Sitting of 12 May 1899

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords].
  Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with.
  MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (ABERAVON, &c.) BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords].
(No Standing Orders applicable.)
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, viz.:—

BROUGHTY FERRY GAS AND PAVING ORDER BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with.
SPEAKER SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

RENFREW BURGH AND HARBOUR EXTENSION BILL [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords].
No Standing Orders not previously inquired into applicable.
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders not previously inquired into are applicable, viz.:—

FRIENDS' PROVIDENT INSTITUTION BILL [Lords].
  HASTINGS AND ST. LEONARDS GAS BILL [Lords].
    INFANT ORPHAN ASYLUM BILL [Lords].
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Petition for additional Provision.
Standing Orders not complied with.
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petitions for additional Provision in the following Bills, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, viz.:—

BEXHILL AND ROTHKRFIELD RAILWAY BILL.
  WEST METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
  Ordered, That the Reports be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
REDDITCH GAS BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
SHIREBROOK AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read the third time, and passed.
WALLASEY TRAMWAYS AND IMPROVEMENTS BILL [Lords] (QUEEN'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
WEST MIDDLESEX WATER BILL (QUEEN'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED).
Read the third time, and passed.
BELFAST WATER BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL.
As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
CORK CORPORATION (FINANCE) BILL).
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
MILTON CREEK CONSERVANCY BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
NORTH PEMBROKESHIRE AND FISHGUARD RAILWAY BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
DUBLIN CORPORATION (MARKETS) BILL.
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

EAST LONDON WATER BILL (BY ORDER).
As amended, considered:—
MR. STUART: I rise to move the clause of which I have given notice, and which reads as follows:
"If the undertaking of the Company is purchased within seven years from the passing of this Act otherwise than by agreement by any public body or trustees, nothing in this Act shall authorise the Company to bring into account or to make any claim in respect of any advantages conferred on them by or resulting from the passing of this Act."
These are the words which are applied in a similar clause in a Bill which has been introduced by the Government, and. which has now passed through this House, and has passed through most of its stages in the other House, and were introduced there at the suggestion of the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission, in recommending something of the nature of the Bill which the Government brought in, stated in their Report:
"It was urged by the London County Council that if the effect of any scheme of intercommunication should be to increase the value an arbiter would put on the undertaking of the company, we doubt whether this appreciation is well founded, but we think, in any case, all doubt on the subject should be removed,"

