division he represented there were no fewer than 110 elementary schools. Of these only 15 were Board Schools. Some of them were of the very poorest class in the whole country—nine of them had an average attendance of under 50—and not one of the 15 received a single shilling under the Bill. [Opposition cheers.] He should like to illustrate these schools by quoting the state of one particular school. It was in a school district situated on the moor edges, seven miles from the nearest railway station. The population at the present time was only 223, and the rateable value only £3,810. In 1876 the district was compelled to form a School Board, and built two schools—the population being more than double the present number—one to hold 70 children, the other 40. The closing of the mines caused almost the entire population to disappear, and the average attendance at those schools was now only 21 and 19. A school rate of 9d. was necessary, and the cost per child was no less than £5. 19s. 9d. He inquired whether it was possible to move an Amendment in Committee, so as to bring these Board Schools within the Bill, but was informed on the highest authority that it could not be done without also bringing in the schools in the rich towns such as London and other large cities. He was aware that the Agricultural Rating Bill of last year gave some relief to such poor districts as he had referred to: but it was relief to occupiers of land only, and was not of the slightest help to occupiers of houses as such. That, he thought, was a very great grievance of which they had a right to complain. When the Voluntary Schools Bill was passing through the House they were told again and again that the poor Board
  942
  Schools would be relieved by another Bill. He had already said that the poor School Board districts in the constituency he represented must be among the poorest in the whole country, and it was a great injustice and a real grievance that they should be left out in the cold. He only hoped that his right hon. Friend the head of the Education Department would see his way to promise that in a future Session he would bring in some Bill to give substantial relief to the schools to which he had referred.
  *MR. R. W. PERKSsaid he was of opinion that, the fond hopes of the last speaker would not be fulfilled. Seeing that it was the declared intention of leading men on the Ministerial Benches to crush out rather than encourage Board Schools, it was not likely that the poor districts he so ably represented would get any such help as he asked for. He should not like the Bill to pass without offering his protest against its injustice. ["Hear, hear!"] It was unjust to numerous classes in the country, and the principle upon which it was based was absolutely unintelligible. Many of the great towns which bore the main burden of the assistance given under the Voluntary Schools Act, and who would have also to bear the main part of the burden under this so-called Necessitous Schools Bill, had no relief whatever, and had no share, the bulk of them, in this petty and miserable educational dole. [Opposition cheers.] The great cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle. Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Cardiff, and London herself, had no share whatever, although the ratepayers were burdening themselves far more for educational work than the voluntary subscribers in rural districts and towns where the sectarian schools were now in operation. There was a further great injustice as between town and country. One would have imagined that when this small solatium—a sort of educational hush-money to the School Boards—was offered by the Education Department—a sort of conscience-money, he supposed, given in fulfilment of a pledge to do something for the Board Schools which they could not well get out of—one would have thought that when they came to distribute this small bounty, they would have exercised some ingenuity in trying to distribute it on

  943
  some equitable footing as between town and country. What was the position in reference to this small grant of £110,000? There were in this country some 5,400 Board Schools. Yet, about one-third of the money distributable under the Bill went to nine towns or School Board districts. Leeds got the enormous sum of £6,788—money which would be far more justly distributed in the rural districts of Yorkshire; Hull got £1,868, and the town of Sheffield got close on £3,000. Nottingham, another very flourishing town, received close on £4,000; and Leicester £3,377. But the biggest haul was made by the district comprising West Ham, Wan-stead, Walthamstow, and Leyton, which got no less than £17,500 out of this £110,000. Now was that equitable? Did it commend itself to any man of common sense? They might point to the Bill, and say that they had adopted the principle of contributing the difference between the produce of a 3d. rate and the limit of 1ds. 6d. per head. But common-sense men would judge by the results. The reason why these alleged poverty-stricken districts of West Ham and the neighbourhood received this enormous bounty was due very largely to the fact that the rateable value of property there was extremely low. The standard of rateable value, he contended, was no fair index of the poverty of a district. His point, was, that an enormous proportion of this money went to the towns as against the villages and rural districts. In the county of Lincoln, in the Division he represented, covering an area of over one thousand square miles, they had 175 villages, with two or three small towns, and they had something like twenty School Boards. In the whole county there were 107 School Boards. It was the custom to represent the rural districts as wholly given over to Anglican educational control. That, he was thankful to say, was not absolutely the case. It was true there were 8,000 villages in which there was only one sectarian school, and that a school of the Anglican Church, but the county of Lincoln was sufficiently enlightened to have 107 School Boards, and he trusted the day would come when the shop-keepers and farmers would throw off the ascendency of the sectarian churches of all sorts, and
  944
  would combine to have their School Boards. But out of these 107 schools in Lincolnshire, only 13 received any help at all from this Bill; and in the Division he represented, out of the twenty School Boards, only one—a little Board School right up on the top of the wolds of Lincolnshire— received any help at all, that help being limited to £5. Was it reasonable to suppose that the farmers who were already rated so heavily in that distressed agricultural county would feel any enthusiasm for this Bill, or would consider that this money was being properly and equitably distributed? ["Hear, hear !" from the Opposition Benches.] He might refer to other counties. In Surrey, with 32 School Boards, only four got help; in Lancashire, with 53 School Boards, only four were assisted, and in this case the assistance was limited to 10d. per scholar. Contrast that with the 5s. per scholar given under the Voluntary Schools Act, and then ask whether there was anything like equity of treatment. Her Majesty's Government seemed to have absolutely abandoned—in fact they had refused to accept—what had been always considered to be the guiding principle or one of the guiding principles of the Act. of 1870, viz., equality of treatment between the two classes of schools —Voluntary and Board Schools. He wished to point out that this Bill, coupled with the Voluntary Schools Act already passed, re-opened absolutely the whole so-called settlement of 1870. [" Hear, hear!"] He was glad to be supported in that view by his hon. Friend the Member for the city of Rochester. He was quite prepared for the Dissenting churches and communities of this country to fight their own battle and establish, if necessary, their own schools, but certainly the course which the Government had taken left the Dissenters of this country absolutely free to adopt any course they might think proper, and bring any pressure they could command upon any future Government to secure for the School Board Schools of this country more adequate and reasonable assistance.
  COLONEL MILWARDwas bound to support the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for the Richmond Division of the North Riding as to this being a very disappointing Bill. He had had several representations from Warwickshire, where there

  945
  were comparatively few School Boards, to the effect that practically nothing was received under the Bill by poor and rural parishes. He thought the scheme was really too ingenious. He did not, as a rule, approve of ingenious ingenuity in that way, because it was generally impracticable. He thoroughly believed the Education Department wished to deal fairly, as far as money would allow, with all the School Boards they had to do with, but it did so happen under the Bill that some School Boards got excessively large sums and some poor, struggling School Boards got no money at all. The School Boards in his constituency were agricultural parishes with a large area, very much distressed, and where the School Board had been forced upon the parish by stress of circumstances. In one of them it was true that the sum of £7 was received, but the others got nothing at all. On the borders of his constituency there was a large parish, partly artisan and partly agricultural, which did require large help and winch received it. He was bound to say there was a feeling of disappointment in the rural parishes at the principle upon which the money was distributed, and the fact that many poor parishes would receive so little.
  MR. LAMBERTregretted that hon. Members opposite did not support hon. Members on his side when they brought forward the Motion declaring that no Bill would be satisfactory to the House unless it gave the same treatment to Board as to Voluntary Schools. He rose, on behalf of the rural districts, to protest against the niggardliness of the Government in their treatment of the small rural schools. The Government had shown a strange lack of what was necessary for the educational efficiency of the rural School Board Schools. The Education Department, as the last speaker had said, no doubt wished to deal fairly with the rural Board Schools, but he believed they were hampered by the ecclesiastical tendencies of those who probably sat behind the Vice President. In his constituency in North Devon there were 31 Board Schools, containing 2,748 scholars in average attendance. The School Boards paid no less a sum than £l,600 a year in rates, or 12s. 6d. per scholar, being nearly double the average voluntary subscriptions of 6s. 10½d., and if they had been Voluntary
  946
  Schools they would have received no less then £687 a year. Unfortunately they were Board Schools, and they received the miserable dole of £66 a year, or less than one-tenth the amount they would have got had they been Voluntary Schools. That was only 6d. per child as contrasted with the 5s. given to the children in Voluntary Schools. How was this gigantic grant distributed among the schools in his constituency? There were two which received between them £64 a year out of the £66, and there were two which received £1 a year each. To call that relief was ridiculous. To give a School Board £1 a year was to give it what would not be enough to buy a blackboard, and what would hardly keep the children in slate pencils. To fritter away public money in such small grants could do no good, and as a Unionist newspaper in the West of England said the other day, it was a wasteful use of public money the like of which had never before been sanctioned by Parliament. They could not say that giving a School Board in a parish £1 a year was legislation. It was a parody of all justice. It was a kind of Parliamentary pantomime with the Vice President as chief performer. In North Devon they got an average of £1. 5s. per School Board, which it was grotesque to describe as any relief. In his constituency there was a School Board parish in which the ratepayers actually paid 25s. for every scholar in average attendance, yet they got nothing in relief from this dole. It seemed to him the principle of the Bill was that the ratepayers who paid most locally received least Imperially, and those who paid the least locally received the most from the Imperial grant. In his constituency the people paid nearly double the amount of the average voluntary subscriptions in rates and yet they got only one-tenth of the amount the schools would have received if they had been Voluntary Schools. He contended that that was most injurious to all education in the country districts. If the late Government had introduced a Bill to give £600,000 to the School Boards and only £100,000 to the Voluntary Schools hon. Gentlemen opposite would have had a fit of ecclesiastical hysterics, and would have indulged in all sorts of declamations against the wickedness of the Government. He thought it would have been much wiser for the supporters

  947
  of Voluntary Schools in Unit House to have treated all classes of schools alike, rather than to have endeavoured to cripple the School Boards. He maintained that the country districts required as much money for education as did the towns. The right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President, when he introduced the Bill of last year said that, as a general rule, while the Board Schools in the great cities had proved themselves extremely efficient in education, the Board Schools in the country had proved themselves inefficient. If that were so why give enormous sums to the towns and such small sums to the country districts? If they had wanted to improve education they should have given the money to the localities where education, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was inefficient, but the system adopted by the Government for the distribution of the grant was a gross parody upon any kind of justice in legislation.
  SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTHregretted that expressions like those they had heard from the two hon. Members on the Government Benches, representing the feeling in two counties of England—War-wickshire and the North Riding of Yorkshire—were not given expression to upon the earlier stages of this Bill. He thought much might have been done if hon. Gentlemen opposite representing School Board districts had, on the Voluntary Schools Bill, expressed the feelings to which they were now giving utterance, as to the injustice of this unequal treatment of Board and Voluntary Schools. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a somewhat belated protest to make now, because nothing remained but to utter the protest. While they had had strong representations over and over again from his side of the House as to the wrong principle which had guided the treatment of different classes of schools by the Government, they had not had those protests at a sufficiently early time from those hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House who represented School Board constituencies in various parts of the country. He could assure the House from his knowledge of Lancashire that the feelings which the hon. Member for the Richmond Division of the North Riding had given expression to were shared by many of the School Board districts in that county. ["Hear,
  948
  hear!"] School Boards in many small places were trying to do their duty for the education of the children, and there was an intense feeling of injustice among all parties as to the way in which 5s. per child had been distributed among Voluntary Schools, while something less than 1s. was given to Board Schools. There was no doubt that the effect of this legislation would be to unsettle the Education question, and all the vexed questions so happily settled by the Act of 1870 would be opened up. They had heard speeches from the noble Lord the Member for Rochester and his Friend Mr. Athelstan Riley, rejoicing over the settlement. He wondered whether in a few years' time the noble Lord and Mr. Athelstan Riley, who arrogated to themselves to speak in the name of the Church Party, would rejoice in the same way. Did the noble Lord suppose that this question could be left where this Bill left it? [Viscount CRANBORNE: "No, certainly not!"] Then he ventured to think the noble Lord would speak in a very different tone in a few years' time. He did not wish to detain the House with any prolonged observations on the Third Reading of this Bill, but he would repeat that a feeling of injustice and unequal treatment had been aroused amongst the ratepayers who had to provide the money for the School Boards. Subsequent experience of the inequality and injustice must strengthen that feeling, and he was convinced that in the future it would be necessary to review the whole question, and to take care that it was dealt with in a very different way to that in which his Government had dealt with it. ["Hear, hear !"]
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST,)said he would not reply to the general protest of the right hon. Gentleman, as it had been replied to over and over again. He rose for the purpose of making a few observations in answer to the very real grievance to which his hon. Friends the Members for Warwickshire and the Richmond Division of Yorkshire had called attention, and that was the position of the small rural School Boards with a very large area and very sparse population, in which the rate-able value was low and the cost of education under the system of the Act of 1870

  949
  ran up to enormous sums. One case had been quoted in which it had reached no less a sum than £6. There was no doubt that the position of these small School Boards was a very difficult one, and that the Act of 1870, which succeeded so well in great cities, which had given London, Manchester, and Liverpool their admirable Board Schools and their high standard of education, had not worked equally successfully in the rural districts, where the cost was out of all proportion to the education given. Her Majesty's Government would be only too glad if they could induce Parliament to consent to a Measure by which they could really be placed in a more satisfactory condition; but the figures of this Bill could not have been altered so as to give a larger grant to the rural districts without making the Bill so wide as to include very large cities like London itself and imposing on the public funds sums to which no Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree. ["Hear, hear!"] Another reason was that money was not the only thing, not even the chief thing, the rural School Boards required. They required organisation a great deal more than money—["hear, hear !"]—and he ventured to say that there would never be a satisfactory condition of public education in rural districts until there were much larger areas and authorities exercising jurisdiction over much wider areas. ["Hear, hear!"] He would like to remind the House that this matter was dealt with by the Bill of last year. Clauses in that Bill were directed to giving, at all events to the ratepayers and inhabitants of those districts the opportunity of merging themselves in larger areas and of having an authority capable of taking charge of elementary education in the counties, and which would have relieved if not put an end to the grievance of which hon. Members so justly complained. ["Hear, hear !"] Of course it was not for him to complain of the action Parliament thought fit to take last year, but he wished to warn the House that they could not relieve the real grievance of these small School Boards with their scattered populations by a mere grant of public money. Even if they had the power under this Bill to give them a large grant, in an expenditure amounting to £6 a child, what would even 5s. per child do? The cost
  950
  would still be £5. 15s. How much better off would they be after receiving that relief than they are now? ["Hear, hear!"] The matter could not be remedied by the drastic methods hon. Members recommended. Those who entertained a sort of fetish respect for the Act of 1870 must make up their minds that that system must be amended in certain particulars, that the small rural School Board must be put an end to, and that the authority for education must be an authority exercising jurisdiction over a wider area and able to organise and coordinate education in a proper manner. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. A. H. DYKE ACLANDsaid the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with the matter of federation of small School Boards, and appeared to think that was an argument against the protests made in this Bill; but this Bill did not deal with organisation. It was purely a financial Bill. [" Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman would have found that if there had been a proposal for the federation of School Boards in small areas without anything dangerous to School Boards, there would have been no opposition from that side of the House. Therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would relieve them of any responsibility for having prevented it. It was not that part of the Bill of last year that killed it. [Cheers.] Let them have no red herring drawn across the trail with reference to last year's Bill or the needs of small School Boards under this Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] Their needs had been exemplified from both sides of the House, and hon. Gentlemen had shown how, from a financial point of view, they were made to suffer. Theirs was a. perfectly fair complaint, and no amount of federation would get rid of it. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not say a word about the general protest against the Bill, because it had been replied to over and over again. He wished to know what the reply was? ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman said he would not deal with that, but would deal with the real grievance. He wished the right hon. Gentleman could deal with it. They all knew that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was master of the situation; but although the Chancellor of the Exchequer

  951
  would never have agreed to a sum of £500,000 for School Boards, he had agreed to a sum of £600,000 for Voluntary Schools. [Cheers.] If £750,000 were the only sum available, and if it had been equally distributed between Voluntary and Board Schools, the grievance would have been largely modified. ["Hear, hear!"] The Vice President said that School Boards which had a burden of rates equivalent to £6 per child would not get much relief out of 5s. But there were School Boards, both in town and country, whose expenditure was less than £1 per child, and in these cases 5s. would be a real relief. ["Hear, hear!"] They had no power to increase the amount given under the Bill, but they were right in protesting against the insufficiency of the grant. They were right, moreover, in protesting against the irregularity and inequality which the methods of the Bill were developing and would still more largely develop as time went on. Some Boards would get relief to the extent of £1,000 in one year, and the amount would go down to £500 in the next year, and up to £900 in the year following. That unequal method would tend to wastefulness, and would irritate the ratepayers by reason of the varying demands that would be made upon them from year to year. Whether on the ground of irregularity and inequality of action, or on the broader ground of the extreme insufficiency of the grant, they must protest, as they had protested at every stage, against the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he should have thought this stage of the Bill would have been taken without any discussion whatever. [Opposition laughter.] There were but few principles involved, and these had been sufficiently discussed on the previous stages. But now that the Debate had arisen, he should be sorry to see it closed without some correction of the false impression to which the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherham and his Friends had given rise. He could not admit that the methods of the Bill were open to the charge levelled against them by the right hon. Gentleman. Section 97 of the Act of 1870 was always open to far more serious accusations, for under it the grants did not depend on the way in which a locality had discharged its duty, but
  952
  were the same whether the rate was 3d. in the pound or 2s. 6d. in the pound. That anomaly was removed by the Bill, and the relief would now be in proportion to the way in which a district discharged its duty, as well as in proportion to the necessities of the district. The Bill, in his opinion had been very skilfully drafted, and the application of its principles had been wisely bestowed over the country. He joined in the regret that the total amount was not larger, but the method of application was not, in his view, open to objection. This legislation was incomplete in itself, and must be followed at a very early date by further Measures dealing with the question of national education. The necessity for further reform did not arise from the introduction of the Bills of this Session, but from the facts of the case. The country would sooner or later have demanded a large Measure such as that introduced last Session. The disturbance of the compromise of 1870 was not caused by the present legislation, but already existed. He asked the House not to attach too much importance to the protest that had been raised, particularly from the Ministerial side, with regard to the Bill. He did not think that, with regard to some of the smaller School Boards, the protest was altogether fair or just, Reform was not to be found for these small School Boards in the amount of the grant awarded to them, but must be found in a Measure totally abolishing the small School Board, and placing educational affairs in rural districts in the hands of authorities having control over larger and wider areas than those which at present existed, and with power to levy a rate over rich and poor districts alike, so as in some way to equalise the charge throughout the country. It would be most ungracious on his part, as representing one of the districts largely benefited by the Bill, if he did not offer his cordial thanks to the Government for introducing it. He believed that many districts, both urban and rural, would look upon the Bill with a large amount of satisfaction, and that the individual ratepayer in these districts would not forget that it was from the present Unionist Government that he received this measure of relief.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSsaid that the Bill afforded a

  953
  fitting opportunity for reviewing the educational policy, or no-policy, of the Government. They had had a great opportunity, arising from the fact that there was a general conviction that the Act of 1870 needed amendment; they had an able Minister of Education, and they had a large majority behind them, and there was no disposition to thwart them on the part of the Opposition. How had they used the opportunity? The Vice President of the Council had just admitted that the mere granting of additional public money would not improve the condition of the rural schools, and had described the changes which would be really effective; hut the Government had not proposed any such changes. They had not raised the school age, though almost everybody admitted the necessity for doing so. They had provided no guarantees for either increased school efficiency or for the maintenance of voluntary subscriptions. A large additional grant of public money had been voted to Voluntary Schools, but without any provision for local representative control. The teachers were not to be protected, as they should be, from the exactions of their clerical taskmasters. Lastly, the admitted grievances of Nonconformists were not redressed. There would still be thousands of parishes with only a Church of England School, from which Nonconformist teachers and pupil teachers would be excluded. All these demands had been made, but not one had been conceded. Those were the Government's sins of omission. Their sins of commission were less numerous, but were still serious, for they had granted £616,000 a year to Voluntary Schools and only a paltry £110,000 to some Board Schools, and to many of them nothing. Why was such a distinction made? Two grounds had been stated. One was, that to treat both classes alike would prevent the Voluntary Schools successfully competing with Board Schools; but the Government had decisively rejected that plea in opposing the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester in the Committee on that Bill. Nor could the other objection — the plea of poverty on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—be maintained, seeing that he had had unprecedented resources at his disposal. The half million which would probably be wasted on the Navy
  954
  would have been exactly sufficient to place the two classes of schools on the same footing. But the greatest mistake of the Government was the creation of non-representative bodies, which would weaken the authority of the Education Department, and many of which would, it was certain, work for ecclesiastical instead of educational ends. The educational measures of the Government were but makeshifts and temporary measures. They would do nothing to improve education, while they would create new anomalies and inflict great injustice. Mr. Forster was honoured for the Act of 1870, but the Bills of the present Government would bring to them no honour, because there was too much reason to believe that they had sacrificed educational interests to the interests of sectarianism.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYregretted very much that, in spite of the discouragement of last Session, the Government had not attempted to put the Education question on a surer basis. The two Education Bills which had been introduced this year did produce in many places a great number of fresh anomalies —London, for instance, was very badly treated—["hear, hear !"]—and he trusted that even during the present Parliament they might find time for legislation which would set at rest this great question. He was persuaded that the only way to solve the difficulty was for the State to take on itself the whole cost of secular teaching.
  Bill read a Third time, amid cheers, and passed.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHERproposed to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add instead thereof the words
  "in the opinion of this House, the existing fiscal system of the country is unequal to the continually increasing demands of the public service, and that the time has arrived for recourse being had to more varied sources of taxation."