453
and they proceeded to suggest that a clause of this kind should be introduced. Now, we are in this peculiar position, that, as I pointed out when the East London Water Bills, which have now been amalgamated into one, were before the House, one of them, which is now Part 3 of the present proposed Bill, traversed some of the ground of the Bill of the Government, with the addition of a clause about taking water from the Thames under certain circumstances, but containing practically the provisions of the Government Bill in case of a temporary difficulty. Now, in the Government Bill there is introduced the clause that I have referred to, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission. We are in this peculiar position, that if the Government Bill and this Bill both become law, we should have in the one certain facilities and intercommunication, subject in the Government Bill to a clause such as I have read to the House, and in the other Bill, that promoted by the East London Water Company, we should have these facilities and powers without that restriction. Now, when a company comes to make the interconnection under this Bill, is their action to be subject to this clause, or is it not? I submit that the peculiar difficulty here has arisen from the fact that the Bills have gone before different Committees of the House. I would not have ventured to have brought this matter before the House at this stage, but have left it to the House of Lords to deal with it, but for the very peculiar position of sending up from this House two Bills the operation of which is intended to accomplish the same thing, the one being subject to a restriction and the other not. There is very high authority for the restriction in the clause such as I move. Three different Committees of this House, on three separate occasions in 1896 and 1898, decided that the authority of the Royal Commission is applicable to this particular case. I point out that in the present Bill under consideration there is a considerably stronger reason for inserting the clause than there was in the Government Bill, because this Bill gives facilities, not only for intercommunication, but for drawing additional water from the Thames. It also authorises a large concession of power to make certain reservoirs, the object of which is to provide for the increased population in the East
454
End of London. I admit that this increasing population should be very properly provided for in some way or-other, but it should be made subject to the clause I have described. It may be said that the Bill for East London will not increase the value of the company's undertaking in case of purchase. There may be very considerable difference of opinion on that point, but what I want to make clear is that whether this increase takes place or not, that increased value should not be allowed to be brought in in a question of purchase. I am doing nothing new in this matter. In 1896, when certain Bills were brought forward and when the scheme for the purchase of the water companies was thrown out by the House, I pointed out that there was a danger, while the question of purchase was under the consideration of the Government, who had promised to deal with it effectively and immediately, that, in the meantime certain powers might be given to the companies to proceed with works, and that these powers might raise their price against us, altogether irrespective of the addition to it by the expenditure of the money. The President of the Local Government Board met me very fairly by saying that he would make it, an instruction to the Committee that they should not go any further in granting powers to the companies than the immediate urgencies of the case required. I was a member of the Committee presided over by the honourable Baronet the Member for Durham, and we found it was practically essential to proceed with the great Staines scheme. The Committee, however, while feeling that they were, going possibly beyond the immediate urgency of the ease with a view to the proper interpretation of the word "urgency," met the spirit of the instruction by putting in a clause such as I have moved here. They did not wish these powers which they were granting to increase the value of the undertaking in case of purchase, and they felt that the question of purchase was about to be decided by the appointment of the Royal Commission, whose Report we are looking forward to in a few weeks' time. The need of the clause is greatly intensified in the present Bill because the concessions being given by it to the company will, I certainly think (though some may not), raise the value of the undertaking in case of sale and

455
purchase. Now, it is not adequate to say that the introduction of a sinking fund into this Bill meets the whole question. The introduction of a sinking fund meets the requirements of the case in the event of the company not being purchased and proceeding to carry out the works—a certain portion of the profits is to be set aside for the public benefit. But suppose that the undertaking is purchased within the next year or two, this sinking fund does not affect the question. The question is this: whether the concession of the right to make inter-' communication and to create new reservoirs for supplying a largo population—whether that right, subject to a sinking fund, is a valuable property or not. Now, I hold it to be so. Whether it is or it is not, we are merely following the view of the Royal Commission, which says it is better in any case that all doubt on the subject should be removed, and that doubt will be removed by the introduction of this clause. There were two Bills, to one of which the instruction and Report which I have just read referred, and the other was the Bill for what is called temporary facilities of supply, and with respect to that there came a letter from the Local Government Board to my honourable friend the Member for Durham, indicating in the clearest terms that this portion of the Bill referred to the temporary supply which is incorporated in the present supply, and which was a repetition of the Government Bill itself. My argument is this—that the Government Bill having had this clause introduced, and the Local Government Board recognising that this Bill, so far as that portion is concerned, is the same as their own, the clause ought to be introduced into this Bill. I have laid before the House as briefly as I could the arguments in favour of the introduction of this clause. The position of the London water question is very serious, and the introduction of this clause seems to me to be the only way by which justice can be done, pending the issuing of the Report of the Royal Commission which we expect upon an early date. I therefore beg to move the introduction of this new clause.
A Clause (provision in case of future purchase of undertaking,)—(Mr. James Stuart,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and question proposed—
"That the Clause be read a second time."
SIR JOSEPH PEASE: As Chairman of the Committee whose judgment has been impugned, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words upon the reasons which induced us to refuse the application of the London County Council upon that occasion when this clause was suggested to us. I may again repeat what I have often said in this House, that it does seem to me a very dangerous practice for the representatives of the London County Council to come down here and impugn the decision of the Committee, and to try and make this House the organ for upsetting decisions which had been come to by Committees of this House when those Committees have had all the facts laid before them by the most competent counsel, I suppose, in the world, the counsel of the Parliamentary bar. If anything would induce this House not to upset the decision of the Committee, it is the very long speech and intricate argument of my honourable friend. First of all the instruction to which our attention was called by the Local Government Board, which the honourable Member has been good enough to read, was not an instruction from this House. It was merely a hint sent by the Local Government Board that we wore to do what, in their opinion, had been done in former years, that is, not to pledge this House in any Act of Parliament to a course which hereafter might be found detrimental to some great and general decision with regard to the London water companies. That consideration was before us when we made the Report which we have had the honour to present to the House, and in it the Committee state that they had the instruction given in 1896 before them. Now, my honourable friend must know that there is a wide difference between the East London Water Bill and the Staines Reservoir Bill, which was a Bill brought in by three companies to supply water to any of those three companies according to their needs. In that Bill we not only inserted the sinking fund clause, but we put that clause in relative to the value of the companies not being increased, because it might be alleged when those three companies came to be purchased that the Staines Reservoir Bill had not merely the value of the Staines

457
Reservoir attached to it, but also a further value in connection with the supply to each of the other companies. Therefore, when we came to the clause that has been mentioned by my honourable friend, in which I had some little share, it was felt that if the Staines Reservoir was bought by any London or general district trust, or by the County Council, that there should be no increased value attached to it by reason of its construction. I think I can put very shortly before the House the reason why we did not insert this clause in the Committee on the Bill before the House. The Government Bill alluded to by my honourable friend was a Bill brought into this House with that clause in it, but when it left this House it had not any sinking fund clause in it. This Bill before the House to-day has the sinking fund clause in it. My right honourable friend's Bill (Mr. Chaplin) was based word for word upon the First Report of the Royal Commission. That Commission also said, in addition to what the honourable Member has quoted, that those auxiliary appliances should not be hold to relieve the company from the obligation of improving its resources as rapidly as practicable, in order that it might be independent of all extraneous aid. That was practically an instruction from the body already appointed that we were to hand to the East London Water Company, if we could, further supplies, that would keep them perfectly clear of that extraneous Bill. It was a Bill merely for a temporary necessity, and we gave them power to take 10,000,000 gallons a day out of the waters of the Thames in addition to their own present supply, and so far as the evidence goes before us there will be no occasion for the operation of my right honourable friend's Bill, and those poor people who have been so destitute of water in the year of drought, unless there is a drought more extreme than that of last year, will be in possession of an ample supply of water. With regard to this sinking fund clause, the main portion of the Bill was for £1,000,000 sterling, to lie spent upon reservoirs for holding the surplus water of the River Lea. Those reservoirs will hold about 5,000,000 gallons, and will cost about a million of money. Of that sum £230,000 sterling will be spent on the one reservoir, and £450,000 on the second reservoir. No reservoir to be constructed under this Bill can be in working order
458
for seven years from the date of the passing of the Act. That is what the engineer says, and you can generally safely give his estimate seven or eight percent. of a margin, and so it will be seven or eight years before these reservoirs will be at work. My honourable friend's clause provides for the purchasing of the undertaking within seven years in his new clause. But suppose the reservoir is not ready at the end of seven years, how possibly could the works of an unused reservoir add to the value of the water companies' undertaking? Why should there be any restrictive clause put in the Bill for an unfinished reservoir? But suppose it is finished, then the sinking fund clause comes into operation in regard to this million sterling invested in these reservoirs as soon as ever a drop of water is taken out of the reservoir for public use. What is the sinking fund? I had a good deal to do with the sinking fund when it was re-drafted by the County Council before the Committee of l892. What did it do? Why every penny of money that is raised for this purpose becomes liable to the sinking fund as soon as ever a drop of water is taken from the reservoir seven years hence. The sinking fund means that whatever proportion the new capital bears to the old capital to that extent the revenue applicable to the sinking fund goes to a certain purpose, and that revenue is set aside. The money to be spent has all to be raised by debentures, and the price of those debentures is fixed by the Governor of the Bank of England. Again, as soon as they are on the market they have to be sold by public auction, and therefore the money is got at the lowest possible juice. That share which the new capital has earned in the total revenue is first to be allowed the interest on which the capital has been raised, then one per cent. goes to the water company for collecting the revenue and looking after the interests of the consumers. The balance of the revenue thus earned is then handed to the City Chamberlain, and it is to be invested in the companies' own stock, and that stock and its earning becomes the property of the City Chamberlain until this House orders an appropriation of the money so invested, and that has accumulated from the water supply of London. Therefore, no profit whatever can arise, first of all because the reservoir will not be finished by the time