  955
  He said that Her Majesty's Government themselves had called attention to the pressing need of an investigation of this subject, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech last year, drew special attention to the difficulties which anyone occupying his position might find himself in in the event of having to find some means of adding to the revenue. It was true that the other day the right hon. Gentleman spoke in terms which betokened great confidence on his part as to the condition of our revenue at the present time, but the fact remained that no longer ago than last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer drew attention to the extremely narrow basis upon which our system of revenue was founded, and in doing so he was only following in the footsteps of his predecessor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:—
  "There has been a gradual transfer of burden from the indirect to the direct taxpayer of this country…That, I think the Committee will see, has been a progressive and remarkable change. I do not say the policy is wrong. There is no doubt that under it the industry and enterprise of this country, our commerce and trade, and our wealth, have been enormously developed, and, therefore, I suppose we may say it is justified by its results. But I must point out that our system as it now stands does not add to the popular support which any Chancellor of the Exchequer can enlist in aid of economy."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
  "The indirect taxpayer of this country is very moderately burdened—indeed, very lightly burdened, if he neither drinks nor smokes. We have arrived now at this position—that in time of peace we have an Income Tax of 8d. in the pound, we have Heath Duties at a point which, I suppose, hardly anybody will wish to increase, and we have indirect taxation levied only on a few articles of great consumption."
  We had a system of revenue which was only capable of expansion in time of need in practically one or two directions, and he did not think his right hon. Friend, or anyone who was likely to occupy his place, would assert that our present revenue from Customs and Excise was one on the stability of which we could reckon. When the time came that the country was in a less prosperous condition, down went
  956
  these sources of revenue. What had they to replace them? Nothing, as far as he could see, but the income tax. He passed over the possibility of anyone increasing the death duty. He did not think that even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth would suggest the possibility of augmenting the revenue in the direction of the Death Duty. That was a tax which was most unpopular in the country. It was a tax which was not only oppressive to those who had to pay it, but was the occasion of very grave inconvenience to those who, though they did not personally pay it, were indirectly interested in it on account of their employment terminating through its harsh operations. When, he carried the House on to the diminution of the purchasing power of those persons, they would easily see that, from one cause or another, there was no class of society which did not, to some extent, feel the effect of the burden which these death duties had imposed. Nor from a merely revenue standpoint must sight be lost of the fact that this was a tax upon capital and not income, and that while loose cash (or "free personalty," as the Chancellor of the Exchequer styled it) had already found means of largely escaping its operation, real estate would be subjected to a steady diminution of its liability to duty through the deductions in respect of charges arising out of provisions for previous payments of that impost. Hence a shrinkage of revenues as time advances. How did they stand with regard to what he might call their general system of finance? The other day the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the fact that the country had doubled its income during the last 60 years, but he omitted to tell them that in the future he saw no reasonable prospect of keeping their national expenditure within even its present enlarged bounds. His right hon. Friend knew perfectly well that, year after year, the demand for an increase of expenditure went on. The House of Commons, so far from curtailing expenditure, was the direct cause of a vast deal of extravagance. [" Hear, hear!"] He thought there would be general concurrence that no limit could possibly be placed upon their Army and Navy, so far as the present was concerned, but there were many items in their Civil Service which that House would do well

  957
  to more closely supervise. ["Hear, hear!"] Instead of this, the Government was egged on by Members from all quarters of the House to continually increase the national expenditure. There was one point in connection with their expenditure which he ventured to think was a matter of some danger. He had already referred to the fact that the bulk of the voters paid little or nothing in the shape of taxation. That being so, there seemed to him less chance than there otherwise would be of any effective curtailment and control of their national expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech of 1895 said:—
  "I wish to put before the Committee the present condition of our financial system. I wish to ask them to consider, at their leisure, what the position may be of a Chancellor of the Exchequer who in some future year may have to meet and continue an enormous increase of expenditure under this system of taxation, and to ask them whether they are quite sure that in such circumstances our present financial policy can be retained."
  He thought his right hon. Friend did good service in addressing those words of warning to the House. It had been the fashion in many quarters to speak of their financial system as a matter which they ought to be proud of, and any idea of departing from it to any large extent was absolutely scouted in some quarters. He would remind the House that, at the present moment, their much vaunted system had produced, both in Scotland and in Ireland, the loudest protests on the ground that it was contrary to justice, and that those two countries were not fairly treated under its provisions. That being so, he hoped he should not be charged with having raised a discordant note amidst the general satisfaction with which their existing financial system was viewed. On the contrary, he thought the bulk of the House would be of opinion that the time had arrived when, in the words of his Amendment, recourse must be had to some more varied sources of taxation. They relied, in a time of peace, upon the income tax, and upon the income tax alone, to make up any deficit that might, arise in their national income. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer and any Member of that House who took any interest in the soundness of their financial system must feel some misgiving upon that point. There could be
  958
  no doubt that having recourse to the income tax as their main financial prop in a time of peace was contrary to all the axioms which had been laid down in the past. He had endeavoured to deal separately with this question so far as the revenue was concerned, as distinguished from the development of our home trade. The two subjects were different, and, in his judgment, should be kept distinct from each other. Now, as to the directions in which they might fairly look for some increase in the taxable area. Of course he should be told that there was no need for any change. He hoped he had disposed, at any rate, of that reply. The right hon. Member for West Monmouth only the other day congratulated the House and the country that "times had mended and improved," he was not quoting his actual words, but simply the purport of his observations. He said that prosperity had recurred even to agriculture, and that corn had risen in price; and he went on to say that there was an end to what he called the "miserable German scare." But the right hon. Gentleman did not speak for everyone, even of his own Party on that subject; for the late Prime Minister had drawn the attention of the country, in words which he thought were very justly weighed, to the exposure of the dangers to British trade contained in that very able work by Mr. Williams. "Made in Germany." The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be amused by his reference to that work; but he thought that whether they shared Mr. Williams's views or not, hon. Gentlemen would agree that it was a most able work, and it was one which any person who read it might derive very great instruction from. No doubt exception was taken to certain groups of statistics, and letters were written and official memoranda were published endeavouring to refute Mr. Williams's statements. In his reply, however, he demolished all his critics, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth. He could only recommend the right hon. Gentleman to re-read "Made in Germany," and also to cast his eye over the very able exposure of the attempted replies which followed Mr. Williams's statement. Now, how did this question of "Made in Germany" stand? Lord Rosebery called attention to it, and he suggested that the

  959
  Government should appoint a small Committee to go into the subject, and see how the facts really were. The Government did appoint a Committee. He was not sure that he could have honestly said that he thought that Committee an impartially chosen body. He thought he could have almost written the Report of one, at any rate, of its members, before the Committee began its labours. But, as far as the memorandum went, which he might say was the official reply to "Made in Germany," it practically and substantially confirmed the bulk of Mr. Williams's examination of the case; and, although it endeavoured to put a more hopeful gloss on some of the figures he quoted, it was bound to admit in the end that unless British trade was better attended to by those who were engaged in it, and unless certain steps were taken, there was a poor prospect for this country as regarded its competition with many other countries. Now, as to our produce and manufactures. There could be no doubt, of course, that the figures of to-day compared with 60 years ago showed an increase in our export trade. At the same time they showed an alarming increase in imports. They showed that we were more and more dependent upon imports of foreign goods; and that in too many cases in which we used not only to supply ourselves but were the largest exporters to all parts of the world. The imports were not only breadstuffs and raw materials, but it appeared from official statistics that £100,000,000 worth of manufactured and partly manufactured goods were annually brought into this country—goods which in every instance could be produced quite as well from our own resources at home. Now that, he thought, would be admitted to be a very serious consideration. They were told that they had, at any rate in some particular directions, maintained the superiority of England as a manufacturing and exporting country. But when they came to analyse the figures, they found that while the production of British textiles had immensely shrunk, there had been a large increase in the export of coal, which was, of course, a raw material, of pig iron, which was practically a raw material, and in machinery. Well, machinery was a form of export which the House would possibly realise carried with it very large and perhaps dangerous issues
  960
  —because we were supplying other countries with the means of eventually doing without us, and of not only supplying themselves, but in many cases; successfully competing with us in the markets of the world. ["Hear, hear!"] He would now, with the permission of the House, point out in what directions he ventured to suggest that recourse should be had to more varied sources of taxation. He knew it had been the habit in that House to attack the tea duties, and to say that the tea duties—and the duties on coffee, chicory, dried fruits, cocoa, and other articles would come within that category —from which we derived about 4½ millions sterling per annum, ought to be abolished or reduced. It was constantly pointed out that they were duties on articles which we do not produce in this country, and that the burden might be fairly transferred from those articles to articles which were capable of being produced at home. Now, he entirely shared those views, and the reason why he had not committed himself to supporting a Motion for the reduction of the tea duties was that because unless and until some adequate substitute was provided by means of which the consumers of tea and kindred articles should contribute to the revenue, he held that it was unsound finance to abolish them without supplying in their place some indirect taxes to which the bulk of the population would contribute. Otherwise they would be adding still more to the position that those who called the tune did not help to pay the piper. There was a Motion the other day which he could not associate himself with for abolishing the tea duties and supplying their place by taxes upon imports of foreign manufactured articles. Now, although he approved of abolishing the tea duties under proper conditions, and although he was distinctly in favour of a duty on foreign manufactures, he did not consider the one an equivalent of the other from a sound point of view of finance; and he thought it well to mention this because it might appear somewhat inconsistent not to have supported a proposal both sides of which commended themselves to one's judgment. He ventured to suggest that there was a means of providing revenue without unduly burdening the people which would enable our home products to be fairly encouraged without materially adding to the burden

  961
  on the people. He had already mentioned that a hundred million's worth of foreign manufactured goods annually came into this country. A very small impost upon them would produce a very handsome addition to the national Budget. ["Hear, hear!"] And he did not think anybody would be able to make any Party cry, or to make any political claptrap out of a tax of that kind. He had no wish to shirk the issue when he was asked what tax he would propose to substitute for the tea duties. They were told the people of this country would never submit to a tax on the necessaries of life. Well, the articles included under the tea duties were certainly necessaries of life, and to transfer the impost from one brunch of the necessaries of life to another would be in no shape or form an injustice to the consumers. A very moderate tax on imported corn, known as the shilling registration duty, which was most unwisely abandoned by Mr. Lowe within his Parliamentary recollection, would now produce (according to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer) something like 2½ millions. A 2s. registration duty would produce close on five millions, and, therefore, more than replace the tea duties. Would it produce any inconvenience to the consumer to transfer this charge from the grocer to the baker? If anyone was foolhardy enough to pretend a social revolution would result from the transfer, he would remind him that nearly one-half—certainly two-fifths— of the corn duty would be paid, not by the consumers of bread, but by the consumers of barley, oats, maize, etc. What would be the cost to the people of this country of this impost on corn? He had heard no less a person than the late Chancellor of the Exchequer talk about the oppressive effect of a tax upon corn. It was a stock argument that in 1812 corn went up—he thought it was only for a week or two—to about 180s. a quarter, and when the average selling price for the year was 126s. a quarter He had Board that mentioned as a specimen of the outrageous injustice of the landowning class, that the landowners in Parliament ground down the people and made them pay these huge prices for the necessaries of life on purpose to bolster up rents. Hon. Gentlemen who had looked into this point were fully aware
  962
  that the high price of corn which at that time temporarily obtained was not due to any duty. In 1812 the duty was a merely nominal registration duty of about 8½d. When prices were high in the early part of the century they were not due to the imposition of duties, which were practically taken off altogether at that time, but were due to the condition of war which then prevailed, cutting off supplies from abroad, and to bad harvests. Those who said that the people of this country would be cruelly oppressed by any recurrence to the corn duties could not be aware how ridiculously small the effect would be. He himself was not in favour of any fixed duty, but of a sliding scale. However, for the purpose of argument, he would assume that under the operation of a sliding scale it happened that a duty of 5s. per quarter was imposed, which would not, according to precedent, raise the selling price by more than half the amount of such duty. Even taking it that, the selling price was increased 5s., it would only mean to the bread consumer the large sum of one half-farthing per day, seven-eighths of a penny per week, or 3s. 9½d. per individual per year. He had indicated that under these conditions the tea duty might very fairly and on sound financial principles be remitted. The tea duty worked out at 2s.3½d. per head of the population. Even if the sliding scale should involve at any given time a 5s. duty on corn, that left a balance as against the consumer of only 1s. 6d. for the whole year, and that he urged was a matter that need not alarm anyone. A 5s. duty would produce no less a sum than £12,250,000 in the year, therefore, he thought he had shown the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he could get a balance of between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000 by abandoning the tea duty and substituting a duty of 5s. upon corn. Would any one, after that, tell the House that there would be bread riots, disturbances, and all the rest, if so moderate an impost was adopted? By means of reciprocal relations with other parts of the Empire they might obtain their food supplies under conditions which would at the same time develop the resources of the Empire and secure them against being wholly dependent upon foreign food supplies. He did not wish to identify himself with the

  963
  free admission of colonial produce—no colony had ever asked for it or was prepared to grant it in return—but what he did advocate was a preferential tariff under which the food stuffs and other commodities of their colonies would come into this country upon more favourable terms than those of countries outside the limits of the British Empire. He had shown that many millions were within the reach of the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he thought fit to rise superior to the prejudices which had so restricted the taxable area he had in his hands. He did not think any one would assert that it was possible to do without fresh sources of taxation for any great length of time. He could promise any Chancellor of the Exchequer who embarked upon some sounder system of finance a hearty support from the great bulk of the producers of this country, if, in the course of the financial measures, they were protected from some of the dangers to which they were now exposed from undue and excessive foreign competition. Would any hon. Gentleman deny that the pre-eminence of this country was rapidly ebbing in some of the staple industries? The cotton trade, for example, was not partaking of that general prosperity which the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to think prevailed all over the country, but was dwindling, and in many instances was actually being extinguished.
  MR. GEORGE HARWO'OD: As connected with the cotton trade, I feel bound to say that that statement is not correct. ["Hear, hear!"] I am not speaking of my own personal experience, but from a knowledge of the trade as a whole. The Lancashire cotton trade has not dwindled, but has distinctly improved. ["Hear, hear !"]
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHERreplied that whatever might be the case in the hon. Gentleman's immediate neighbourhood, he feared he would not find confirmation from many other parts of Lancashire.
  MR. HARWOOD: I am not speaking of my own immediate neighbourhood, but of the condition of the trade of Lancashire as a whole, of which I have fair knowledge. ["Hear, hear !"]
  *MR. JAMES LOWTHERcould only say that many persons largely engaged in the Lancashire cotton industry formed a very different estimate of its prospects from that of the hon. Gentleman. He
  964
  had heard of instances in which private concerns had been shut down, in which machinery which was giving employment to large numbers of workmen in Lancashire had been transported to Bombay or Japan, and was now being used in the production of cheap articles in the Far East. He did not believe it could be denied that the condition of the cotton trade in this country was one to occasion great alarm. Many of the limited liability companies were getting scarcely any dividend, and even those were anxiously considering whether they should not move to places where they could carry on their businesses under more favourable conditions. He challenged the hon. Gentleman opposite to find any authority to show that capital could be so advantageously spent in Lancashire as it could be in Japan or Bombay. The truth was that not only had our great industry of agriculture shrunk, but the textile trades were also languishing, and so far from our keeping pace industrially with other countries, we were already lagging behind. He hoped that the House, while not interfering on this occasion with the financial proposals of the Government, would at any rate afford his right hon. Friend some encouragement with a view to the discovery of some varied sources of income. The Resolution would, he hoped, afford an opportunity for some suggestions being made which might be of use to his right hon. Friend. He, of course, did not ask him to take back his Budget and recast his financial system at five minutes' notice; but he thought he was justified in asking him to look at the relative progress made by other countries under different fiscal systems, to rid his mind of the idea that our prosperity during the last 60 years was due to the present system, and to consider how far he could obtain some fresh sources of taxation which would enable our financial system to rest on a more sound basis. He begged to move his Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. VESEY KNOXsaid he rose to support not so much the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, as the actual terms of his Motion. The House had had many opportunities of discussing the incidence of direct taxation and its burden on the country, and he was one of those who believed that, on the whole, the Budget of the right

  965
  hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire had effected desirable changes in the incidence of direct taxation, for it had gone in the direction of putting the heaviest on the broadest shoulders, and making the rich pay proportionately more than the poor. The reason why he supported the Motion was that he ventured in deference to bring before the House a suggestion that the time was rife in some measure to deal with indirect taxation in the same way, and to endeavour to secure that a similar proportion of indirect taxation should fall on the poorer classes. It was now the principle of all Chancellors of the Exchequer to levy as large a sum in the way of indirect taxation as possible, upon as few consumable commodities as possible; to levy it on those commodities, not in proportion to their value, but in proportion to the quantity consumed. Therefore, necessarily, the commodities selected for taxation had been those which were consumed most largely by the masses of the poorer people. Indirect taxation need not necessarily fall upon the poor than the rich. For instance, a tax was levied on silk in America, and a large revenue was obtained from it.
  MR. BARTLEY: How much does it bring in?
  MR. KNOX: Over £2,000,000; and it brought in less than it might if there were an excise as well as an import duty. It an excise as well as a customs duty were applied in this country in the case of silk, he ventured to think that five or six millions might be raised, without materially affecting the amount consumed. There had been very little change in indirect taxation for 30 or 40 years. Thirty or forty years ago, when the commodities taxed were very much dearer than now, a fixed duty in gold was placed on commodities which the people were most accustomed to consume. As years went by those commodities had become much cheaper. That was true of all articles of taxation. It was true of beer, of tobacco, and of spirits. Therefore, the effect of the system had been that in proportion to the value of the commodity the tax had been growing heavier year by year. Ten shillings was worth more now in commodities than it was 20 or 30 years ago, and although the duties were fixed nominally, owing to the increase in the
  966
  value of gold, the duties had really been steadily rising, and had become larger in proportion to the value of the commodity. For instance, the value of spirits before the duty was paid was now only 1s. 6d. a gallon, this low price being due chiefly to changes, he would not say improvements, in the method of manufacture. Thirty or forty years ago the price was something like 3s. 6d. a gallon; therefore the duty was very much heavier now in proportion to the value of the commodity. He knew that by many Free Traders it was said to be a necessary part of Free Traders that duties should be levied as specific duties and not as ad valorem duties, but he found that that notion was confined to England. The Free Trade Party, the Democratic Party, in America, was in favour of the ad valorem duty. So was the Tariff Reform Party in Canada. Why, in the face of these facts, was it considered in this country that there should be any necessary connection between specific duties and Free Trade? It might be urged that there was greater difficulty in the collection of ad valorem duties; but it would probably be found that every change made in taxes with a view to making their burden more equable would involve some increased difficulty of collection. The Liberal Party had shown themselves, in the matter of direct taxation, in favour of taxing the rich more heavily than the poor; why should they not, whenever they had the opportunity, seek to apply the same principle in regard to indirect taxation? He had never been able to understand why the same rate of duty should be charged on the common tobacco consumed by the working man and on the more expensive kinds smoked by the middle and upper classes. Indeed, when they took this and other similar cases they would find prima facie ground for thinking that in enforcing specific and not ad valorem duties, Cobden and those who acted with him were actuated by the feeling of the middle classes, whose desire was to escape as far as possible from the burden of taxation. At the present time the taxes paid by the middle classes were very small indeed when compared with those paid by the poor. A very interesting speech was made on a recent occasion by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division

  967
  The hon. Member had good reason for being opposed to any change in our fiscal system. He was a most ardent prohibitionist. He had no need for alcoholic liquors and wished nobody else to consume them. To him the present system was an ideal system, because it placed so largo a part, of the taxation upon the shoulders of those who consumed alcoholic drink. But a very large number of the teetotallers of this country consumed a good deal of alcohol without, however, contributing to the revenue. Mr. Bannister, the Government analyst, in his evidence recently before the Licensing Commission, said that he had analysed herb beer and several so-called temperance drinks, and he found that the lowest proportion of alcohol contained in any of them was 2·9 per cent., while in one case it was as high as 13·7 per cent.—very much higher than the average percentage of alcohol in ordinary beer. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Spen Valley had advised Irishmen if they wanted to reduce their taxation to add more water to their whisky. He calculated that if they attempted to make, with the use of whisky, a liquid not more heavily taxed than beer they should have to add 63 parts of water to one of whisky. He did not know whether that would be a liquid likely to meet with a large measure of consumption. [Laughter.] But what he wanted to point out was that it would contain less alcohol than liquor which was consumed by teetotallers, and on which no duty was paid. There were three classes of liquor drinkers in these countries—Irishmen and Scotchmen who consumed whisky, the average Englishman who took his alcohol in beer, and that minority of Englishmen who took their alcohol in temperance drinks. [Laughter.] The Irishman was taxed for his alcohol about six times as heavily as the Englishman who drank beer, while the Englishman who was wily enough to take his alcohol in temperance drinks of course escaped taxation altogether. [Laughter.] He contended that we ought so to rearrange our indirect taxation that the burden would fall more heavily on the rich than on the poor; and that we should attempt to catch the teetotaller who at present escaped almost entirely from
  968
  indirect taxation. [Laughter.] Incidentally such a modification would have the effect of lightening the burden which pressed upon Ireland, and that was his principal reason for suggesting it. Personally, he did not think it would be possible to entirely remove the financial injustice under which Ireland suffered without imposing different financial systems upon the two countries, but he held that while maintaining the financial union between Great Britain and Ireland, it would still be possible by some such re-arrangement of indirect taxation as he had suggested to lighten the burden which pressed so heavily upon Ireland now, and to reduce appreciably the grievance from which Ireland suffered.
  *CAPTAIN PRETYMANcalled attention to the question of the Death Duties. His complaint, he said, was not so much in regard to the amount of the charge which these duties involved upon property, as to their unequal incidence. He did not say that the total amount of property in the country taxable for Death Duty could not afford to pay the sum which those duties now produced if evenly distributed, but he did say that the present incidence of the duties, while leaving some classes of property almost untouched, fell with extraordinary hardship upon certain individuals. It had been said that it would only be fair to give those duties at least a three years' trial before the question of making an Amendment in them was raised. That period of trial had now elapsed; and the best way of approaching the subject of amending the tax was to consider whether the objects which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer stated he had in view in introducing that particular form of taxation had been attained. Those objects were four in number—to equalise the payments on realty in proportion to the payments on personalty; to avoid the complications and difficulties which existed under the old duties; to secure that the extremely rich, the millionaires, were "bled;" and to avoid any injury to agriculture by the imposition of the new estate duties. He asserted that not a single one of those objects had been attained, and that, on the other hand, great hardships had been inflicted by this new form of taxation. ["Hear, hear !"]

  969
  To take the minor points first, it was the common opinion amongst lawyers that greater complications and difficulties existed under the new system than had prevailed under the old; and as personal property—the form of property usually possessed by the extremely rich — was easily transferred, the millionaire was well able to avoid the new duties by transferring his property during life. ["Hear, hear!"] But a more important point was whether the equalisation of the payments in respect to realty and personalty had been attained. A nominal equality might have been attained, but certainly not a real equality. The different conditions under which realty and personalty existed had not been fairly taken into consideration. The responsibility of landlords was often talked about. The landlords did not deny that responsibility, and they were willing to act up to it. It was expensive. It included, among other things, the employment of a large number of persons about the estate, and the keeping of tenants on the land by means of improvements and reductions in rent. But no such responsibility fell upon the owner of personalty ["Hear, hear !"] Again, the peculiar indivisibility of landed property had not been taken into account. A man who had his property invested in stocks and shares had no difficulty in selling out a portion of his property in order to pay the duty, and what remained was not affected by the transaction. But a man who had his entire capital vested in a business, a trade, or a landed estate was in a totally different position. He had to break oft' and sell a portion of his business or property, or, on the other hand, to fully mortgage that business or property in order to pay the duty, thereby greatly reducing the value of what remained, and perhaps making it difficult or impossible to carry on the business. Then there was another point of inequality between realty and personalty. That was the power of avoidance which personalty had—the power of escaping the duty by transfer before death. The Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking in the House on May 10 said:—
  "The only other suggestion that has been made, so far as I know, is the one by the hon. Member for Northumberland, viz., that I should in some way or other stop what he characterises as an evasion of the Death Duties.
  970
  I take it that he means that people are making gifts in their lives instead of leaving their property to their heirs. In my opinion, that is a very proper practice, and certainly as long as I am Chancellor of the Exchequer I will do nothing so tyrannical and so unjust as to interfere with the liberty of a healthy man to dispose of his property to whomsoever he will."
  That which was a proper practice in the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was confined entirely to personalty, because while realty was almost invariably in settlement, personalty was almost invariably free. Evidence that avoidance was now practised in the case of personalty was to be found in the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman stated that within the last 12 months the amount of realty upon which duty was charged had increased by ten millions sterling, while the amount of personalty on which duty was charged had decreased by ten millions sterling; and the right hon. Gentleman attributed that state of things to the avoidance of duty by personalty. [" Hear, hear !"] Further evidence of that fact was contained in a letter written to him by a friend.
  "The Act is naturally avoided as much as possible,"
  said the writer.
  "Its intense injustice is the cause. I believe they will get less out of my small property than they would have done under the old law, for if I live another year, except the coat on my back, I shall have little else." [Laughter.] "I know one large merchant who said he should make his sons partners and buy an annuity, and damn the Bill." —[laughter]—"and I don't know one friend about here who has not done all he can to evade the Act. Sooner or later this must tell. Remember Gladstone on our Irish policy, 'I don't say an unjust law ought to be broken, but I do say it will be."'
  [Laughter and cheers.]
  He would quote a very high authority on this subject, the First Lord of the Admiralty, who said, on the introduction of the Act of 1894:—
  "I was advised by the Inland Revenue that after you had reached a certain point in putting on Death Duties you would then easily reach the point where the increase of duty would not necessarily bring you in an increase of revenue. … A man now says, I think it better to retain the control of my money

  971
  in my own hands and will leave it to my sons when I die, but if you are going to take several thousands of pounds from the family money and waste it by paying it to the Exchequer"
  —that was a very strong phrase coming from an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer —[laughter]—
  "it would form a very potent motive for distributing the money during the lifetime of the testator."
  He thought he had quoted sufficient authority to prove that the avoidance of the duties was and would be practised, and was a force with which they had to reckon. And in this respect these duties were only following the general law in regard to taxes of this character. Land tax originally imposed upon all property including personalty, salaries and stock in trade, was so effectually evaded by all but land that it was eventually repealed except in regard to realty, and now fell upon that class of property only. The same had occurred in regard to rates, and this was forcibly pointed out by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer when discussing the 1894 Budget, therefore—in the history of the land tax and of rates, they found precedents for this state of things. In regard to the distribution of the load on the two classes of property, the inequality was very great. They ought to consider in many cases, not only the weight or amount of the load, but the manner in which it was placed on the particular body which had to bear it and the particular condition of that body. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had acted much as would a man who insisted on putting the saddle of a horse on a camel, and distributing the burden which was to be borne in exactly the same way on both. Also this extra burden was imposed principally on realty, and so upon agriculture, at a time when agriculture was in its worst condition. The right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire denied that these duties galled the shoulders of those who paid them, and based his contention on the fact that the Estate Duty was usually paid in one sum rather than by instalments. On April 29 of this year the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "So far from the pressure being undue, and so far from the instalments being necessary, people find it more convenient to pay the
  972
  Death Duties at once; is not that testimony to the fact that these funds have been provided without undue pressure on the taxpayer, and do not gall the shoulders of those who have to pay them?"
  The right hon. Gentleman had, he believed, authorised the payments by instalments, with the idea of somewhat lightening the burden of those who had to pay them. [Sir W. HARCOURT signified assent.] Yes, but he forgot that the old duty was payable only out of income, and, therefore, payment by instalments did facilitate their payment. But this was a charge of a totally different character; it was a charge upon capital. If he could show that the actual incidence of the duty was in some cases in excess of the income available to pay it for each of the eight years in which the instalments were to be paid, he thought he should have proved the right hon. Gentleman's contention to be incorrect. In such cases the only resource of the person who had to pay the duty was either to mortgage his property or to sell a portion of it, and that was the reason why the duty was usually paid in a lump sum instead of by instalments. ["Hear, hear !"] He would take the ordinary case of a landed estate producing £10,000 a year. At 20¾ years' purchase which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them was the average assessment, it would pay on £207,500; the duty at 6½ per cent, would be £13,500, and if paid in instalments with the 3 per cent. interest it would amount to £15,000. The instalments, in round figures, would thus be about £2,000 a year for eight years. If the money was raised on mortgage a man could obtain £13,000 at a cost of about £500 a year in interest. The successor, therefore, had before him the alternative of paying £2,000 a year for eight years, or £500 a year permanent charge. But there was also another strong inducement to raise the money in this way. Supposing he died when this payment was incomplete, or shortly afterwards, that mortgage was deducted from the value of the property before the next duty was payable, and the duty of the next inheritor would be greatly reduced. In the other case, if he starved himself for eight years to pay the very large charge to the Exchequer, he became simply an

  973
  unpaid agent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the sole purpose of placing his successor in a similar position. It was just as easy to pay off a mortgage as to pay the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and supposing a man found it convenient and easy to save his income he could do so.
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTI had no idea it was; so easy. [Laughter.]
  *CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not think it so easy when he had finished. [Laughter.] Besides the estate duty as above, there was the succession duty to pay, which, except in the case of lineals, was a very large sum, and must be paid out of income. There were also certain charges, not mortgages, for younger children and dowagers, for which no rebate was given, and which must be paid out of income. Though in some cases these did not exist, they usually did, and were very heavy indeed. He would take, in illustration of his argument, the concrete case of a property which was in the course of paying the duties at the present time —the Rufford properly, which was situated in Nottingham-shire. Within the last 15 years that properly had paid no less than £88,000. He had a letter from the solicitor to the property saying that at the minimum figure the succession duty now payable would be £50,000 and the estate duty £100,000. The available net income of the properly after agents' expenses had been paid was now £19,000 a year. [Sir W. HARCOURT signified dissent.] But he had it from the owner of the property in his own handwriting, and he assumed that he knew his own affairs better than the right hon. Gentleman knew them. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: No such charge would be possible.
  *CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: The right hon. Gentleman had no notion what was possible under the Finance Act. [Cheers.] When the right hon. Gentleman brought in the Act he evidently did not know the hardships it would inflict. ["Hear, hear!"]
  *SIR H. FOWLER: What is 20 years' purchase at £19,000 a year? [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] Why, £400,000.
  *CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: As a matter of
  974
  average that was so. But he was taking a concrete case. It was a question of fact. It was all very well to ask what would happen on the law of average.
  *SIR H. FOWLER: The law prohibits it being more than 25 years purchase.
  *CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: That is on gross income. Gross income is a totally different thing. [Cheers.] The Succession Duty of £50,000 in the case he was considering involved a charge on the owner of property, which must be paid out of income, of eight instalments of £6,000 a year each. He had also to pay in the form of charges to younger children and others—who had a life interest in the property chargeable with duty and aggregated with what he received— £3,500 a year. This deducted from the total income left him £9,500 a year as available income. Out of this he had to pay £100,000 in Death Duties. According to the right hon. Gentleman it would be easy to pay that in eight instalments of £12,000 a year each. [Cheers.] the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished financier, and if he could show how eight instalments of £12,000 a year could be paid out of an income of £9,500 he would eclipse the financial feats he had previously attempted. He submitted that on a concrete case he had absolutely proved that it was impossible for the owner of this property to pay this duty by instalments, but owing to the exigencies of the case and the enormous amount of duty, he must borrow the money and pay it in a lump sum. The right hon. Gentleman, however, actually stated that the fact that it was paid as a lump sum showed it did not gall his shoulders. A letter from the owner of the property said:—
  "I think we should be quite safe in putting the number of employés whom I have been obliged to discharge from Rufford, because I cannot find money to pay them, down at 40. A very large number of these are married men with families, and the misery is very great, especially among the old ones, who feel it will be very difficult to obtain employment elsewhere."
  Everyone would allow that among the glories of England were the country houses and the amenities of country life, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite had done a great deal to destroy those amenities. [Cheers.] Another gentleman wrote that, he was reduced almost to beggary by the Death Duties. He had reduced his personal expenses to a minimum. He travelled third class, and it was only by

  975
  discharging old servants that he could find the money. He refused to take the responsibility, and would not pay the duty. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded against him, these old servants would know that it was not of his own free will that he discharged them. ["Hear, hear!"] in what cases did these particular duties fall with extreme hardship? He would quote the prophetic words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, uttered when the Budget was introduced in 1894:—
  "In cases of lineal descent, the new Estate Duty will cover the Succession Duty. But where estates do not descend lineally, Succession Duty will be exacted plus the Estate Duty. That will impose an enormous additional burden upon estates of the kind I allude to (agricultural estates). It is no sufficient answer to say that these estates will only be calculated on their fair marketable value. When you have property in the country reduced to such a point as I have described, any additional burden is infinitely more killing than it is on property of larger value. It will simply ruin the holders of that property."
  The case he himself had quoted bore out that contention. The right hon. Gentleman further said:—
  "In my opinion, that increase of the Death Duties ought not to be made. In the circumstances of the moment it will be grossly unfair upon the owners of agricultural land."
  This bore particularly on the point that, in certain individual cases, excessive hardship would fall on the owners of property owing to their having to pay on two separate scales, and on the highest scale in each instance. There must be certain cases where, both on the hereditary scale for succession duty and on the graduation scale according to the value of the property for estate duty, properties came under the highest scale for both; and in these cases it was so punishing that it ruined the holder of the property. Before these duties were imposed in 1894 the amount of duty which realty paid in proportion to personalty was one-tenth. Now it was one-fifth. That double amount represented a larger proportion than the true value of realty as compared with personalty in this country.
  *SIR H. FOWLER: It includes house property.
  *CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: Certainly. What answer would he receive about these
  976
  hardships of which he had spoken? He would be told, in regard to settlements, that estate duty was only payable once in a settlement, and that this was such a large relief to that class of property that it had no particular right to complain. The right hon. Gentleman said when he brought in the Budget of 1894, and speaking of the additional 1 per cent. settlement duty, "in this manner we levy the same amount on the estate as if left absolutely." Therefore, that is to say, that the 1 per cent. is calculated as an absolute monetary equivalent for the duty which it has escaped, owing to the property only paying once in a settlement. So it cannot be set up as equivalent for want of equalisation or anything else. They would be told that the income tax relief given under the Budget, and the relief given under the Agricultural Rating Bill last Session were an equivalent for these particular duties. He maintained that the relief given was not one iota more—it was considerably less— than the fair proportion agricultural land should pay of these particular taxes without reference to Death Duties. That, he believed, was common to all who had studied the question from an agricultural point of view. The one could not be held up as compensation for the other. He regarded this relief in relation to the Death Duties as relief on the henwife principle. What he meant was that it was as if a henwife excused herself to the fowl, whose neck she was about to wring, by reminding it of what a good meal she had recently given to the inhabitants of the poultry yard. He regretted that an Amendment to enable the owner of life interest in real estate to transfer it without becoming liable to duty just as the owner of property in fee could transfer it, which he had put upon the Paper last Session, and which had been postponed in consideration of an undertaking then given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay the costs of both parties in a suit to determine the present state of the law on this point and other Amendments relating to the Death Duties, had been ruled out of order, because the Budget Resolution to amend the law relating to was founded did not contain the usual Resolutions to amend the law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue. Many regarded the present as an opportune time to ventilate the subject, and it was

  977
  hoped the Amendments would have been discussed and judged on their merits. He did not know whether the difficulty could by any means be got over, but if it could, he was sure it would be the wish of the House it should be. Had this not occurred, he should not have needed to refer to particular Amendments now on Second Reading, but as the Amendments could not now be put down he would ask the House to allow him shortly to refer to them. ["Hear, hear!"] He contended that some maximum should be imposed, and suggested that no property should pay more than 15 per cent, of its capital value under the Act within a period of 16½ years, that was, half a generation. The next point on which remedy was required was that of husband and wife. At present a husband and wife were regarded as the same and one unit for the income tax, but were regarded as separate for the payment of Death Duties. The next point was a very simple one, and related to insurance policies. If any person starved his income to insure against the duties, the sum received at death was liable to duty. He suggested that where an insurance was effected in the name of the Controller of Inland Revenue, no duty should be charged upon it. Again, hardships arose in respect to aggregation. Aggregation, when combined with graduation—and to graduation as a principle he did not object—inflicted the greatest hardship. If a large sum went to A, and only a small legacy to B, B had to pay on as high a scale as A. On what principle could that particular form of duty be defended? There had recently come under his notice the case of an old female servant who was left a house of the capital value of £226, and an annuity of £20 a year, and was required to pay £60 duty. There was hardship also in regard to valuation. If an owner of property chose to settle a sum of money upon a child on marriage, the Revenue Department insisted that for purposes of duty an actual valuation should be made on his entire property. Another point concerned agricultural property. The allowances made for outgoings were absolutely and entirely insufficient; 12½ per cent, was nothing approaching a fair estimate for the necessary outgoings. ["Hear,
  978
  hear!"] The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say to him, "If I yield to you on these points, where should I get the money required?" One penny of the income tax now raised two millions sterling, and he very much doubted whether, if all the suggestions he had made were carried into effect, it would cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer so much as two millions. He felt that if he had an income, it was fair and just and right he should pay a proportion of that income to the maintenance of the State, and in proportion as that income-was large, so he ought to pay a large share. But what he objected to was that under the form of these duties a heavy charge was made on an individual absolutely irrespective of the fact whether he had any income to pay it out of or not. Having shown these grievances, and suggested some remedies, he ventured to say that in this particular form of taxation the very maximum amount of hardship had been imposed on individuals with the minimum of result to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not think it would be possible to impose a tax which could fall with greater hardship on individuals than this tax did. He did not like to accuse the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire of having imposed this tax with the object of injuring those who had to pay it, but he reminded the House of what the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary said only a few nights ago, when referring to the Workmen's Compensation Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said there were two kinds of social legislation, punitive and remedial. That remark applied also to taxation; there was punitive taxation and taxation which was levied as evenly as possible simply with the object of raising the money that the Chancellor of the Exchequer required. In the opinion of a large number of individuals, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire could not be exonerated from a desire to impose punitive taxation upon the landed classes. That, at any rate, was the impression made by speeches delivered by some of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters at the time the question was before the country. The Conservative Party had opposed the imposition of these duties, and now expected that some consideration would

  979
  be given by this Government to the grievances he had enumerated. They admitted that last Session was one of stress and storm, but this year affairs were in a different position, and he and others would regret exceedingly if this opportunity could not be taken, of, at any rate, reviewing the situation. The Secretary for the Colonies, speaking in that House on the 13th of this month, said:—
  "When it is a matter of justice a small number of people have as much right to consideration as a large number."
  They believed that a reconsideration of these matters was a matter of justice, and it was as a matter of justice that he ventured to commend it to the attention of the House. [Cheers.]
  On the return of Mr. SPEAKER, after the usual interval,
  MR. HARWOODwished to explain a remark he made in the course of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet. He feared that his interruption might be misunderstood in particular in regard to the cotton trade. He did not wish to be understood as saying that the cotton trade was exceptionally prosperous. As one interested in the trade, it would have been distinctly unwise. What he did wish to impress on the House was that the argument the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Lowther) was using, that the cotton trade was declining, was illusive. When he said that the trade had certainly improved, he referred to no particular district, but to the whole trade generally. The right hon. Gentleman drew pathetic pictures of mills being dismantled and machinery being removed. Such cases, of course, had occurred in every large trade or business that did not keep abreast with the times; but to mention isolated cases of that kind proved nothing in regard to the general condition of a trade as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured, if he might say so, to perform the operation of putting salt on a bird's tail by asking if he would recommend anyone to invest money in the cotton trade. As one interested in the trade, it would, of course, be suicidal in him to give such advice. He might be perfectly prepared to invest his own money,
  980
  and the very reason why he should invest his own would be a reason why he should not advise anyone else to do the same. Had the right hon. Gentleman been in his place, he should have liked to invite him to pay a visit to Manchester, the centre of the world's cotton trade. He should be only too happy to introduce him to the Exchange, and secure him an audience; and he was sure that, whilst his unvarying humour was nowhere more appreciated than in Lancashire, his economic theories would suggest to his listeners the idea that he was a sort of economic icthyosaurus, or whatever other extinct animal he would like to be compared with. The notion that the cotton trade was languishing was absurd. Even the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the cotton trade was not so prosperous recently was a proof of the soundness of the fiscal system under which the country had been lately governed. The extraordinary prosperity of the trade years ago attracted more capital than could be absorbed with profit, and the consequence was that a time of prosperity was followed by a time of comparative adversity. But these large increments of capital were now being absorbed, and the trade was gradually getting steadily prosperous; and it was, again, another instance of the soundness of the fiscal system under which we were governed. He would not attempt to follow the argument of the hon. Member who last spoke as to the Death Duties. He was not responsible in any way for that legislation, and he would not pretend to criticise its details or answer the hon. Gentleman's objections; but what he wished to impress on the hon. Member and on the House was that those who were connected with manufactures, and represented large populations had a firm conviction that the land had not borne its fair share of the national expenditure. The hon. Member said that they wanted justice. He considered that they were having justice, and that the injustice was to be found in the condition preceding this last arrangement with regard to the Death Duties. His opinion—and he knew it was shared by great numbers of the population on both sides of politics—was that under any arrangement, whatever Parliament did, the land always became ultimately the greatest beneficiaire in the