459
my honourable friend's clause will work; and, in the next place, under the sinking fund no possible profit can arise. I ask any gentlemen accustomed to acting as arbitrators how they can possibly add to the value of a concern on which there is no money being used that earned a profit. It is the earning of a profit which gives an increased value. Therefore the majority of the Committee, looking at the position of the revenue, and knowing that there could be no profit arise from the capital authorised to be spent, concluded that it would be no use whatever putting in this clause. I may be told that it would do no harm if it did no good. So far as my humble voice went I advocated that we should never cram a Bill with clauses of a useless character. I think I have now satisfied the House that the Committee acted wisely in doing what they did, and that it was no use putting this clause in, for it would be perfectly inoperative. My honourable friend was good enough to pay me a kind compliment for the way I acted as chairman of that Committee, but the worst compliment he can pay me is to come down to this House and challenge the decisions of that Committee. I do say again in this House that it is a dangerous practice for the House of Commons, on an ex parte statement, to upset the decisions of Committees which have been taken very quietly, and solemnly arrived at. The Committee which sat with me the other day was a painstaking Committee. Sir Robert Peel held that if the decision of a Committee was prima facie doubtful it should still be supported for the fear of producing greater evils. I trust that the House will believe that the Committee went carefully into this question, and that they had good reasons for objecting to the clause which my honourable friend asks the House to insert.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. CHAPLIN, Lincolnshire, Sleaford): I regret that I was absent when the honourable Member moved his Motion, and I doubt whether I should be justified, as a member of the Government, in offering any advice upon this particular question. Nor do I think that I should have risen at all to take part in this Debate excepting for the fact that I have been informed of a statement made by the honourable Gentleman which might probably be calculated to give rise to some
460
misapprehension as to the attitude of the Local Government Board on this particular Bill. I may remind the House that it is the practice of the Local Government Board upon all Bills of this nature; to send reports upon them to the Committee, and I understand that the honourable Member has argued in this case that the reports sent by the Local Government Board on this question must be taken as a general indication that the Local Government Board must be hold to be averse to the principle of this measure. That was not so, for the reports of the Local Government Board were intended merely and solely as information with regard to matters generally affecting the question, and it was only right to put them before the Committee for their general consideration. That being so, what I am informed the honourable Member has said upon this subject is calculated to mislead the House as to the attitude of the Local Government Board. So far as I am personally concerned, I agree with what has fallen from the honourable Baronet who has just sat down, and who presided over that Committee, and who has had a vast experience, not only on Committees, but on other bodies dealing with this particular question. In addition to this, I venture to say that the House will do well to bear in mind what has happened upon former occasions when Bills of this nature promoted by the water companies have been rejected by the House of Commons.
MR. STUARTreminded the right honourable Gentleman that he had not proposed the rejection of this Bill.
MR. CHAPLIN: I must say that I think the House would be wise in accepting the views of the Chairman of the Committee, and I feel it is my duty to support this Bill.
MR. PICKERSGILLthought the warning which the right honourable Gentleman had addressed to the House was entirely unnecessary and entirely wrong, because no one had proposed to throw out this Bill, or to oppose its progress in any possible way. The question before the House was simply whether or not the Amendment of his honourable friend should be inserted. He, wished to say just a word or two with regard to the argument addressed to the