  981
  prosperity and security of the country. Take, for example, the expenditure on the Army and Navy, necessary and right as it was. Who was it that, after all, benefited most by that expenditure? It was the owners of real property. Personal property was transitory; it melted away; it could be moved. But real property was the one item in the national estate which benefited most by strengthening the Army and Navy and preserving the integrity and safety of the realm; and they in the manufacturing towns held that a fair share of the expenditure on the defensive forces of the country had not hitherto been borne by those who had derived the chief benefit from it. ["Hear, hear !"] He did not, however, rise so much in regard to this matter, as he wished to call the attention of the House—and particularly that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer —to an inference from a remark which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet, a remark which in substance had been made very frequently during the Debates on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that they had to raise an income of 112 millions, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the most interesting speech in which he introduced the Bill, told the House that they had to raise an income of £109,750,000. He called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that what the right hon. Gentleman called his final balance sheet was drawn up on principles of unsound book-keeping. What the majority of the people in the country meant by national expenditure was expenditure on national objects, but not on objects which were purely matters of private business. What he objected to was the inclusion of the item for the Post Office and Telegraph Services, which was not national expenditure in the ordinary sense, but private business. The same observation applied to the Suez Canal shares, the profit of which only was shown; but what they wanted was to see what they were spending and receiving as a nation.
  MR. T. LOUGHsaid that if a change had been made in the wording of the Amendment, he would have been able to vote for it, but as submitted by the right hon. Gentleman be could only render it moral support. The
  982
  right hon. Gentleman contemplated supplying the Chancellor of the Exchequer with more money, and he offered to give the public a present of 4½ millions at the price of levying a tax upon them of 11 or 12 millions. On the other hand, he, in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, wanted economy introduced into the national finances. Our expenditure at present was monstrous; it was growing too rapidly. He thought that there were 17 subjects of taxation at present, but the main subjects were only four or five. Personally, he did not want a large number; he thought there might be eight. The broad principle on which he supported the right hon. Gentleman was this. When they had only a few subjects of taxation the taxes were levied on the poor people. The more the number was extended the more they caught the rich. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech took the case of a poor man in 1837 and a poor man in 1897, and he showed the difference in the pressure of taxation which had taken place in that period. The right hon. Gentleman claimed that nearly all the change that had taken place had been effected by increasing the tax on property. He had had an interesting calculation upon that statement sent him by a correspondent, who pointed out that, although the tax on property had increased, the total increase since 1837 was only £29,000,000, while the increase of the taxes paid by the poorer classes was £27,500,000. The three subjects taken in this calculation were beer, spirits, and tobacco. In 1837 the total amount raised by the duties on these three articles was" £ 16,000,000, whilst in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget the amount was put at £43,750,000. That in itself showed that the national revenue was not levied entirety at present, or, indeed, as far as it ought to be, on the increase of taxes on property. Where as in England in 1837 the poor would have paid 12s. 8d. per head, in Ireland at the same time the taxes would only have amounted to 4s. 10d. per head. But after 60 years, whilst in England the poor man instead of 12s. 8d. paid only 7s. 4d., a great decrease, the poor man in Ireland paid 7s. 7d., or a substantial increase. The change, therefore, had not been equal all over the country, and had pressed not

  983
  only on Ireland, but the change that had taken place in the spirit duty had pressed very hard on Scotland as well.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,)said he did not think the hon. Gentleman's figures were correct, and he was bringing into the calculation articles which he did not bring in at all in the comparison he made. The articles he alluded to in his Budget statement bore the same rate of duty in England as in Ireland.
  MR. LOUGHaccepted the correction, but said that, at any rate, in the three articles he had referred to, there had been this growth in the tax. His point, therefore, was that a great part of the increase of taxation during the 60 years had been paid by the very poor. He could not follow the right hon. Member for Thanet in his proposal to put a duty on corn, which would make the poor man pay more in taxation than he did at present. A duty of 5s. per quarter on corn instead of increasing the selling price by half-a-crown, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, would increase it by double the amount of the duty, for the consumer would not only have to pay the net amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer levied, but a large profit on that amount as well. Instead of putting a tax on bread he would suggest as subjects for taxation silk, cider, and perry. Cider and perry were taxed until 1825 and 1830, when the tax was taken off because they were intoxicants used by the English and not by the Scotch and Irish. The right hon. Member for Thanet had recommended that a duty should be placed on all manuactured goods brought into this country, but he was of opinion that such a system would do a great deal of harm. With regard to the Finance Bill itself, it was so simple that it was difficult to criticise it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that he had preserved a balance of £500,000 for contingencies. That, he submitted, was far too much. Again, with the large surplus he had the right hon. Gentleman should have made some attempt to deal with what were known as the small breakfast-table duties. Altogether, he thought a considerable reduction of taxation might have been made this year if there had been any inclination in that direction.
  *SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid all who had experience of county constituencies in 1895 could testify how general and strong was the anticipation that the injustice done to real property in 1894 would be dealt with as soon as the Unionist Party were returned to power. At that time, as his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division had shown, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed the opinion that the new Death Duties would under a certain combination of circumstances prove the ruin of owners of that class of property.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I distinctly stated to my constituents, and it was published throughout the country during the General Election of 1895, that, the Death Duties having been enacted, it appeared to me impossible to repeal them or to alter them in any material form.
  *SIR H. MAXWELLcould assure his right hon. Friend that he did not wish to appear as an unfriendly critic. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: "You are !"] He had no wish to adopt an unfriendly attitude towards the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the last interruption seemed distinctly unfriendly towards himself. He ventured to say that the views which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed in 1894 in that House were much more widely known and deeply taken to heart by the constituencies than any he confided to his constituents in Bristol in 1895. The Leader of the other wing of the Unionist Party, the Duke of Devonshire, delivered at Buxton, on June 14, 1894, a speech which attracted widespread attention. In that speech the Duke spoke of the "enormous exactions" imposed by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on those succeeding to landed property, which, he said, would bring about a great change in the manner in which the incomes derived from the Devonshire estates should be expended. Naturally that speech excited not unreasonable anticipations of what the policy of the Unionist Party would be should they return to power. Now, approaching, as they were, the end of the second year during which the present Government had been in office, it did not seem unreasonable that large numbers of persons throughout the country should look for some fulfilment of

  985
  those expectations, which, rightly or wrongly, were founded on the action of Her Majesty's present advisers while they were in Opposition. The relief afforded in the Budget of last year to owners of valuable works of art did not touch the far wider and deeper interests of those dependent on the land for their income. In a well-known phrase, the right hon. Member for Montrose had said:—
  "Rest assured that taxation, however spread, however disguised, falls eventually on the shoulders of the industrial classes."
  And the crippling of those who held the land by the imposition of undue burdens must affect those who were dependent on them. There were many hon. Members opposite who hailed with frank satisfaction anything tending to weaken the landlords. [Opposition cries of "No !"] Such sentiments had many times been frankly stated from the Benches opposite. But hon. Gentlemen who held those views ought to remember that, in striking at the landlords, who were comparatively few in number, they were wounding tens of thousands behind the landlords. ["Hear, hoar!"] The Duke of Bedford—one of the largest landowners in England—had lately published a statement as to the revenues of his estates. He showed that on the two properties—Woburn and Oakley—comprising 51,600 acres, the expenditure from 1816 to 1895 had been about £4,230,500; and that after excluding all expenditure on Woburn Abbey, its park and farm, there was at present an annual loss of £7,000 on those estates; while the Death Duties on them were estimated at £65,000. If that was the result on one of the largest properties in England, it could not be considered that landlords were altogether selfish in protesting against the incidence of these Death Duties. He had recently heard of a property in the south-west of Scotland which had been in the possession of the same family from the time of the Celtic chiefs. That family had supplied many public servants to the State, many of them had occupied scats both in this House and in the Scottish Parliament before the Union. They had resided constantly on their estates, and fulfilled the ideal of country gentlemen. The gross rental was about £13,000 a year; and,
  986
  the owner dying last year, the heir had to pay in Death Duties £32,000—equal to at least five years' net income from the estate. The result was that the heir was plunged into debt, and, for the very first time in the history of the property, it had to be advertised to let for sporting purposes. He might be told that the heir could sell, but what class would benefit by a forced sale? And he had yet to learn that the Conservative Party identified itself with the view that it was better for property to pass out of the hands of those who had had it so long. If the Government really sought to anticipate the end of the present land system in this country, then it must be a question with himself and others how far they would follow them in that policy. [Cheers.] For many years he had been an active Member of the Conservative Party. For 17 years he had been a Member of the House of Commons, and for six years he had held office under a Conservative Prime Minister; and he was loth to believe that the Unionist Party had adopted this unfriendly attitude to the landed interest. If they had not, but believed that, on the whole, the ownership of land as understood and practised in Great Britain had tended to the welfare and advancement of all classes connected with the land, then he urged the Government to consider what means could be taken to relieve that system from burdens which in the end must prove intolerable, and to protect it from impending dissolution. He hoped to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopt in 1897 or 1898 some policy which was more in harmony with the views which he and his colleagues had professed in Opposition in 1894. [Cheers.]
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, before I allude to the general question raised by the Amendment my right hon. Friend has moved, I should like shortly to refer to the charge made against me by the hon. Member for Bolton, whom I do not now see in his place. The hon. Member referred to the mode in which the Budget accounts were presented to Parliament; and he suggested that it would be more business-like and more in accordance with what he called proper book keeping, if in future I entered in those accounts; the net receipts from such services as the Post Office and the telegraphs, in place

  987
  of entering on one side the expenditure and on the other the gross receipts. The hon. Member is ignorant of the fact that in 1854 Parliament, by an Act passed at the instance of Mr. Gladstone, deliberately provided for its own advantage and for the information of the country, that the statement of accounts should be furnished just as they are now. ["Hear, hear !"] It is, therefore, not in my power, without disobedience to the law, to carry out the suggestion the hon. Member has made, which, in my opinion, would be a serious disadvantage to Parliament and to the public, and which would not enable a fair account of the expenditure and revenue of the country to be presented. ["Hear, hear!"] I have found myself in this Debate in what I suppose is the invariable position of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have had to suffer more than once during the past Session for what has been called a disposition to too great economy. [Laughter.] Even on the very Bill that preceded this Bill this evening, there was more than one speaker who complained that, owing to my parsimony, an insufficient sum had been provided for the necessitous Board Schools of England; and I cannot but repeat, in reply to the hon. Member for Islington, the statement which I ventured to make in introducing the Budget, that the great spending department of this country now is the House of Commons itself. ["Hear, hear!"] But while expenditure is demanded from all quarters of the House for almost every conceivable object, I am in the unenviable position of being grudged taxes wherewith to meet those demands. ["Hear, hear !" and laughter.] I will admit that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet does not grudge me taxes.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: No: I would give you some more. [Laughter.]
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: But my right hon. Friend does not intend to devote them to expenditure. Under his well-known theories that Protection would be the best policy for this country, he invites me to repeal the tea duties, to levy a 5s. duty on corn, to levy duty on all manufactured goods, which, I think, he would find it impossible to define—[" hear, hear !"]—for the great proportion of what he would call our manufactured imports are goods
  988
  which are further manufactured when they arrive in this country—["hear, hear!"]—and, having given me additional revenue in that way, he proposes to devote it, not to expenditure, but to the repeal of existing direct taxation either in the way of income tax or Death Duties. I do not wish to follow my right hon. Friend into the controversy between Protection and Free Trade. He did not dwell on that this evening. I know he believes we are rapidly going down the Bill. I know he believes that other countries are, owing to their policy of protection, able to compete with us on much more favourable terms; that our pre-eminence as a manufacturing country is ebbing; that we are lagging behind; and that the relative progress of other countries is greater than ours owing to their different fiscal systems. To my mind, the very fact of the enormous revenue that is raised by the present system of taxation is an answer to that charge. ["Hear, hear!"] I do not wish, to weary the House, but I could go into statistics as to the comparative trade of the United Kingdom and of our great neighbours, France, Germany, and Italy, for a period of ten years which would show, first, that we have an enormous preponderance over any other country in the bulk of our trade; secondly, that the fall in prices may have been rather a source of profit than of loss to this country, because it has been a fall in prices, not only of the manufactures which we export, but of the raw materials which we import—["hear, hear !"]—and, thirdly, that although the actual value of trade may have diminished, it has diminished less in this country than in other countries. ["Hear, hear !"] I could still further show, in answer to my right hon. Friend's comparison of our imports with our exports, that not only do we receive an enormous advantage from our foreign investments coming back to us in the shape of imports, but also that we are, in fact, the carriers of the world, and that from our shipping, which amounts, I think, to half that of the whole world, we receive what is an enormous amount, equal to 100 millions a year, to pay for the import trade of this country. ["Hear, hear !"] I do not quite understand what is the object of my right hon. Friend. As I think

  989
  I have already shown, our existing fiscal system is equal to the present demands. Of course, it may be argued that the distribution of our taxation is unfair, that direct taxes should be abolished and indirect taxes substituted, or vice versâ; but I say our system of taxation is at present equal to the demand. ["Hear, hear !"] But I entirely admit, in answer to my right hon. Friend, that do not wish to draw back in any way from what I said last year. I do think that the narrow basis of our present system of taxation may become a source of danger. In the event of a period of serious depression of trade, or, of course, much more hi the event of a great war—if we should be so unfortunate as to incur it—we should have to seek for other sources of revenue besides those from which we at present draw— ["hear, hear !"]—and, as I said last year, I do not envy the task of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who has to make such a search. I am not at all prepared to say that our present system of taxation, whether direct or indirect, is infallible. I am not at all prepared to say that we might not make some changes, by additional taxation upon articles now subject to taxation, by reducing taxation upon articles now subject to taxation, or by introducing additional articles into our system of taxation, which might be to the public advantage. All I say is that I am satisfied with the present system so far as the present needs are concerned. Now, the hon. Member for the City of Derry suggested that another change should be made in our system of indirect taxation; he suggested the inclusion of some articles, such as silk, within the list of dutiable articles, which, I think he would find, if he went into the matter, would not produce anything like an amount which would counterbalance the inconvenience of placing them on the Customs list. But he also made a much larger suggestion: he suggested a system of ad valorem duties in place of our existing system of indirect taxation. Now, Sir, the system of ad valorem duties was, if I may say so, knocked on the head by Mr. Gladstone, I think, in the year 1860. ["Hear, hear !"] He pointed out—I believe it was in a Budget speech—with, I think unanswerable force, how the system of ad
  990
  valorem duties was a most injurious interference with the freedom of trade, how it vexed and worried all those who were concerned in trade with minute and difficult restrictions which were much more felt by them than an increase in the duty on the articles which were subject to duly. He also pointed out that it was a very important element in our system of indirect taxation that the revenue should be easy of collection, and that a system of ad valorem duties materially interfered with the facility of collection. I certainly am not prepared—plausible though the suggestion may be that it would be better to levy a higher duty on the more valuable articles—to go back to a system of ad valorem duties. [Cheers.] But, Sir, the principal event in this evening's Debate has been the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk. ["Hear, hear!"] If he will permit me, I would like to say that I have seldom listened to a speech in this House with greater pleasure; it dealt with a most difficult and complicated subject, a subject which, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows, and I know, is one of the driest with which anyone can be called upon to deal, with a lucidity, eloquence, and ability which I think it would be very difficult to surpass. ["Hear, hear !"] I have no word to say in complaint of my hon. Friend's references to myself on this matter, and, of course, it is not for me to defend the right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite. I was an opponent, as is very well known, of the Finance Act of 1894; I opposed the increase then made to the Death Duties on two grounds—first, because I objected to an increase of Imperial taxation on real property without something being done to relieve real property, and especially agricultural land, from the burden of rates; and, secondly, I objected to the indefinite provisions of the Finance Act of 1894 with regard to the valuation of agricultural land for the purpose of the Death Duties. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite will bear me out in saying that throughout the discussions on that Bill those were the two grounds on which I based my objection to it, and practically when it was found impossible to induce him to meet us on the first point, and when on the second point he had

  991
  accepted the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House, I no longer argued against the principle of the Bill. Subsequently, both in public and in private, and in speeches which certainly have been reported and which are pretty well known, I consistently maintained that so great a change in the system of Death Duties having been once established by Parliament, it could not be repealed or altered in its material particulars unless it was shown to fail in the object which it was intended to achieve. In my judgment, Sir, there were points in regard to which the Act of 1894 required amendment. I examined those points very carefully last year, and I carried through Parliament certain alterations in it. Another point of very great importance to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Woodbridge Division (Captain Pretyman) referred, is the question of the power of the owner of a life estate to free the property from Death Duty by giving away his life interest during his life. As the House is aware, I have consented on behalf of the Treasury to bear the cost of a test action to show what the law is, and that action, I believe, is now pending. I do not agree with, at any rate, some of the criticisms which my hon. Friend passed on the Finance Act of 1894. He said that it had not decreased the complications of the law relating to Death Duty. Well, Sir, I do not know that any law could decrease those complications. It doubtless, on account of the magnitude of the charge which was made, increased those complications for a considerable period after it became law, and even now the office concerned has hardly arrived at complete working order. There have been delays which are a very fair subject of complaint, but I think in future those delays will be corrected. Then my hon. Friend said that millionaires had not been caught as was intended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Well, Sir, that is not my experience. [Laughter.] I think I have shown to the House this year and last year that the millionaires had been very considerably caught—["hear, hear !"]—and I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend say he did not object to the millionaires being caught, because I confess I have never
  992
  had very much sympathy with millionaires in this matter. ["Hear, hear!"] Then he further said that the position of realty and personalty had not been equalised. Well, you cannot entirely equalise in fact the position of realty and personalty. Some of the points which my hon. Friend alluded to in regard to this were, I think, very fair ones, but I maintain that last year we did a great deal to carry out the views which I expressed when the Finance Act of 1894 was under discussion as to the relief which ought to be given to agricultural land from rating in consequence of its being placed on an equality with personalty under the Death Duties. I thought, I confess, that the grant from the Exchequer of £1,330,000 a year, as it has proved to be, in relief of the rates on agricultural land, was a material concession, and I was rather disappointed that my hon. Friend this evening should refer to it as a very small matter. My hon. Friend referred to cases of hardship which had been caused by the Finance Act of 1894, and he quoted one which has, to some extent, come under my own observation. But, not knowing the case would be referred to, I have not had time to verify the facts. He referred to the Rufford estate, and gave figures showing that enormous sums had been paid by the several owners during the last 15 years by way of Death Duties. He spoke of it as an instance of an agricultural estate. I do not think it is quite fairly described as an agricultural estate. I am not personally acquainted with it, but I am informed that its total value, although, the acreage is not large, is something like £1,000,000, and that value is mainly due to mineral or building rights. But, however that may be, the facts are these. The estate belonged to a nobleman who died in 1844, having entailed it upon his four illegitimate sons one after another and their issue. If he had wanted to hand over to the State by way of Death Duty as large a proportion of the value of the estate as was possible, he could not have taken a better course. Each of the sons being strangers in blood had to pay 10 per cent, succession duty, and the other day the present owner had to pay 10 per cent, succession duty because he inherited, not from his own father, but from the original settlor, and will have to pay a

  993
  large sum by way of estate duty. I do not know how much it is, because I think the figures are not settled, but I do not think it can be as much as was suggested. But the bulk of the Death Duties paid on the estate is in no way due to the Finance Act of 1894. [Opposition cheers.] It is due to the old law passed in 1853, under which succession duty is payable by strangers in blood at the rate of 10 per cent.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Capital value now; not life interest.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That depends on the interest taken in the estate. If only a life interest were taken, succession duty would only be paid on the life interest. The bulk of the sum paid and payable on the Rufford estate has been due to the succession duty. No doubt a large sum will be payable by way of estate duty. But then it must be remembered that the estate is worth £1,000,000. [Opposition cheers.] I confess I have thought—not that it was possible to do anything which would place illegitimate children on any other footing than that of strangers in blood, because that would involve other serious alterations in the law—but that when the right hon. Gentleman, in the case of lineals, allowed succession duty or legacy duty to merge in the estate duty, he hardly went far enough. There may be ground for considering whether with regard to legacy and succession duty, in the case of those who are not lineals, there is not hardship under the present law—at any rate, in the case of brothers and sisters—and I will undertake to examine the matter and see what can be done. Generally on this subject I was very reluctant last year to deal with amendments of the Death Duties, because I felt that in attempting to relieve hardships, I might be inflicting worse hardships. The matter is so complicated that it is only with the greatest care that any change can be made. I admit that the Amendments required may not have been exhausted by the legislation of last year. There may be other points not affecting the main principle of the Act or leading to anything like a repeal of it which ought in fairness to be dealt with, and I promise they shall have my attention. My hon. Friend suggested changes which might cost something like
  994
  £2,000,000 a year. How is that to be found? [Captain PRETYMAN: "A penny on the income tax!"] What he had in his mind may have been only the transfer of the burden from Death Duties to a penny in the income tax on property now subject to Death Duties. But that would be a matter of extreme difficulty. If you put a penny on the income tax all round you would tax trade in order to relieve realised property. [Opposition cheers.] I do not think that is a proposal I should like to submit to the House of Commons. For the present I have only to ask the House to deal with the Motion. I hope they will not consent to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, which I believe he is not anxious to press to a Division. If it means anything, it means the substitution of Protection for our present Free Trade system. If there be any truth in his pessimistic opinion as to the future of this country, I can only say that I believe by such substitution our fall would be certainly sooner and greater than it would be under our present system. [Cheers.]
  *SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: To-night we have on the Paper two Amendments in the names of two most distinguished supporters of the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet has an Amendment which, if carried, would destroy the Government and their financial proposals, and that Amendment is founded upon the proposition to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already called attention, viz., that "the existing fiscal system of this country is unequal to the continually increasing demands of the public service, and that the time has arrived for recourse being had to more varied sources of taxation." Last year the existing fiscal system of the country produced an unexpected surplus of £5,000,000, and this year a still more unexpected surplus of about £3,000,000, find that is the condition of things in which my right hon. Friend states that the fiscal system of the country is unequal to the continually increasing demands of the public service. [Laughter.] That does not commend itself logically to my mind. The conclusion I should have arrived at is that the time had arrived, not for an increase, but for a diminution of the sources of taxation—

  995
  ["hear, hear!"]—and if I have any fault to find with the financial arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be that he has not drawn that conclusion in the manner I should have expected. So much for the first attack on the Government from their own supporters. Then comes the speech of the hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division of Suffolk, and I desire to associate myself with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the well-deserved compliment he has paid to him. ["Hear, hear!"] There is no pleasure greater than to see the younger Members of the House come forward with such distinction as he has gained. [Cheers.] I myself was the principal victim of the hon. Member's attack, yet I fully share the sentiments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but what was the conclusion at which the hon. Gentleman arrived? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet arrived at the conclusion that we were to have a 5s. duty on corn, which, of course, would be a satisfaction to the agricultural interest. He was of opinion that a 5s. duty on corn would mean an increase of 20 per cent, in rents.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I suggested a sliding scale.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the existence of a sliding scale, because in the course of his speech he gave some curious figures with reference to the corn duties in the earlier part of the century. The basis of that sliding scale was that there should be a minimum price of 80s. a quarter, but the time came when people were more enligtened, and some 20 years afterwards it was admitted that the agricultural interest could exist at a minimum of 60s. a quarter. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, that is the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for the benefit of the agricultural interest; but then the Member for Suffolk concluded his speech with a proposal that the agricultural interest should be relieved from the unjust burden under which they suffered by the addition of a penny to the income tax. [Laughter.] That was to produce £2,000,000, to be devoted to the relief of the agricultural interest. When you combine these two proposals you get, I think, £5,000,000 from the hon. Member for Thanet, £2,000,000 from the Member for Suffolk, and the Chancellor of the
  996
  Exchequer, as he has already told us, has given them £1,500,000. That makes £8,500,000, which is the combined proposal of them all for the relief of the agricultural interest at the expense of the other interests of the country, ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] Of course, the burden of the 5s. duty on corn would fall on the consuming class, or the poorer and wage-earning class. The proposal of the Member for Suffolk is that the £2,000,000 should fall on the industrial and professional classes for the relief of the agricultural interest.
  *CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: I did not say the agricultural interest particularly. I said that business and trade suffered as well.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: I thought the argument was confined to the agricultural interest, but now the hon. Gentleman says it will also go in relief of the millions. Then comes the paltry contribution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has given £1,500,000 to the agricultural ratepayer and nothing to the urban ratepayer. I do not intend to-night to join the band of persecutors of Her Majesty's Government, but if the House would allow me I should like to make a few brief remarks on the general aspect of the Budget. I join the Chancellor of the Exchequer in congratulating the House and the country on the immense revenue it is possible to raise under the existing system of taxation. ["Hear, hear !"] With reference to the Budget accounts, I agree that the present system is the right one—that you ought to show all the receipts on one side and all the expenditure on the other. That is exactly the complaint we have always made with reference to the system of accounts unfortunately introduced some years ago in dealing with local taxation. I admit that in consequence of our remonstrances the Chancellor of the Exchequer has greatly improved these accounts, because he shows for the first time on the official paper how much of the Imperial revenue is given to local taxation, instead of keeping it out of the account, as it had been kept out before. I was also happy to hear in his Budget speech that he always spoke of the Imperial revenue as the whole revenue, and not as revenue excluding from it that part which under the unfortunate phrase interception had been kept out of the account, and given to local taxation. In order

  997
  that we should understand this thing we should speak of it as it is. The Imperial revenue of this country is not the £104,000,000 which goes into the Exchequer; it is the £112,000,000 which is raised by your taxation, of which you give away £9,000,000 to local taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] And it is not merely £9,000,000 which is given to local taxation in that form; there is also £3,000,000 on the Votes in Supply which goes in aid of local taxation, so that at this moment out of Imperial revenue local taxation receives £12,000,000. That is the actual fact, and people ought to get it clearly into their minds; and it is due only to the former confusion of the public accounts that that has not been thoroughly understood. I hope in the future the Chancellor of the Exchequer will complete the reform and bring in these local taxation contributions as what they are —as money collected as Imperial revenue and handed over as a subsidy to local taxation. I rejoice, and I think everybody ought to rejoice, in the immense yield of the present system of taxation. I entirely agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is a proof, a most signal proof, that the financial system of this country is founded on a sound fiscal and commercial basis, and also upon a sound basis of currency—[cheers]—which has made this country the principal commercial nation of the world, and the money market also for all quarters of the globe. Customs have increased. What does that prove? It proves that the wages of the people are good. The income tax has improved to an extraordinary degree. I rejoice especially in that, because, though it was my duty to increase the income tax, I introduced large allowances in the tax. I remember the First Lord of the Admiralty—I do not say unjustly —expressed his fear that that might interfere with the framework and the security of the income tax, which is one of the great pillars of the revenue. What has happened? These allowances have no doubt been a great relief to the humbler payers of the income tax, and yet so great has been the prosperity of the country that the loss, which amounted to £1,500,000 upon these allowances, has been recouped since by the increase of the tax. That included, no doubt, the allowance under Schedule A, for which the hon. Member for Suffolk said, "No, thank
  998
  you." He was willing enough to accept the reduction and the relief to the agricultural interest, which amounted to £200,000 under Schedule A; but now he says, "I don't count that; that was our due anyhow." But what used to be the old argument? The old argument was— You pay higher under Schedule A because you do not pay probate duty. I set to work to equalise the two, and it was found that the one was much larger than the other. Of course, when the relief under Schedule A was given it was given in consequence of the redress of the inequality under the probate duty. The income tax shows the increase of the profits of the country. What does the increase in the Death Duties show? That evidences the increase of the accumulated wealth of the country. [Cheers.] The hon. Member for Suffolk talked of these duties being evaded, and says, "You don't get hold of the millionaires." Then where does that increase of £4,000,000 come from? Who pays that?
  An HON. MEMBER: Realty.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: Did the hon. Member rend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech? Out of £14,000,000 paid in Death Duties, what did the agricultural interest pay?—£800,000. [Laughter and cheers.] The increase of Customs is remarkable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates his Customs' receipts for the coming year at £21,500,000. Now, that is nearly £2,000,000 more than the average that has been raised by Customs for the last 15 years. It has been a standing rule of Chancellors of the Exchequer one after another that when the Customs have reached the point of £20,000,000 there has always been a relief to indirect taxation under the head of Customs. It was done in reference to the tobacco duty. It was done by the First Lord of the Admiralty in respect to the tea duty. You have now got indirect taxation under Customs really £2,000,000 higher than has been the average levied upon the people of this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer reckoned that there would be a great diminution of the stamp duties, and I think his calculation was reasonable enough. He thought the insane Stock Exchange boom in the Kaffir Circus could not continue, and he put down his estimate of receipts for stamps by £650,000. But he received exactly

  999
  the same sum this year that he did last year; and why? He has told us this remarkable fact — that that £650,000 has been made up from the stamps upon the transfer of properties in consequence of the greater dealings in the transfer, especially of real property. That, I think, is a highly satisfactory state of things. What accounts for the permanent stability of the revenue is that it depends upon averages and not upon particular receipts. My valued Friend, Sir Alfred Milner, has often spoken of the law of average as being the deity that presides over the public revenue. In astronomical observations you may find errors in the instruments, but, after all, they correct one another, and so you will find when one source of revenue has fallen off another has increased. If you look upon the whole tide of the revenue you find it is flowing in the right direction, and you may neglect the fact that in particular cases there may be a falling off, because there will be a corresponding advantage in other cases. The growth of the income tax is extremely satisfactory. I do believe that by the relief that was given in 1894 to the lower classes of income tax payers you have strengthened the income tax, inasmuch as you have made it more tolerable to those who were the less able to pay it. But, in my opinion, an income tax of 8d. is too high —["hear, hear!"]—in time of peace— if, indeed, we live in, a time of peace. It is a burden which I am not disposed with the hon. Member for Suffolk to increase. ["Hear, hear!"] As to the Death Duty, let me say it is most remarkable how that duty has conformed to the original estimate. What was the estimate I presented to the House in 1894? I said that in the first year it would yield a million. It yielded £990,000, I think. I said that in future years it would yield between £3,500,000 and £4,000,000. Last year it yielded £50,000 above £4,000,000, and this year it has yielded about £50,000 under £4,000,000. That is a most remarkable conformity with the expectation formed. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, who I notice is absent, predicted not merely that we should not get anything in addition, but that we should lose even what we had, and he preached the doctrine, I will not call it of evasion, but of handsome and liberal avoidance. [A laugh] But he preached
  1000
  it to deaf ears. Some people dispose of their property in that way, but still there always remains a good deal of human nature about man, and one of the qualities of human nature is that people like to keep possession of their property. [A laugh.] Some people do dispose of their property very much to the advantage of their younger friends. I hope the hon. Member for Suffolk has benefited by the system of avoidance and evasion. [Laugher.] Still there are many people, and quite as many as we over expected, who stick by their own. Rather more do that than we expected, because part of our calculation was that when you impose a new tax or increase an old tax you will not get quite as much as you did from the lower taxation, that there always will be a leakage. All that formed an element in the calculation. I see no reason whatever to expect that things will be very different in the future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer mentioned that this last year there had been a, diminution in the amount of free personalty, but that was the very thing that was pointed out in 1894–95 by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who said, "See, you have lost all this money by evasion." What happened the next year? It went up again and you got twice as much as you had lost before. This year you have lost again, but next year you may gain again. I am not, therefore, prepared to say that that is likely to be a continuing source of loss. The hon. Member for Suffolk referred to agricultural land. Let us see what agricultural land contributes to the death duty. Out of £14,000,000 personalty contributes £11,500,000 and realty £2,500,000, and that includes house property. How much does agricultural land contribute to the £14,000,000? £843,000. The hon. Member for Suffolk was rather indignant with me because I had referred to the fact that the owners of realty thought it more convenient to pay down on the nail than to pay by instalments, and he gave me credit, which I think was only just, that I had arranged these instalments because I thought it would facilitate the payment of the duty by the owners of real property. I was told that their land had mortgages on it; that they could not borrow, that they could not sell, and that it was impossible

  1001
  for the money to he raised. Therefore, I said, "Very well, let there be eight years to pay instalments." ["Hear, hear !"] Yes, but when the thing comes to be tested, £1,700,000 is paid in full and only £162,000 is paid in instalments. ["Hear, hear !"] That is one-tenth. Therefore, it is not true that the money could not be got. On the contrary, it is got, according to the hon. Member for Suffolk, with the greatest facility. The hon. Member gave the House as an illustration the case of a man who had £10,000 a year; his Death Duty was £13,000, and he borrowed it on mortgage at the cost of £500 a year; but I cannot see that a man who has an income of £10,000 a year for his mortgage, and has to pay £500 a year is doomed to everlasting ruin. The hon. Member also introduced the Rufford case, but the peculiarity of that case has been explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has shown, perfectly truly, that the result of the excessive burden in that case has nothing whatever to do with the legislation of 1894. ["Hear, hear !"] It is the commonest thing for people in society to say, "Oh that abominable Budget of 1894. Just think, a man has got to pay 10 per cent, here and 8 per cent, there." But the Budget of 1894 did not impose the 10 per cent. It existed before. It did not impose the 8 per cent., because of that 4 per cent, existed before. It is nobody but the millionaire who pays 8 per cent., and, therefore, the extent to which the Budget of 1894 altered the thing is the extent, between 4 per cent, and 8 per cent, arising from the properties that already paid 4 per cent.; and when they get properties of £250,000 I think they pay 7 per cent., or 3 per cent, additional. And it is really said that men who leave a property of £100,000, because under the provisions of the Act of 1894, they have to pay 1½ per cent, more than they did before, will make away with all their property and live in absolute want!The ignorance and exaggeration which have been applied to this case are really quite inconceivable, and the figures I have given, I venture to say, are absolutely true. What of these extraordinary ruins of which I hear so much, and of which, I am happy to say, amongst my friends I see so little —and many of them have succeeded to
  1002
  very considerable estates? I had a letter the other day from one whom I believe to be the very richest man in the country at the present day, and who always does me the favour, when a person of considerable estate dies, to write to me to call attention to his ruin. [Laughter.] He wrote to me the other day about the succession of a friend of mine—and a friend of everybody's in this House—to an estate. "Do you know," he said, "that so-and-so will have to pay £100,000 in death duty?" I wrote back and said,—
  "I am extremely glad to hear that my dear friend and yours will have to pay £100,000 in Death Duty, because that would not be possible unless his clear income was £50,000 a year; and I did not believe he was so well-off."
  [Laugher.] When we hear of these things, do let me ask the hon. Member for Suffolk to take this as a rule, and I think he will find it works out pretty accurately—that the estate duty cannot in any case exceed two years' income. ["Oh !"] The hon. Member will find that is so. Let me give his own example. He gave the example of a man with £10,000 a year; and what was the sum he had to pay? According to the hon. Member £13,000, I think. That was not one-and-a-half years' income.
  *CAPTAIN PRETYMAN: What I said was that this was estate duty only, and the particular hardship to which I referred was in a case when the extreme scale of succession duty and of estate duty fell on the same person. The case I quoted was of a man with £10,000 a year, and the £13,000 he would have to pay was estate duty only. I particularly said I did not consider the amount of the duty so much the hardship as the distribution of it by all falling upon a particular individual.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: I am only concerned to defend the estate duty. You may take it as a general rule that when you are dealing with largish properties the estate duties will not exceed one and a half year's income, and that when you come to the largest properties they will not exceed two years' income, and if you have eight instalments by which to pay you cannot be called upon for more than a quarter of your income in a year. Or if, as the hon. Member suggest, the

  1003
  money is borrowed on mortgage it will, of course, be very much less. It is, therefore, patent that many of the statements that have been made are exaggerations showing extreme ignorance. Let me come to the great grievance voiced by the hon. Member for Suffolk. He admits that what is paid by the agricultural interest is £843,000 out of £14,000,000. But at the time when this burden was imposed a relief was given under Schedule A of £200,000, reducing the burden to £600,000. Let me put before the House the profit and loss account. I take the £800,000. As against that the agricultural interest has received from myself a humble contribution of £200,000; it has received this year in rates from the Chancellor of the Exchequer £1,330,000, it received in land tax £100,000, making in all nearly £1,700,000. Therefore, upon the balance the agricultural interest is more than £800,000 to the good. The fact is that the agricultural industry has enjoyed such advantages in the past that when those who are interested in it find themselves placed upon the same footing as other people they regard themselves, as the hon. Member for Suffolk says, as the objects of punitive legislation. The hon. Member could not have desired to impute to me any malicious intention, because he knows that punitive legislation against the agricultural interest never entered my mind. Why should it be supposed that I desired to deal with that interest differently from other interests? My own personal prejudices were rather in favour of than hostile to that interest. The agricultural interest by the legislation of the last three years has been placed in an extraordinary favoured position. It was put upon an equal footing in 1894, but it has received since that time double the amount of the burden then put upon it. It has received £1,700,000 in relief of taxation which has not been extended to other classes of the community. You have given it relief in respect of rates. You say that such relief is due to everybody, but you have not given it to everybody. You have given it only to this class on whose behalf the right hon. Member for Thanet claims that you should put a heavy duty upon corn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken very reasonably upon the subject of the Amendment of the
  1004
  Death Duties. I said last year and I say again that if it could be shown that there is any unfair or unjust pressure upon any particular class, there would be no one less disposed than I to object to their Amendment. I did not allow last year any feeling of amour proper to interfere with any just Amendment of the law. But, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his advisers know very well, this is a most complicated system, and if you begin to pick the mortar out of the wall you do not know how soon the whole edifice may crumble to pieces. Anybody who deals with a great tax, whether it be the death duties or the income tax, must beware how he deals with the framework of the great fisal resources of the country, and, therefore, I feel sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be extremely careful—however plausible the grievance may appear to be—not to make any changes which will endanger a resource which is greatly required in consequence of the high expenditure of the country at the present time, and which cannot be safely tampered with. That is all I desire to say on the subject of the Death Duties. But I have a word to say upon the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has dealt with the surplus which was at his disposal. When it was suggested on the introduction of the Budget that various taxes should be imposed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was not disposed to put on any new taxes on account of the disturbance they would make to industry and to trade. In that I entirely concur, but I see no occasion for putting on additional taxes. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a considerable sum at his disposal this year and last year, to deal with either in grants or in relief of taxation, and he has adopted a particular plan to which I desire to call attention. I want, for the purpose of what I am now saying, to leave untouched the one-and-a-half millions which he calls his surplus this year, out of which he has provided—and very wisely provided—the improvements in the Post Office; out of which he has taken £500,000 for additions to the Navy, with which we have yet to deal; £200,000 for troops in South Africa, in regard to which the discussion is postponed, and very properly postponed, until it can be properly taken; and