461
House by the honourable Baronet below him. So far as he understood him, one of his arguments was expressed in some such terms as these—that because this Bill has in it a sinking fund clause there was no necessity to introduce in it the purchase clause which his honourable friend had suggested. Now it seemed to him that those two clauses—the sinking fund clause and the purchase clause—were really alternative clauses dealing with the same question. That was to say if the companies continued to exist the security was given to the public by the operation of the sinking fund clause. If, in the alternative, purchase was effected within seven years, a similar object was attained by the purchase clause. In the second place the honourable Baronet said that the Government Bill when it left this House did not contain a sinking fund clause, and that was perfectly correct. They knew now that a Committee in another place had inserted in the Government Bill a sinking fund clause, and as the matter now stood the Government Bill contained both a sinking fund clause and the purchase clause of his honourable friend. Therefore they were only asking that this Bill should follow the precedent of the Government Bill. The honourable Baronet had said that there was no necessity for this clause, although he admitted their contention in principle that the companies ought not in the event of purchase to derive any advantage from the works which this Bill authorised. If that was so, why did he object to the insertion of this clause? The honourable Baronet said it was undesirable to introduce unnecessary clauses in the Bill, and he thoroughly endorsed that sentiment. But then a high authority had suggested a doubt as to whether or not these companies would be able to claim compensation in respect of these works, and he thought it was wise to take security against it. He thought the House would do well to adopt the suggestion of his honourable friend.
MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid he was a member of the Committee which sat under the chairmanship of the honourable Baronet, and he could assure the House that the matter was fully considered. He thought the House would be very ill advised to attempt to fight this battle over again upon the present occasion. The subject occupied the atten-
462
tion of the Committee for some three or four days, and they arrived at the best conclusion they could. For the House to consider this question thoroughly would involve a discussion almost as long as they were compelled to devote to it in Committee. It was not quite correct, as the honourable Member for Hoxton had said, that they were producing an anomaly by this Bill. The anomaly existed, for even the sinking fund clause was not the same in the different Bills, and the circumstances of this company were not upon all fours with the circumstances of other companies. Upon this question he was not in exact harmony with everybody who sat on his side of the House, for on many occasions he had supported the view of the London County Council. They were the constituted authority for London, and as long as that was so they ought to support them whenever they could. That being so, and the Committee having gone into this matter more fully than this House was likely to do upon the present occasion, he ventured to assert again that if this Bill was passed it would not create an anomaly that would be disadvantageous to the public.
MR. NUSSEYsaid that as a member of the Committee he felt it his duty to divide the Committee upon this subject. He recognised the ability of the chairman of that Committee, and his great experience both on Committees of the House and in the country on Bills of this nature, but he was convinced on the evidence placed before them that it was not necessary for them to pass a temporary Bill at all. He considered that the Bill of the right honourable Gentleman, the President of the Local Government Board, had given sufficient facilities to this company. The engineer in cross-examination before the Committee was asked the following question:
231. Now, do you say that this Bill does not in itself give you all that you require for tiding over all the difficulties which you told the Commission you could get over even with the present means of communication?"
And his reply was:
"It would certainly tide over the present year if a drought should occur in the present year equal in intensity to the drought of last year."
There was another point in this Bill in regard to the 10,000,000 gallons of wate taken from the Thames——
MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member must confine his remarks to the clause which is now before the House.
MR. NUSSEYsaid he would bow to that ruling, although he did not think they ought to prejudge any action which might be taken in the future. That being

AYES.

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Hemphill, Rt, Hon. Charles H.

Samuel, J. (Stockton on Tees)

Billson, Alfred

Holland, Wm. H. (York,W.R.)

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Horniman, Frederick John

Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Burns, John

Jacoby, James Alfred

Souttar, Robinson

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Spicer, Albert

Caldwell, James

Jones William (Carnarvonshire

Steadmau, William Charles

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Stevenson, Francis S.