  1005
  £500,000, which he reserves as margin. That I do not deal with; but I deal with the surpluses which he has disposed of. Now he has disposed, in agricultural rating and in grants to Scotland and Ireland, of £1,660,000; he has given the Voluntary Schools £600,000; he has given up in land tax £100,000; and he has made alterations in the Death Duties to the extent of £200,000. Well, that added together makes about £2,600,000. That is the manner in which he has disposed of the two and a half-millions—in round numbers — which he had to deal with after providing for the vast expenditure which has been added to the public service in the last two years. Well now, this is a night, apparently, of alternative Budgets. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet has proposed a 5s. duty on corn. The hon. Member for Suffolk has made his proposal, that is an additional penny on the income tax. I claim my right, therefore, to put forward an alternative Budget—["hear, hear !"]—and a method of disposing of the £2,600,000 which I should prefer to that which has been adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There has been a great deal said about the tea duties. I am one of those who believe that the indirect taxation of this country ought to be further reduced. [Opposition Cheers.] Sir, if there is anything we have learnt from that important document, the Report of the Irish Financial Commission, it is this—it has proved what anybody who has studied the subject must know to be the case—that indirect taxation presses unduly and disproportionately upon the poorer classes of the community. ["Hear, hear !"] In Ireland it presses unduly upon the whole country, because as a class they are very poor. But it is equally true in England—[" hear, hear !"]—that it presses unduly upon the poorer classes of the English community. Therefore, if you want to carry out the great principle of taxation—that you should put the burden upon those who are best able to bear it and take it off those who are least able to bear it—you ought in the course of your taxation to follow the principle initiated by Sir Robert Peel and carried out by Mr. Gladstone, of diminishing the burden of indirect taxation in its proportion to direct taxation. [Opposition cheers.] Now the
  1006
  proportion is less grossly unjust than it was before household suffrage and when the privileged classes had the sole disposal of the taxation of the people—when they put the whole burden, or almost the whole burden, upon the masses of the people, in the shape of indirect taxation, and accepted hardly any part of that burden for themselves. ["Hear, hear !"] That was the condition of things before the year 1841. Well, we have gone on improving that until at last, as stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech, 39 per cent, of the total taxation is raised now by direct taxation, but the larger proportion is raised by indirect taxation. I for one should never be satisfied until the proportions were at least made equal, which they now are not — [Opposition cheers]—and, therefore, I would seize any opportunity of diminishing indirect taxation—first of all, because it is the natural and proper method of meeting the Irish grievance—["hear, hear!"]—which unquestionably bear most unduly upon the indirect taxpayer; and you will also meet the grievances of the poorer classes of the English people by diminishing the proportion of the burden of indirect taxation. ["Hear, hear!"] I know it will shock my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, who wishes to increase indirect taxation. [A laugh.] That is just it. There, then, is the issue between us. Your policy ever since 1841— there is no need to go back to an antediluvian period—[laughter]—has been a, policy of increasing indirect taxation in proportion to direct. Our policy is the opposite, that of diminishing indirect taxation, because it is unjust in its burden upon the poorer classes of the community. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, Sir, that being so, if I had had what the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad— £2,600,000 to dispose of—I would have done what, when he had a surplus, the present First Lord of the Admiralty did, which was to take 2d. off the tea duty. [Cheers.] The first Lord of the Admiralty estimated a loss of £1,500,000 in the first year, but he only lost a million, and the Exchequer has not lost more since. I would dispose of £1,000,000 of his two-and-a-half millions and take 2d. off the tea duty, reducing it by one-hall. Then I have

  1007
  £1,600,000 left, and it is a very remarkable fact that that is exactly the sum which would enable you to take off a penny of the income-tax. [Cheers.] On the two occasions, now some years ago, when, pennies were taken off the income-tax, you will find that the sum sacrificed in the first year was something under £1,600,000. There is a very simple Budget, but it has this advantage—that these remissions of taxation would have relieved all classes of the community. [Cheers.] It would not have affected merely the agricultural interest, though I understand that there is nothing which would have been more advantageous to the owners of land and to the country gentlemen than the relief of a penny in the income-tax. It would have gone to them in their lifetime, and it would not have been postponed until the melancholy event of their death. It would have benefited the commercial classes and the professional classes; it would have benefited, above all, those classes from whom the greatest increase of the income-tax comes —those wage-earning classes who by their thrift and industry emerge from the non-paying stratum by their improved condition in life into the income-tax paying class. Therefore, so far from agreeing with the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, who says that the time has arrived when recourse should be had to more varied sources of taxation, I should have been disposed to say that the time had arrived when the great surpluses at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be applied to relieve the burden of existing taxes on the people. The views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the income-tax are rather surprising to me, and show that he moved among classes who are much more prosperous than I habitually meet. [Laughter.] In his Budget speech the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "There are poisons in the country to whom the Income Tax is odious, although I believe they are a decreasing number."
  Where does he find this decreasing number?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think Mr. Gladstone discovered that in 1874.
  *SIR W. HARCOURT: But where is the decreasing number? So impressed is the Chancellor of the Exchequer with this view that I saw in a speech he delivered in the North he said that the iron interest was in such a prosperous condition that he expected them to come forward and propose the addition of another penny to the income-tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that he cannot reduce taxes now, but he looks forward to quieter times and a real reduction of expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished rural magnate; but if he expects a reduction of that expenditure he is like the gentleman in Horace, Rusticus expectat—[laughter]—and I doubt very much, although I hope he may live to the age of Methuselah and still be Chancellor of the Exchequer—[laughter and cheers]—at least so long as he belongs to the Party of which he is a leading member—whether he will see quieter times or a reduction of expenditure. The real time for reductions in taxation is when you have got a large surplus, and if you do not make a reduction in the income-tax, or tea duties when you have a large surplus, you never will. It is no use putting it off to times which may be worse and when you may not have the power of making those reductions which are now at your disposal. ["Hear, hear !"] I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will excuse me for having suggested a different disposal of the £2,500,000 from the one he has adopted. As he has made away with this money, I suppose the spilt milk is not now to be recovered. [Laughter.] But I hope if he has at a future time surpluses of this description and money to give away, he will not accept the advice of the hon. Member for Suffolk, in spite of the popularity of the income-tax, and although we are told that people are rushing in to pay their income-tax in consequence of the popularity of the present Administration. [Laughter.] I hope the popularity of the present Administration has some sounder basis than the enthusiasm for an 8d. income tax, and when the right hon. Gentleman has

  1009
  money at his disposal I hope he will not accept the advice of the hon. Member for Suffolk and add another penny to the income tax nor adopt the policy of the right hon. Member for Thanet and put a 5s. duty on corn. [Cheers.]
  MAJOR RASCHwished to support the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Thanet. Although he could not support it in detail he could support it generally, because, while he knew perfectly well that a duty of 5s. per quarter on wheat would bring their derelict land under cultivation, and, as the right hon. member for Montrose Burghs used to say, would make the valleys of Essex smile with golden grain, he could not help thinking that a 5s. duty was a counsel of perfection that the less they asked for the better. He desired to drive home a suggestion which was made by the hon. Member for Deny City. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as they all knew, was a supporter of the temperance cause. The right hon. Gentleman taxed the brewers, but surely he must know that those manufacturers who turned out British wines were sailing uncommonly close to the wind and were very nearly overpassing the line. He thought when the House knew how far they had gone they would consider that they had already passed the line. Hon. Gentlemen perhaps were not aware that ordinary port and sherry were alcoholised only to the extent of 6 percent., whereas British wines were alcoholised to the extent of from 9 to 15 per cent, in order to stop secondary fermentation. Two million gallons of this stuff were turned out every year, though who drank it he did not know. There was no conceivable reason why the excise should not either charge the makers for the alcohol they brewed or make them use alcohol on which a duty of 10s. per gallon was imposed. This would bring in £100,000 a year to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which might be allocated in relief of the agricultural interest, and as a sort of complement and supplement to the
  1010
  inefficient relief given that industry under the Agricultural Rating Bill of last year. His hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge had called attention to the incidence of the Death Duties. Of course they fought the Death Duties in 1894 and got beaten, so that there was no more to be said about them. It was impossible to put the clock back, and they must make the, best of the matter. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Wigtonshire, had told them a harrowing tale of an estate where the Death Duties were so crushing that the estate had to be let for the shooting rights. If the hon. Baronet would only come down to Essex he would find the landowners there uncommonly glad to let their property at 6d. per acre with the shooting rights thrown in. [Laughter.]
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR H. FOWLERwished, before the Amendment was withdrawn, to call attention to a serious, if not dangerous, novelty which had been introduced, he hoped by accident, into the proceedings upon the Budget Bill. He believed the general, the almost invariable, practice had been to pass a Resolution that "it is expedient to amend the laws relating to Customs and Inland Revenue." This year that Resolution was not proposed. If that was done intentionally he thought it was due to the House that it should have been informed that such an innovation was being introduced and that the House would in consequence lose an opportunity for control over the whole taxation of the year. If the incident were allowed to pass unnoticed it would be one more step in curtailing the privileges of the House of Commons by this new mode of compressing and altering Resolutions on which Bills were founded. In his opinion the House should be especially jealous of its procedure in connection with the Finance Bill. On this occasion the House found itself confined to two Resolutions, one relating to the tea duty and the other to the income-tax, which

  1011
  would practically render the Committee stage of the Bill a farce. He hoped some assurance would be given that what had been done would not form a precedent for the future?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he would simply explain what happened. He supposed it had been almost invariably the case that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, besides wishing to renew the income-tax and tea duty, had desired in some particular or other to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue, and therefore a third Resolution had been carried in addition to the two relating to the tea duty and the income-tax. This year that was not done for the simple reason that he had no alteration to propose in the law relating to customs and inland revenue. He had not the smallest desire to limit the power of moving Amendments on the Budget Bill, and he would undertake, by setting up Committee of Ways and Means, which he hoped he might be allowed to do without debate, to move the ordinary Resolution relating to customs and inland revenue in order to afford any Member the opportunity of raising any question he might desire. He hoped he might appeal to the hon. Member for East Mayo not to raise his Amendment with regard to tobacco at the present stage, on the understanding that a proper opportunity would be afforded him in Committee.
  MR. DILLONthought the offer of the Chancellor of the Exchequer an extremely fair one, and he was disposed to accept it. ["Hear, hear"].
  SIR J. BRUNNERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take into consideration the case where two people, like husband and wife, or father and son, perished together. The Death Duty ought only to be charged once in such a case.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I believe that unless there is clear evidence of inheritance the Death
  1012
  Duty can only be charged once. I do not think there is a real grievance, but if the hon. Member will put down a Question, I will give him a more satisfactory answer.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill Read a Second time, and committed for Monday next.

  VOLUNTEERS BILL.
  Order for Third Reading Read.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now Read the Third time."
  MR. DALYasked for an explanation of the Measure.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,)said that there was a matter of doubt on the point by what process lines and penalties imposed on Volunteers for not making themselves efficient were recoverable. It was absolutely necessary that this doubt should be set at rest, and that the Bill would do.
  MR. HUDSON KEARLEYsaid that the Bill was introduced to meet the adverse decisions of certain magistrates on cases against Volunteers.
  *MR. BRODRICKsaid that the Bill did not alter the law, but simply put beyond doubt the law as it stood, according to the Opinions of the best lawyers.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid that the question had been tested in the Courts, and the opinions of the best lawyers had been found to be wrong. There would be great hardship to many young men who had been induced to join the Volunteers in a moment of enthusiasm, and who were prevented from putting in the necessary amount of drill, if they could be made, by civil process, to make good to

  1013
  the regiments the loss of capitation grant involved by their not being efficient. Everyone knew that many young men undertook responsibilities in joining the Volunteers of which they knew nothing. He thought the War Department might be content to allow the law to remain as it was, for it worked very well. The effect of the Bill would undoubtedly be to make Volunteering unpopular, and for that reason he objected to the Third Reading.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 151; Noes, 44. —(Division List, No. 212.)
  Bill Read the Third time, and passed.

  FOREIGN PRISON-MADE GOODS BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [17th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (UNDERMANNING) BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BERRIEW SCHOOL BILL.
  Third Reading deferred till Monday next.
  ISLE OF MAN (CHURCH BUILDING ACTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  SCHOOL BOARDS' EXPENSES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  EXTRAORDINARY TITHE BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  PUBLIC OFFICES (WHITEHALL) SITE (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  PATENT OFFICE EXTENSION (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
  Committee deferred till Monday next.
  BICYCLES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ALDERSHOT AND FARNBOROUGH) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [1st April] further adjourned till Monday next.
  STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  BURIAL GROUNDS LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [11th May] further adjourned till Monday next.
  LEASEHOLDERS (PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tuesday 1st June.
  SEA FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 3rd June.
  COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
  ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  CORN SALES BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday 3rd June.
  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Select Committee [24th March] further adjourned till Monday next.
  MARKET GARDENERS' COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered; to be Read the Third time upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL
  Adjourned Debate on Motion for Committal to Standing Committee on Trade, Etc. [17th February] further adjourned till Thursday next.
  VEHICLES (LIGHTS) BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  ARCHDEACONRY OF LONDON (ADDITIONAL ENDOWMENTS) BILL.
  Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [24th February] further adjourned till Monday next.
  COLONIAL SOLICITORS BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.
  POOR LAW OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION ACT (1896) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress to sit again upon Tuesday next.
  SMALLER DWELLINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.
  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) ACT (1877) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Committee deferred till To-morrow.
  LICENSING EXEMPTION (HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT) BILL.
  Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

  BURIAL GROUNDS.
  Select Committee nominated of Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, Mr. Robert Cameron, Viscount0 Cranborne, Mr. Bromley-Davenport, Mr. Goddard, Mr. Gretton, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Mr. Jebb, Sir George Osborne Morgan, Mr. Perks, Mr. Pym, Mr. H. C. Richards, Mr. J. W. Sidebotham, Mr. Carvell Williams, and Mr. Woodall.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum— (Sir William Walrond.)
  House Adjourned at Ten Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.

PROVISIONAL ORDER (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill,
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHsaid he did not rise for the purpose of moving a hostile; amendment, or to ask their Lordships to reject he Bill. He was deterred from Inking this step not so much on account of the intrinsic value of the Bill, the acceptance which it was likely to meet with in Scotland, or the relief it was likely to afford to Private Bill procedure in Scotland, as from a recognition that the principles on which the measure was based were good and useful and should receive the assent of their Lordships. This Bill was one of a type too familiar of recent years—namely, a Bill founded on excellent principles which were generally accepted in the country, but often only recently adopted by supporters of the Government and agreeable to those who sat on his side, of the House; and when the time came to translate these principles into a Bill they found that the work was undertaken in a timid and hesitating manner. The provisions of the Bill were so hedged in by checks and safeguards, the whole subject, was so 'cribb'd, cabin'd, and confin'd,' that but little benefit was to be obtained from the principles, nor was any additional freedom conferred on those whom it was intended to benefit. He thought that Scotland had some reason to complain of the attention given by the Government to Scottish legislation. Members of the Government were very-fond of pointing out the advance which their opinions had made in Scotland, but so far the Government had not been very ready to recognise that opinion in the shape of legislative coin. Last year Scotland got nothing; this year it had received the promise of a Bill dealing with Private Bill legislation; and he supposed Scotland had to accept this Bill as representing the fulfilment of that promise. He could hardly believe that when the paragraph on this point was
874
inserted in the Queen's Speech this Bill was drafted, or was even in the minds of Ministers, because ths measure did not attempt, to deal with Private Bill legislation affecting Scotland as a whole; it merely nibbled one corner of the subject. He thought that the Secretary for Scott and had shown no small amount of self-confidence in the basis he had taken for the Bill. In 1888 a strong and important Joint Committee of the two Houses sat on this subject, and after hearing much evidence and giving the subject careful consideration they agreed to a report. That report had been put aside altogether. His noble Friend had founded his Bill on a draft report presented to the Committee by himself, though he admitted that his noble Friend had the assent of three other colleagues on the Committee, Lord Colville, Sir Joseph Pease, and Lord Stalbridge. These Gentleman were well acquainted with the necessities of Private Bill legislation, but he thought that they looked at the subject rather from one point of view. They were closely connected with the greater Railway corporations, and it was known that the great Railway Companies had always considered that it was to their advantage to have all private Bills considered in London by Committees of the two Houses. They had always set themselves against any attempt to deal with these matters locally and by means of local bodies. That being the case he thought that his noble Friend should have shown a little suspicion of his supporters on the Committee. He would have done well to pay more attention to the report agreed to by the Committee rather than to have adopted the report presented by the chairman and set aside. He thought that the limited character of the Bill was well shown by its title. It was not even called a bill for dealing with Private Bill legislation. If he understood the use of a Provisional Order a right it was to allow a municipality or corporation through a Department the right to make use of the powers of an existing public Act. That seemed to him to be a very different thing from the requirements of a Private Bill which gave to a municipality or corporation powers which might be entirely novel and which were certainly not necessarily contained in any existing Act. In order to commend this new procedure to the House his noble Friend

875
should have given a greater proof of the gain to be obtained from this Bill. He should have shown more clearly that the procedure would be more simple and less expensive The noble Lord gave no details as to the probable expense of the procedure. He should have shown also that it really would have done something effectual to relieve Members of Parliament from the burdens which at present were put upon them. In looking at the different stages which a Provisional Order or Private Bill would have to pass through he said that first of all notices would have to be given to all parties affected. Those preliminary proceedings were some of the most expensive parts of a Private Bill. Take the Glasgow Improvements Bill recently in the House of Commons. That was a Bill proposing to give the Glasgow Corporation power to deal with certain slums. It necessitated an enormous number of notices to owners and occupiers, even down to monthly tenants. These notices under an Order of the Court of Session regulating fees cost nine shillings each, and the total amount paid by the Glasgow Corporation for these notices alone was close on £1,000. One object of a Bill dealing with Private Bill legislation should be to try to cheapen its preliminary proceedings; and in this case notices might very easily have been sent out by post in registered letters to each individual at a cost of a few pence. He was told with regard to Sewerage, Gas, and Tramways Bills, similar notices were required to be given to all within a radius of 300 yards of the place where the gas works, tramway station, or sewerage place was to be erected, at a cost, also fixed by the Court of Session, of six shillings each. Thus they might have expected to find in this Bill that some process had been adopted of cheapening the preliminary stages in connection with matters only dealt with by Private Bills. Then copies of the Provisional Order had to be served out to all the Departments and laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Chairmen of Committees in both Houses next decided whether the subject was one which ought fairly to be dealt with in this Bill, or whether it should not be dealt with by Private Bill, under the old system. He imagined that this would involve the payment of certain fees to the two Houses. The next stage was that any opponent might claim to
876
show cause before the tribunal composed of the two Chairmen of Committees and the Secretary for Scotland why the Question should not be dealt with under this Bill as a Private Bill. The opponents he imagined, would be entitled to appear before that tribunal by counsel. They would be able to bring their witnesses, and to take full advantage of that stage to show why the old system of procedure should be adopted rather than the now. The proposal having passed through this sifting process, then the Bill again came before the Secretary for Scotland, and he had the power either to refuse the proposal altogether, or he might direct an inquiry as to the propriety of assenting to the prayer of the Commission. That particular provision introduced a new stage in an unopposed Measure, because, as he read the clause, the Secretary for Scotland had no choice whatever except to refuse to allow the order to proceed or send it before the Commissioners for local inquiry. After the local inquiry had taken place, again the Order was reported to the Secretary for Scotland. Again he had the power of refusing it absolutely He had the power of confirming it, or confirming it with alterations, as might seem right to him, and then again, the Order, if so altered, had to be again lodged in all the departments, had again to be sent round to all people interested, and more time and expense in that way must necessarily be involved. After the Bill had received the Secretary for Scotland's sanction, any opponent might again come in. He might claim that instead of the Order receiving the sanction of the Secretary for Scotland by his mere fiat, there should be a confirming Bill in the Houses of Parliament. If that request were made the Secretary for Scotland was bound to introduce a confirming Bill in Parliament, and that Bill had to be referred to a Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament. Before that Joint Committee the whole procedure now in force before Private Bill Committees came into play. In all this he failed to see that there would be much saving in time or money, or any gain in simplicity of procedure, nor any great saving of labour to Members of Parliament as regards attendance on Committees. And for this reason, that they submitted the proposals under this

877
Bill to a searching sifting in the earlier' stages, a sifting that would cause most, of the more important proposals to be treated as Private Bills and referred to select Committees of Parliament in the same way as at present. Again, would it be possible under this Bill to deal with a number of subjects in one Order, as in the case of an omnibus Bill? His noble Friend had shown ingenuity in setting up a kind of Committee of Selection, which was to select the panel from which Commissioners were to be chosen for local inquiries. If his noble Friend should succeed in finding a Committee of Selection which would have the same recognised authority as the Committee of Selection in the other House of Parliament he would deserve congratulations on his achievement, and he should be glad to help him in attaining it. He entered, however, a word of protest as to including a Sheriff or Judge on the Commissions. His own belief was that they should keep the legal element out of these Commissions altogether. They should be composed of men of affairs, and the nearer they could bring the local committee to the present constitution of Committees of Parliament the better would it be and the greater assent would there be to their decisions. He was sorry his noble Friend had not thought, of a better way of obtaining the opinion of the burghs. The convention of Royal Burghs was theoretically an admirable body no doubt, but its views by no means commanded the assent of the whole of the burghs of Scotland, and, indeed, practically it had largely fallen into the hands of what he might call a clique. The fault he had to find with regard to the whole of the four members who were to act as a Committee of Selection—two being selected by conveners of counties and two by the Convention of Royal Burghs —was that all fonr would almost certainly belong to the Conservative Party. If they had such a Committee of Selection chosen entirely from one Party its decisions would not command the assent of the people of Scotland. Whether they chose rightly or wrongly it would be liable to criticism which would weaken the authority of the panel it would have to choose. What was to be the life of the Committee of Selection?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR): Sub-section (d) of Section 4 is intended to cover that point. It is to be re-convened at the end of five years.
*LORD TWEEDMOUTHthought the point was not made clear. So far as appeared from the section the same four men chosen when the Act came into operation might go on to the end of all time. There had been no time since the Bill was introduced to gather any real expression of Scotch opinion with regard to it. He had endeavoured to do so, and as far as he had gathered it the general opinion of all parties was that the Bill was not sufficient, and would not satisfy the natural desires of the people of Scotland. He therefore appealed to the Secretary for Scotland to give up all idea of passing the Bill this Session. Let it be discussed and referred to a Select Committee, and after that go through its further stages; let the Bill as so amended remain before the country during the autumn, and then the House would be in a better position to deal with the subject next year. He could assure his noble Friend that he should be only too glad in a reasonable manner to give him all such assistance as he could desire, in obtaining a thoroughly good Measure for the reform of Scotch Private Bill procedure.
*THE EARL OF MORLEY (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said that he wished to acknowledge the courtesy of the noble Lord in showing him the Bill some time ago, together with the criticisms which he had received with reference to it. He could assure the noble Lord that any remarks which he might make upon the Bill, would be made in no unfriendly spirit. Of course the present system of Private Bill legislation was not ideally perfect. There were complaints, not only that it consumed too much of the time of Parliament—this did not apply to this House so much as to the House of Commons, though he found no burning desire on the part of the noble Lords to take part on Private Bill Committees; but also, and this was more important, as to the expense, delay, and inconvenience which was caused to promoters and opponents. In addition, with respect to Ireland and Scotland, there was the sentimental desire of the inhabitants of those countries to have

879
their Private Bill legislation localised. He was strongly of opinion that with regard to Private Bill legislation generally, there were reforms which might considerably simplify and cheapen the procedure. He argued that it was very-desirable, if possible, to shorten and cheapen the process of advertising and serving notices; but no noble Lord would desire that any person's property should be affected without due notice. ["Hear, hear!"] Then he believed that the system of Provisional Orders might be further extended with advantage. At present that system had been decidedly successful; but of course it covered only a small portion of ground of private legislation. He was very much struck with the increase of the application by small municipalities to Parliament for legislation. He would suggest to those who were responsible for the Local Government and Home Office administration, that some alteration and extension of the present Public Health Acts might render it absolutely unnecessary for many of these costly applications to be made. ["Hear, hear !"] As to the Bill itself, he looked upon it as a step in the direction of increasing the scope and field for Provisional Orders, and he should not be doing his duty if he did not explain to the House, what he thought the result of the Bill would be —and its scope was much wider than Lord Tweedmouth seemed to suppose. He should also suggest certain amendments, as at a later stage he would not be able to address the House. The normal system contemplated by the Bill was that Scotch Private Bills would be dealt with generally by the Secretary for Scotland and the Commission of Inquiry. There would be notices, and there was nothing in the Bill to prevent the Secretary for Scotland and his coadjutors from making such regulations as they thought fit for the issue of such notices. There would be Standing Orders which would have to be complied with, and an examiner to certify that they had been complied with. The Order would go through the local inquiry and then, if approved by the Secretary for Scotland, it became law and had the force of a statute. The only contact which these Orders in the normal state would have with Parliament was at two stages of their existence—at the
880
tme of their birth and at the time that they assumed almost their final form, when they would be deposited in the Private Bill Offices. Bills not dealt with in this simple way would be brought before Parliament under two conditions. The first condition, was when the Secretary of State and the Chairman of Committees of the two Houses should be of opinion that the Order ought to come before Parliament as an ordinary Private Bill; but in the first place an appeal to that effect should have been lodged by the promoters or by the opponents. He did not imagine that the hearings of these appeals would be expensive. The question would be decided by the Secretary for Scotland and the two Chairmen on reading the Bill, and any documents which they might call. Then again, before, the Order assumed its final form, an opponent was to have an opportunity of petitioning the Secretary for Scotland and in that event the Order was to be referred to Parliament to go through the ordinary forms of a Provisional Order Bill, with this difference—that it would be submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses instead of to a Committee of each House. The Joint Committee would have ample powers to give costs by a simple majority; and that would have a very deterrent effect upon petitioners. The effect of these proposals undoubtedly was to transfer in the case of all Bills that did not come before Parliament, all the power now vested in the Legislature to the Secretary for Scotland. ["Hear, hear" !] It was true that the Orders were to be deposited in the offices of the Chairmen of the two Houses. But the position of things now was that the Departments of the State reported to Parliament; and under these proposals that position of things would be reversed. The Chairmen would have power to report to the Secretary for Scotland, but there would be no obligation on him to attend to their recommendations. Therefore a large part of the power now vested in the Legislature would be transferred to a branch of the executive. Some persons were a little apt to leave out of sight the importance of the present procedure on unopposed Bills and the unopposed portions of opposed Bills. At present all such Bills were read before the beginning of the Session in the office of the Chairman of each House. They

881
were noted, and the agents of the promoters were interviewed on the notes; and exception was taken to anything which appeared to be contrary to the public interest, to the practice of Parliament, or to the usual form in which Bills were presented. Points of the greatest importance almost always arose in connection with unopposed Bills, and under the proposals of Mr. Balfour neither he nor the Chairman of the House of Commons would have any opportunity of seeing the Reports of Public Departments or of interviewing the promoters and their agents. Their reading of the Bills must be much more perfunctory. Too much stress had been laid on the importance of the model Bills. They were good guides to the draftsman, but they were not intended to be-rigid, and their clauses had to be adapted to new circumstances and combinations of circumstances. There was an important series of Bills this year—dealing with the laying down of electrical tramways— and with respect to these, very considerable alterations had been made in the model clauses. Then the model Bills by no means covered the whole ground of private Bill legislation. It was more important to keep to the established practice of Parliament, and to prevent provisions being put into Private Bills which ought not to be there. For instance, attempts were not infrequently made to introduce the punishment of imprisonment for a breach of the regulations of municipalities, and it had always been held that that was not a proper provision for Private Bills. Then, too, clauses were sometimes introduced extending the investments in which trustees might legally invest. All these questions were very important, they were hardly ever opposed, and they had to be dealt with with very great care and circumspection. But he would remind the House that, when he dealt with them as Chairman of Committees, he was absolutely responsible to Parliament. He was acting in large measure on the advice of an experienced legal adviser and on the, reports of the public offices, and if his decisions or the decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons were wrong, they could always be appealed against in Parliament. That would not be the case with the Secretary for Scotland
882
under this Bill, for the Bill placed him in a position much stronger and more irresponsible. There was another point in regard to the Secretary for Scotland's position—that was his relation to the other public departments. For instance, the Board of Trade had now power to issue Provisional Orders and pass confirming Acts through Parliament, though that power was limited to works the estimates of which did not exceed a certain sum. Under this Bill, as he understood it, the Secretary for Scotland would have power to order such works as the Board of Trade were now qualified to order, of any size, or of any importance; but he would not have the advantage of the expert advice which the Board of Trade enjoyed in those matters. He suggested to his noble Friend, whether it would not be possible to give within their own jurisdiction concurrent power to the Board of Trade to draw these Provisional Orders; otherwise he would be authorised to issue Orders dealing with larger matters than the Board of Trade, though he had neither the staff nor the experience to deal with them possessed by that Department. He would also remind the House that at present Bills were drawn by experienced agents, who were responsible to the House and to him for the manner in which the work was done. In future, if this Measure were passed, Bills would not be drawn by persons so experienced in Parliamentary practice and law. The result would be, that the Orders as presented to the Secretary for Scotland would require a good deal more careful revision and criticism than the Bills which were introduced into Parliament at the present time. He thought it was certain that discrepancies would arise; between the Orders of the Secretary for Scotland and the Bills passed by Parliament. It was a question for Parliament to decide whether the simplification of procedure and the increased economy with which promoters would obtain their objects was not more than a compensation for this want of uniformity and this looseness of procedure. The only suggestion he could make whereby uniformity could be secured, and the control of Parliament, even in a slight degree, retained, was that all Orders, whether opposed or

883
unopposed, should, as at present, pass through Parliament in confirming Bills, but if they had been before subject to local inquiry it should be contrary to the Standing Orders that at any stage in Parliament an opponent should appear against the Bill. He did not believe that would add to the cost or delay, and at any rate it would retain over these Bills a certain control on the part of Parliament, which would be capable of being exercised if occasion required. He was rather afraid that the noble Lord would say that this was contrary to the principle of his Bill. But he threw it out as a suggestion, and it was the only one he could make by which the control of Parliament could be retained to some extent without unnecessary expense. If that was not possible, he would at least suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should report to Parliament the proceedings taken in cases under this Bill. He was strongly in favour of the local inquiry as in matters of small moment a valuable method of getting at the truth; but in the case of large and important bills he did not expect much cheapness. He though it would be found by experience to be far more expensive to transport expert witnesses and legal advisers to distances from London and Edinburgh than it would be to transport non-expert witnesses to those centres. He did not think the experience of the Light Railways Commission was very promising in the matter of making local inquiries cheap. The panel from which the Commission was chosen was to consist of twelve men— six of them were to be versed in the matters to be dealt with and six wore to be men of affairs. Was not the distinction too finely drawn between the two classes of Commissioners? He would suggest whether it would not be well to say "twelve competent persons." The second criticism he had to make in regard to the tribunal was more important. He doubted the desirableness of appointing a lawyer as Chairman of the Commission, especially one of such preponderating influence as a Judge or Sheriff. He suggested that it might be desirable on several grounds to attach a legal assessor to the Commission, who would both act as legal adviser to the Secretary for Scotland, and as a convenient medium of communication between him
884
and The Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses of Parliament. Further, such an adviser would give some element of permanence to the Commission, for he would preserve its traditions, practices, and forms, and they were both numerous and important. Under Clause 7 it appeared to him doubtful whether the Secretary for Scotland would have any power to make modifications in an Order except those which were rendered necessary by the recommendation of the Commission; and he thought it was absolutely necessary that the Secretary for Scotland should have authority to introduce such modifications as might be required to bring a Bill into its proper and regular form. He would also like to point out to his noble Friend that under the Bill as at present the Chairmen of the two Houses would have no opportunity of seeing whether their suggestions as to Orders had been carried into effect or not. He wished to express his strong approval of the suggestion that after an Order had passed through the local inquiry it should only pass through one Committee in Parliament. He would, indeed, be very glad if eventually the system of Joint Committees of both Houses might have larger extensions than it had in this Bill. It would save a great deal of the time of Parliament, and also a great deal of expense on the part of suitors. Another point was that it rested with the opponents or the promoters of Bills to ask the Secretary of State that they should be introduced as Private Bills rather than as Orders, he ventured to think the Secretary of State or some one else ought to have the power on his own initiative to send a Bill as a Private Bill to Parliament. [" Hear, hear !"] He did not think it would occur in many cases. This year Scottish Private Bill legislation consisted altogether of 30 Bills, of which one related to a public company—and that was a class of Bill which he thought should be dealt with by Parliament—three related to large municipalities that were not included now in the Police of Scotland Act, 12 related to railways, and 14 to other matters. His own impression was that there were very few of these which would have come to Parliament; most of them would have come under the purview of the noble

885
Lord's Act, and, indeed, he thought a very large proportion of Scottish private legislation would be so dealt with. The effect undoubtedly would in all ordinary cases to transfer the legislative power from Parliament to the Secretary of State. He quite admitted that it was a very well considered attempt in the direction of the reform which was desired, and that it would very materially assist the Scottish suitors, especially in small and purely local matters. He could not help feeling, however, a little misgiving at so large a transference of power from the Legislature to the executive. ["Hear, hear !"] He confessed he should like to see some control in Parliament over the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and he saw none at all in this Bill, he should like to have seen the process of Scottish as well as English and Irish legislation cheapened and simplified, while retaining Parliamentary control, which might he exercised as the occasion arose, over that legislation. It would be interesting to see what the opinion of Scottish constituencies would be. The Bill was very important and far-reaching, because, if adopted, it would certainly be used as a precedent for other parts of the United Kingdom. He trusted his noble Friend would give them time to consider the provisions of such an important and complicated Measure. ["Hear, hear !"]
*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he concurred with almost every word that had fallen from the Chairman of Committees. He thought tins Bill would have a larger effect and wider scope, than seemed to be supposed. He wished to lay stress on the enormous power given by this Bill to the Secretary for Scotland. He quite agreed with the authors of the Bill that it was right to proceed by Provisional Order, and thought that was the only direction that was open to them. But this Bill went further, and placed in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland almost absolutely, and for the first time, the whole Private Bill business for Scotland. Hitherto the Secretary for Scotland, who, of course, changed with the Government, had had nothing whatever to do with Private Bill legislation, which had been in the hands' of the two Houses, and particularly in the hands of the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means. The two
886
Chairmen, however, were placed by this Bill in a very secondary position. Even after an inquiry had taken place, the Secretary of State could refuse to issue an Order at all, and there was nothing to say that he was to give rhyme or reason for such action. He might also make modifications. He was then to send a copy of the Order to the two Chairmen, but there was no power, so far as he could see, to the Chairmen to make any alteration in the Order. He submitted that this control of Private Bill legislation was not a proper sphere at all for the Secretary for Scotland, who had ample occupation at the present time in the general supervision of public measures in Parliament, and in various very important executive duties. The powers which it was now proposed to give him would occupy his whole time, even if he were competent to deal with these mailers, but he submitted the Secretary of State was not fitted to deal with them, and had no experience of anything of the kind. With regard to administrative work of this kind they had very considerable experience of the Secretary for Scotland as an official—he did not refer to the noble Lord himself—and that was by no means of a favourable character. [Laughter.] Moreover, the Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means were particularly well fitted to deal with this private business. He would suggest that the Secretary for Scotland should be excised almost entirely from this Bill; he referred particularly to the powers which were given him in Clause 7. Half of the members of the proposed tribunal were to be "persons versed in matters in respect of which Parliamentary powers were wont to be sought." If this meant lawyers or professional persons of some sort, he must enter a respectful protest against gentlemen of that kind being on a tribunal to decide matters of this kind. His personal experience, which he was sure would be confirmed by every Scotch Peer in the House who had anything to do with legal business in Scotland, was that an enormous amount of canvassing would be carried on by gentlemen anxious to have the six paid places for obvious reasons. In the first place, the position would give them a good deal of immediate business and some dignity, and if they obtained a position on the

887
panel their own private business would be indirectly promoted. Everybody would feel that one of these gentlemen must be the person to employ. He would be regarded as a person very much thought of by his Lord Provost, or the Convener of his county, or the Secretary for Scotland. The proposed mode of appointment was all the worse because it was unnecessary. There were plenty of men of business and men of affairs who would be quite prepared to undertake the duties without being paid. Unpaid men were likely to be better than paid men. He hoped this portion of the Bill would be given up in Committee. He deprecated the appointment of a Judge or Sheriff. A large demand on their time would be involved, and he did not think, with every respect for the Bench, that it was necessary that that demand should be made. They did not have legal assessors on Private Bill Committees, and he believed their decisions commanded to a large extent public confidence. He hoped that the Bill would be sent to a Standing Committee. It was most desirable in the public interest that the Chairman of Committees, Lord Morley, should be in a position to advise the House with regard to an important matter of this sort, which was his own peculiar province. If the Bill were considered in Standing Committee, he hoped they would have the assistance of the Chairman of Committees. As far as he could see, the Bill was a very considerable advance. It was not an ambitious Bill. As far as he could judge, it was a sensible Bill in the principle it laid down, and he thought it was likely to confer considerable benefit on Scotland.
LORD BALFOURsaid he certainly had no reason to complain of the manner in which his attempt to deal with tins subject on behalf of the Government had been received by the House. There had been no attempt from any quarter to controvert the proposition that some reform in the present system was required, and the provisions of the Bill had not been strongly criticised except in points of detail by either of the two noble Lords who first addressed the House; and the noble Lord who last spoke distinctly said he thought, after the previous history of the question and the previous efforts made, there was no resource left to those who desired to
888
attempt reform but to admit that reform by means of an extension of Provisional Order legislation. He himself came to that conclusion as far back as 1888. Thin was the Bill alluded to in the Queen's Speech at the commencement of the Session, and there had been no change of intention on the part of those responsible for the Bill. In regard to the shortness of time between the presentation of the Bill and the Second Reading, to get the Second Reading before Whitsuntide it was necessary, for various reasons, the noble Lord explained, to take it that day. It would be convenient that a little time should elapse between the Second Reading and subsequent stages, and no attempt would be made to take any further stage before the Whitsuntide Recess. Lord Tweedmouth was not hostile to the Bill, but exhibited a, tendency to minimise the reform which would be effected by the Bill. He himself did not describe it as a larger Measure than it was, for fear of exciting expectations which it would not be possible afterwards to satisfy. But Lord Morley put the matter on its true basis. It was his intention, and he believed it was distinctly foreshadowed in the Bill, that, if it passed, the system of legislation by Provisional Order would become the rule, and the existing system, as far as Scotland was concerned, would be the exception. Directions were given in the Bill to the Secretary for Scotland and the Chairmen of Committees that if any proposal which came before them raised a question of policy or principle, it should be determined by Parliament, and the procedure would be by Private Bill. They would have to consider, not whether it was convenient for promoter or opponent that that course should be taken, but whether the questions raised were of a character and magnitude which rendered it necessary to deal with them by Private Bill. Those acquainted with the subject knew it was difficult to define all the subjects that came before Parliament in the name of Private Bill legislation, that no course was open but to give some general directions of this kind, and that any attempt to define what proposals should be dealt with one way or the other would be foredoomed to failure. The Secretary for Scotland would be associated with the Chairmen of Committees in deciding the matter. It would tend to

889
give confidence to those in Scotland interested in the subject that the question whether procedure should be by Provisional Order or private Bill should not be decided on the prepossessions of the Chairmen of Committees of the two Houses, but that they would have the advice and the tendency of the Secretary for Scotland to modify their decision in the direction of having more Provisional Orders and fewer private Bills in the future. He would not follow the noble Lord into his complaint that there was no Scotch legislation last year. It was not quite germane to the point before the House, but he would remind him that there was such a Measure an the Agricultural Bating Bill, which applied to Scotland, and Bills which applied to England were equally to the interest of Scotland, which was also included in the Light Railways Act and other Acts passed by the Legislature last year. He thought he had now said enough with reference to the point as to the Report of the Committee of 1888 having been set aside by him. He had put aside these proposals for this reason—on three or four occasions since the presentation of that Report, schemes which were founded upon it had been submitted to Parliament, but only in one case was a Second Reading reached, and in that case when the Bill was referred to a Select Committee of the other House, it was so changed and altered that the Government of the day did not proceed with ii. The real difficulty of the whole question was how they were to obtain the practical benefits of local inquiry, and at the same time preserve the effective supremacy of Parliament, and he agreed with the last speaker that the most hopeful solution of the difficulty was rather to be found in the Provisional Order system than in any other system which had been suggested. Lord Tweedmouth had told the House that the Bill to which he referred must have cost £1,000 for preliminary notices at 9s. a piece. That statement had surprised him greatly, and he thought that there must have been some special reason which they did not know for that heavy expenditure. His own impression was that such expenditure was wholly unnecessary, and that Glasgow, like other large cities employing town clerks, might have done the business at much less cost. But even if it were necessary now under
890
the Standing Orders to spend 9s. upon each of these notices, it would not be necessary under this Bill, because power was given by it to prescribe, the conditions under which notices should be given, and there was nothing to prevent its being prescribed that these notices should be sent by registered letter. One criticism which had been passed on this Measure by all those who had spoken was that there was too much of the Secretary for Scotland in the Bill, he thought that the position which it was proposed to give the Secretary for Scotland was rather misunderstood. It was not intended to give him unchecked power to do what he liked with the Bills submitted to him. As far as the opposed clauses of a Bill were concerned the intent ion was that the Secretary for Scotland should only make such alterations in the draft Provisional Order as were recommended by the tribunal which had heard the parties, and as far as unopposed clauses were concerned his proposal was that the Secretary for Scotland should only make such changes as he was advised by the Chairman of Committees were necessary in order to bring those clauses into conformity with the general practice of Parliament respecting Provisional Orders. If his intentions with regard to this matter were nor clearly embodied in the provisions of the Bill, there would be no difficulty in amending it so as to remove all ambiguity. There was a provision in the Bill which allowed any opponent of a Provisional Order to require that it should be laid before Parliament, and he was, in addition, prepared to consider the propriety of laying the Order before Parliament upon the initiative or demand of the Chairman of Committees of either House, although by this concession he feared that he might be encouraging criticism of the Bill us a measure of reform and relief. He had been asked whether an omnibus Bill could be the subject of a Provisional Order under the Bill, and he saw nothing to prevent it. The intention, in fact, was to include what were known as omnibus Bills. Being made up of a large collection of comparatively small points, omnibus Bills constitued precisely that class of legislation which ought to be the subject of local inquiry, because such Bills seldom contained large questions of principle. The noble Earl who preceded him in the Debate had

891
made some rather severe comments upon the proposed method of selecting the panel from whom those who were to preside over these Inquiries were to chosen, and he had criticised particularly the proposal respecting the appointment of a judge or sheriff. But it surely was desirable that there should be some one upon the tribunal who had a knowledge of the law of evidence and of legal matters. He was, however, quite willing to consider the suggestion that there should be a legal assessor instead. He had been sorry to hear Lord Tweedmouth's remarks concerning the choice of the conveners of counties as a Committee of selection. He trusted that the noble Lord would accept his assurance that when he made that choice he did not give a thought to their political complexion. He might point out that those who elected the County Councils in Scotland were almost the same as those who elected Members of Parliament. If the conveners of counties inclined more to his own political views than to those of the noble Lord, the fact remained that they were the persons best fitted in the opinion of the electorate to till the positions to which they were returned. He could not help thinking that it was unfortunate that the noble Lord should have raised the question of the political complexion of this proposed Committee of selection, because he felt certain that political considerations would not sway the minds of those who would form that Committee, and he always noticed that when people were put into quasi-judicial positions they made fair selections without regarding the political complexion of those whom they selected. But he was not wedded to this particular method of selecting the tribunal, and if a better could be suggested, he would give it most fair and impartial consideration. He was certain, however, that any proposal to submit the matter to the Executive Government of the day would meet with great opposition, because it would at once be presumed that the appointments were to be political. Replying to his noble Friend (the Earl of Morley) he assured him that it was not his intention to assume any of the functions of the Chairman of Committees. Lord Tweed-mouth had expressed the opinion that to allow the Secretary for Scotland to remit a Bill to Parliament on the Motion
892
of one opponent was to give him too much power. He should have thought that the question of the power given to the Secretary of State would fade into insignificance when compared with so important a question as that of the right of a party desiring it to appeal to Parliament. Everybody agreed that in some form or other the retention of the ultimate control of both Houses of Parliament must be secured. The necessity for that was recognised in every Report on this subject, and by nearly every witness who gave evidence before the Committee of 1888. It was recognised, for example, by Mr. Pember, Mr. Beveridge, who was a Parliamentary agent, and by Mr. Pym, and all three were in favour of a much larger scheme of devolution than that now proposed. No man's status ought to be interfered with without the sanction of Parliament, and he would not be responsible for any scheme that disregarded that principle. He had now replied to all the points that had been raised. He was not disappointed at the reception given to the Bill. The criticisms passed upon it only proved how great were the difficulties in the way of dealing with this subject satisfactorily. He trusted that ultimately the Measure might receive the sanction of Parliament.
LORD HERSCHELL, while agreeing without reserve to the proposal that there should be a power of appeal to Parliament, suggested that a single individual ought not to be allowed to render nugatory all the proceedings already taken by the time his appeal was lodged. He also suggested whether, in order to prevent this action from being improperly taken, the Committee should not be enabled to give costs even by a majority against the person failing. It had been found to work extremely well in many cases not to give any absolute right of appeal, and yet not to leave the party without the power of appealing if he had a real case. In certain cases in the Privy Council, in order to be enabled to appeal, the party who desired it must come before the Judicial Committee and satisfy them that he had sufficient ground for appealing. The matter was always very carefully considered, and unless the Committee was satisfied that there appeared to be good ground to believe that the judgment below was wrong, the leave to appeal was refused. This course was

893
adopted in the Clergy Discipline Act, and he believed that where it had been adopted it had worked well. Would it not he possible to adopt the idea embodied in that legislation in such a Measure as this —not to give the individual an absolute right to compel the proceedings in that House to be gone through again as if there had been no inquiry, but to require that there should be a petition presented and an inquiry into it by a Committee. This would be a practical cheek on any improper proceedings to get rid of the work done before, and would be a more effectual one than the mere fear of having to pay costs.
Bill Read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JURIES DETENTION BILL.
Considered in Committee (according to Order); Repoted without Amendment, and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
QUARTER SESSIONS JURORS (IRELAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to, Order), and Bill to be Read 3a Tomorrow.
INFANT LIFE PROTECTION Bill [H.L.]
Report of Amendments (which stands appointed for this day) put off till Tomorrow.
NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (IRELAND).
LORD HERSCHELLasked Her Majesty's Government whether they would undertake at an early date to introduce a Bill amending the law relating to the municipal franchise in Ireland? He pointed out that towards the close of the
894
Session in 1895 a Bill for amending the law relating to the municipal franchise in Ireland was Read a Second time in their Lordships' House, the Bill having come up from the House of Commons. On that occasion the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland supported the Second Reading of the Bill. The noble Earl said, "On his own behalf, and he believed on behalf of his colleagues, they felt as strongly as I did the necessity which undoubtedly existed for dealing with the question of the municipal franchise in Ireland;" and the noble Earl expressed his desire that the Bill should be Read a Second time. The next stage of the Bill was taken shortly before the prorogation, and then the Lord Lieutenant opposed any further proceeding with the Bill on the ground that it was impossible to discuss it at that time. He ventured to point out that if the Measure was not passed then ït was extremely probable that those who had been pressing this amendment of the law for many years would have to wait as many years again before it was passed, on which remark he observed that there were cries of "No !" and "Why !" He thought that the incidents which had happened during the two years gave some answer to the "No" and the "Why !" A Division took place and the Bill was lost. The Measure was declared to be one which had the sympathy and the support of the present Government, and it wad regarded by them not only as a just and desirable amendment of the law, but as one which urgently needed to be dealt with. He did not think that there could be two opinions as to either of those propositions, and he would remind the House that it had always been, as they understood, a cardinal part of the policy of the present Government, and it had been constantly reiterated by them, that any measure of Home Rule for Ireland was absolutely unnecessary, inasmuch as any just and reasonable demand for an amendment of the law would meet with speedy response from Parliament as at present constituted. So much for the general aspect of the case. Owing to the difficulty which had been experienced in obtaining any reform of the franchise by general legislation, Bills had been introduced from time to time dealing with particular Corporations, and Parliament had in several cases, in view, no doubt, of the difficulty and delay which has taken

895
place in dealing with the general question, sanctioned the introduction into these Bills of causes dealing with the municipal franchise in the several boroughs to which they refer. These Measures had been passed into law. The precedent was followed by the introduction of similar clauses in a Bill relating to the Corporation of Dublin. The Measure came before their Lordships the other day, and by a small majority an Instruction was carried, the effect of which was to expunge those clauses from the Bill and to render certain that it would go down to the other House without them, therefore rendering it probable that the Bill would be rejected. This would of course, result in a very considerable waste of money. The money was wasted when the Bill was promoted with these clauses inserted last year, and the money would be wasted on the present occasion. It was on these special grounds that he put this question, because it seemed to him that the only thing which could prevent that waste of money was that the Government should announce their intention speedily to introduce such a Measure. If such an announcement were made and the Bill introduced, it was possible that the other House might be content to forego the course which they would otherwise likely follow, of rejecting the Bill by refusing to assent to the Amendments made by their Lordships. On the occasion he had referred to the Lord Chancellor spoke in favour of letting these clauses remain in the Bill at that time, on the ground that other Corporations had been allowed to insert such clauses in their Bills; and he believed that this view was supported by many Members of the present Cabinet.
LORD MONTEAGLEappealed to the Government to give a favourable reply, if they could see their way, to the question of the noble and learned Lord. This grievance which pressed upon these towns in Ireland was of much greater magnitude in one respect than any other grievance Ireland had to complain of, because it was peculiar to Ireland. The question of private Bill procedure was also a grievance in Ireland. The Chief Secretary, in answer to a deputation at the end of last year, gave a definite pledge that the question of private Bill legislation in Ireland should be dealt with. No such definite pledge had been given
896
as to the municipal franchise, and he hoped the Government would now give one.
THE EARL OF MAYOdid not gather from the noble and learned Lord whether he wanted the Bill spoken of by the Lord Lieutenant in 1895 or another Bill. What sort of Franchise Bill was wanted? The question was most important to the people in Ireland. He agreed that there would be a great waste of money if the Dublin Corporation Bill were rejected, and on that account only he hoped that the Bill would not be lost. The subject of Private Bill legislation, again, was a burning question in Ireland, and he hoped the Government, when the time came, would see to it, especially in view of the great costs which corporations and other bodies were put to in having to come over here to fight their case. If they could have private Bill legislation dealt with in Ireland it would be an immense thing.
THE EARL OF DENBIGHwas afraid the answer he had to give would hardly be considered satisfactory by the noble and learned Lord. He could only say that the Government, although they realised that the municipal franchise question in Ireland must be dealt with sooner or later, were unable to undertake to deal with it this Session.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACTS.
*VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNrose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the proposed Commission on the Irish Land question would have power to examine and report upon the pledges given by the Government of the day on the passing of the Land Act of 1881; and as to whether the circumstances contemplated by Government which would raise a claim for compensation had arisen. In doing so, the noble Lord drew attention to some points in connection with the Land Acts. In the first place, he set himself to show the interdependence that exists among the various Land Acts; secondly, the difficulties of lawyers and experts in administering the Acts; and, thirdly, that there was a general consensus of opinion that there ought to be a general inquiry into the Acts, and that losses had been sustained by landlords, was supported by very great authority. With

897
reference to the first point, he recalled the fact that when Mr. Justice Fitz-Gibbon wag examined before Mr. Morley's Commission, Mr. Morley asked (Question 2969, page 140):—
"I think the Committee, so far as I can judge, certainly including myself, feel that unprofessional persons must be perplexed beyond measure by the enormous difficulties of construction arising from the interdependence of the various Acts which refer to one another, in and out, of which you as a Court I suppose must have felt the difficulty as we laymen. I should like to hear if you would be kind enough to tell the Committee an account of the relations of those Acts to one another, and any statement that you may care to make of the difficulties arising from those relations."
The answer of Mr. Justice FitzGibbon was as follows:—
"I can scarcely exaggerate the difficulty that has arisen in two ways. First, from the artificial system of definition that exists in these Acts, by which we have first to learn a special language before we try to find out what the interpretation of a particular erection is, we must know the language before we proceed to interpret it, and it is a foreign language to lawyers."
Mr. Edward Carson, one of the Members for the University of Dublin, speaking at the Surveyors' Institute in London in November, 1893, was reported to have said:—
"If there was one thing more than another that he wished to impress upon those who came into daily contact with this Question, it was that they would not approach the Question from the standpoint of English land tenure, but must consider whether more or less legislation was required, and indeed, first ascertained how existing legislation dealt with the whole matter seeing what the existing legislation was."
Again, Judge O'Connor Morris, writing in The Fortnightly Review of June, 1896, in the article, "The Irish Land Bill of Lord Salisbury's Government," said:—
"It does not attempt to place the land system of Ireland, at least in its most important relations, on a more stable and sound foundation, or essentially to change the legislation of late years, which has torn it, it may be truly said, to pieces." and further, "a Government which commands the field of politics might have made an earnest and thorough effort to set the Irish Land System on a better basis; ill its largest and most important province, to reconcile it in some measure at least with the conceptions of just and civilised law, to mitigate in part without doing violence to existing or recently acquired rights, the gross wrongs and the vexatious evils of an ill designed and revolutionary scheme of reform.
898
Legislation of this kind, however, must have been preceded by a careful, protracted, and impartial inquiry into the present state of the Irish Land System and into the operation and effects of the Gladstonian Land Act," ‥‥
Again he said:—
"Land tenure in Ireland must be thoroughly recast if the Land System is to rest on a sound basis.
Mr. Lecky, in his work, "Democracy and Liberty," says:—
"The Act of 1870 had many merits, but it admitted, as I believe, a dangerous and dishonest principle."
Mr. T. W. Russell was reported in The Irish Times of October 13th, 1894, to have used these words:—
"People talk about the Act of 1881. The Act of 1870 governs it at every point."
If they looked at the Act of 1881 they found it incorporated a great part of the Act of 1870. Any provision in the Act of 1870 not inconsistent with those of the Act of 1881 remain good, and the two, by Section 57 of the Act of 1881, "shall be construed together as one Act." What: did the newspaper which represents the Ulster tenants say as to an Inquiry? The Northern Wig of May 12th says:—
"If the Government decide on recommending a, Commission of Inquiry it ought to be a broad and general one, and not of mere politicians, nor of peers, nor of landlords."
When Mr. Arthur Balfour spoke the other day in the House of Commons he condemned all the Acts. What effect had that speech produced in Ireland? A friend wrote:—
"He (Mr. Arthur Balfour) in effect said, that none of the Land Acts can be any longer defended, and that the Conservative Party which, only tried to make them work, not approving of them, now see that they never will work, and must be superseded by some more statesmanlike, simple, and just legislation."
Mr. Arthur Balfour had, in the face of the country, made this tremendous admission, but, great as it was, he doubted if it was stronger, except that Mr. Arthur Balfour was the Leader of the Unionist Party in the House of Commons, than

899
the words of The Times that the landlords of Ireland demand an Inquiry into a
"state of things which, to say the very least, is altogether without a parallel in any country, civilised or uncivilised."
Now, he might fairly ask how long was Ireland to groan under such a state of affairs? Mr. Gerald Balfour, in introducing the Irish Land Bill, referred to the Act of 1881 as nothing less than an "agrarian revolution." Were the Irish landlords not only to suffer for this revolution, of which they were not the cause, but to be punished by having their property confiscated under the laws of England into the bargain? No words of his could strengthen the overwhelming indictment pronounced by judicial authorities, by statesmen and historians and experts, against the Irish Land Acts passed by the English Legislature during the last quarter of a century, and which if they were to believe the Irish tenantry, left them no better off than they were before. So far, he claimed to have shown that the Irish Land Act of 1870 and those, following were so closely knit together that if full and complete justice was to be done alike to landlords and tenants in Ireland the inquiry could not be confined to one Act only; and, further, the quotations he had given pointed to the need of a general inquiry into all the Acts to ascertain the losses suffered by landlords under all the Acts, and how compensation should be given them. He would now deal with the pledges given by the Government of the day on the passing of the Irish Land Act of 1870. Speaking of "Those who have set up perpetuity of tenure for the Irish occupier as their favourite scheme," Mr. Gladstone disclaimed anything—
"dishonourable, anything that intends any injury to another's on their part, because we have not a doubt that they have seen that inasmuch as perpetuity of tenure on the part of the occupier is virtually expropriation of the landlord, and as a mere readjustment of rent according to the price of produce can by no means dispose of all contingencies the future may produce in his favour, compensation would have to be paid to the landlord for the rights of which he would be deprived… But suppose for a moment that we put the financial difficulty out of view, what would be the effect of perpetuity of tenure upon the tenant? As I understand it, the scheme itself amounts to this—that each and every occupier, as long as he pays the rent that he is now paying.
900
or else some rent to be fixed by a public tribunal charged with the duty of valuation, is to be secured for himself and his heirs in the occupation of the land that he holds, without limit of time. He will be subject only to this condition somewhat in the nature of the commutation of Tithe Act—that with a variation in the value of produce the rent may vary but it will be slightly, and at somewhat distant periods. The effect of that provision will be, that the landlord will become a rent charge upon what is now his own estate. The Legislature has, no doubt, the perfect right to reduce him to that condition, giving him proper compensation for any loss he may sustain in money; the State has a perfect right to deal with his social status, and to reduce, him to that condition if it thinks fit. But then it is bound not to so think fit, unless it is shown that this is for the public good."
Did this not describe the condition of landlords and tenants in Ireland to-day? Speaking further on in the Debate, Mr. Gladstone said:—
"Well, now, let us look closely at the case of Ireland, and see whether, in good faith, without injury to any class, we can provide a remedy for these evils.‥‥And as we have afforded the occupier improved security of tenure, so also have we afforded the landlord improved security for his rent, and improved security as we think for the better cultivation of his land."
The then Attorney General, Sir Robert Collier said in his speech of March 8, 1870:—
"When they say that the landlord ought not to have power of ejecting the tenant except for non-payment of rent, and that the tenant has a right to remain on his holding as long as he pleases, what does that really mean but fixity of tenure—that is, that the landlord is to be deprived of his property?"
And again:—
"I believe the effect of the Measure will be, by giving the tenant security of tenure, to give him increased motives for industry, and, by giving to the tenant security of tenure, it will, at the same time, give to the landlords an increase of rent."
Mr. Gladstone had distinctly admitted the fact that his Land Act of 1870 took away from the owners of land in Ireland a part of their property and made it over to the tenants. In his speech of April 7th, 1881, when he introduced the Act of that year, he said:—
"With a supply of land in the market so much less than the demand, you have a state of things in which it is well worth the while of a man who has not got land as a means of

901
obtaining a regular subsistence and livelihood, to pay for obtaining it. That willingness of the incoming tenant, to pay enters distinctly into the interest of the outgoing tenant so long as he continues the tenant, us something he has to receive."
The principle of compensation was admitted by Mr. Gladstone in 1881, when he said:—
"If, as has been said. Parliament is about, to invade the property of Irish landlords, the question of compensation becomes a very serious one indeed, and one concerning which, if we are prepared to deal with it at all, we ought to speak in most decisive terms. If these classes, either or both of them, have a just claim to compensation in consequence of the manner in which these interests will be affected by this Bill, we are bound as a Parliament to give it them."
He would quote one case which showed clearly the state of affairs in Ireland. It was the case of "Bolton landlord," which was heard at Dundalk on February 11th last, to determine the true value of the holding. The holding comprised 79 acres, 2 roods, and 19 perches Irish. The rent £103. There were no improvements claimed by the tenant. The land had been let previously by the landlord to the tenant, and the tenant had paid no fine to get possession of the farm. On the hearing, the landlord produced two valuers, one of them Mr. J. J. Russell, who described the farm as in a very bad condition. He said:—
"There is nothing in the farm which usually goes to make up what is known as a tenant-right interest—no houses, no fences, no unexhausted manures, no improvements of any kind. On the contrary, a considerable permissive waste is allowed to go on, evidently will the object of getting a low rent fixed in a year or two."
After making allowances for repairs, etc., he valued the tenant's interest, or the true value, at £83. The landlord produced another valuer, Mr. MIlvaine, County Court valuer, Mr. M'Ilvaine, Mr. M'Ilvaine considered the rent was too high; he estimated that it would be reduced 25 per cent, two years hence: and he considered the tenant's interest was 15 years' purchase of the reduction. In all, he estimated that tht true value !would be between £400 and £500. The I tenant produced two witnesses, who stated that they believed the tenant's interest was worth from £1,000 to
902
£1,200, perhaps more. The Sub-Commissioners fixed the true value at £550. The question was, what was that £550 for? Was it not a part of the corpus of the landlord's estate, and should it not belong to him? There were no improvements claimed by the tenant. The evidence showed that the place had been grossly deteriorated, and was it reasonable and fair that a landlord, to resume possession of the farm, should pay the tenant this amount for getting his land back in a grossly deteriorated state? Surely the Act of 1881 never contemplated that the portion of the corpus of the estate of the landlord should be transferred to the tenant. Speaking as he had done, on his own behalf and on behalf of others, with a view to what was just between man and man in Ireland, and what was best for the whole community both in Great Britain and Ireland, he urged that a great wrong had been done to the Irish landlords, for which compensation was due; and, for the moment, the responsibility of action rested with Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I can only refer the noble Viscount to the speech which was made by the Chief Secretary in another place a few days ago, in which the right hon. Gentleman stated that the proposed Commission in connection with the Irish Laud Acts would be confined to inquiring into the practice and procedure of the Land Commission and the County Courts in fixing fair rents, and of the Land Commission in making advances under the Land Purchase Acts. At this moment it is impossible to give the noble Viscount any more details as to the terms of reference to the Commission, and I cannot now go into other particulars.
THE EARL OF MAYOsaid that those whose property had been dealt with would like to know as soon as possible the personnel of the Commission, the terms of reference, and the name of the Secretary to the Commission. As to the question of compensation, he believed that the Royal Commission could take that question into consideration, though it could not fix the compensation or grant it. He was glad that the matter had been brought forward.
House Adjourned at Seven o'Clock, till Tomorrow, a Quarter past Ten o'Clock.