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Strachey, Edward

Colville, John

Leng, Sir John

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Crombie, John William

Lloyd-George, David

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan,E)

Daly, James

Lough, Thomas

Thomas, David Alfied (Merthyr

Davitt, Michael

Lyell, Sir Leonard

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Dilke, Kt. Hon. Sir Charles

Macaleese, Daniel

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Dillon, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Donelan, Captain A.

Maden, John Henry

Wedderburn, Sir William

Doogan, P. C.

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Weir, James Galloway

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

Fenwick, Charles

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Wilson, John (Govan)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow.W.)

Goddard, Daniel Ford

O'Kelly, James

TELLERS for the AYES—Mr. James Stuart and Mr. Pickersgill.

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Pirie, Duncan V.

Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

Power, Patrick Joseph

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Aird, John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Allsopp, Hon. George

Chelsea, Viscount

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Anstruther, H. T.

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gull, Sir Cameron

Arnold, Alfred

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Gunter, Colonel

Arnold-Foster, Hugh O.

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Halsey, Thomas Frederick

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Baldwin, Alfred

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Hill, Rt. Hn. A. Staveley (Statffs.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Hoare, Edw Brodie (Hanmpstead

Banbury, Frederick George

Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Dalkeith, Earl of

Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

Barry, Rt, Hn. A H smith- (Hunts

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

Bartley, George C. T.

Denny, Colonel

Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Doughty, George

Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies

Beaumout, Wentworth C. B.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Jenkins, Sir John Jones

Bethell, Commander

Doxford, William Theodore

Johnstone, William (Belfast)

Blakiston-Houston, John

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Bond, Edward

Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Bonsor, Henry Cosmo Orme.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Kimber, Henry

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Fardell, Sir T. George

Kitson, Sir James

Boulnois, Edmund

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Knowles, Lees

Bowles, Capt. H.F. (Middlesex

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r

Lawrence, Sir EDurning-(Corn.

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Finch, George H.

Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H.

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Finlay, Sir Robert. Bannatyne

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Burt, Thomas

Fisher, William Hayes

Leighton, Stanley.

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Fry, Lewis

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Carew, James Lawrence

Garfit, William

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham.

Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)

Gedge, Sydney

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Lowe, Francis William

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Gold, Charles

Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent

so, lie urged upon the House the advisability of strengthening the Bill by adding, the clause which the honourable Member for Hoxton had moved.
The House divided: Ayes, 73; Noes, 185. (Division List No. 140.)

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Paulton, James Mellor

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Lubbock, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

Spencer, Ernest

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Pease Herbert Pike (Darlington

Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk

M'Cahnont, H. L. B (Cambs.)

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Pease, Sir Joseph W. (Durham)

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb, W.)

Perks, Robert William

Stephens, Henry Charles

M'Killop, James

Pierpoint, Robert

Stewart. Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Malcolm, Ian

Pilkington, Richard

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Mellor, Colonel (Lancashire)

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Talbot, Rt Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.

Middlemore John Throgmorton

Pretyman, Earnest George

Thorburn, Walter

Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas John

Purvis, Robert

Valentia, Viscount

Milner, Sir Frederick George

Rankin, Sir James.

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Milton, Viscount

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Monk, Charles James

Reckitt, Harold James

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Rentoul, James Alexander

Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

Morrell, George Herbert

Richardson, J. (Durham, S.E.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Morton, Arthar H. A. Deptford

Richardson, Sir Thos (Hartlep'l

Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

Mount, William George

Ridley, Rt. Hon Sir Matthew W

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas. Thomson

Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Myers, William Henry

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

Newark, Viscount

Rutherford, John

Wyndbam, George

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Wyvill, Marmarduke D'Arey

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

Young, Commander(Berks, E.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Savory, Sir Joseph

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Seely, Charles Hilton

TELLERS for the NOES—Viscount Folkestone and Mr. Goulding.

Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN AND WATERFORD, LIMERICK, AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANIES AMALGAMATION, AND GREAT SOUTHERN AND WESTERN RAILWAY BILLS.
Mr. Firbank, Sir Robert Penroso-Fitz-Gerald, Mr. Samuel Morris, Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien, and Mr. Patrick O'Brien, nominated Members of the Select Committee, with four to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Sir William Walrond.)

BILLS INTRODUCED.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7),—Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the boroughs of Barn-staple and Halifax and to the counties of East Sussex and Middlesex, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8),—Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Hoard relating to Bath (three), Devonport (two), Margate and Oxford, and to the Romford and Wallingford and Crowmarsh United Districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. W. Russell and Mr. Chaplin.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1),—Bill to confirm a
466
Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Wicklow Harbour, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2),—Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Dublin, Belfast, Larne, and Longford (Rural), ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland and Mr. Gerald Balfour.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the boroughs of Barn-staple and Halifax and to the counties of East Sussex and Middlesex," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 192.]
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Bath (three), Devonport (two), Margate, and Oxford, and to the Romford and Wallingford and Crowmarsh United Districts," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 193.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,—"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Wicklow Harbour," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,—"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to Dublin, Belfast, Larne, and Longford (Rural)," presented, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 195.]

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

ST. ANDREWS BURGH PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.

WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE WATER BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
SOUTH EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES (NEW LINES) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
LINCOLN AND EAST COAST RAILWAY AND DOCK BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
UXBRIDGE AND RICKMANSWORTH RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to lie printed.
BELFAST AND NORTHERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BIRKENHEAD CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN GAS BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SURREY COMMERCIAL DOCKS BILL [Lords].
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time.

GLASTONBURY WATER BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill:—
Amendments to—
Loughborough and Sheepshed Railway Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the Corporation of Manchester and neighbouring authorities in respect of Tramways within and beyond the city; and for other purposes." [Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Corporation of Oldham to construct additional tramways; to make a new street; to confer further powers upon the Corporation and other authorities with regard to tramways in and near the borough; and for other purposes." [Old-ham Corporation Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Corporation of the City of Glasgow to construct new Tramways; to establish libraries; to extend the boundaries of the city; to raise further moneys; and for other purposes." [Glasgow Corporation (Tramways, &c.) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Corporation of

469
Glasgow in relation to their gas, water, and electricity undertakings; and for other purposes." [Glasgow Corporation (Gas and Water) Bill [Lords.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Stockton and Middlesbrough Water Board to construct a new reservoir and other works; to amend the Acts relating to the supply of water by the Board; to change the name of the Board; and for other purposes." [Stockton and Middlesbrough Water Bill [Lord.]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Totland Waterworks Company; and for other purposes." [Totland Water Bill [Lords]
Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Governors of the London Hospital to acquire certain lands; and to erect buildings for their Out-Patients' Department; and for other purposes." [London Hospital Bill [Lords.]
And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Liverpool Overhead Railway Company to take on lease certain authorised tramways in the districts of Waterloo-with-Seaforth and Great Crosby; to authorise the construction of additional tramways; and for other purposes." [Liverpool Overhead Railway Bill [Lords.]

MANCHESTER CORPORATION TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (TRAMWAYS, &c.) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
GLASGOW CORPORATION (GAS AND WATER) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
STOCKTON AND MIDDLESBROUGH WATER BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
TOTLAND WATER BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
LONDON HOSPITAL BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  BOILERS INSPECTION AND REGISTRATION BILL.
  Petition of the Mining Association of Great Britain, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872.
Petition from Ventnor, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
EDUCATION OF CHILDREN BILL.
Petition from Sunderland, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
GROUND VALUES (TAXATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Bridgeton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
Petitions in favour; —From Braysdown; Clifton Hall;—Old Mills;—and, Shireoaks and Steetley Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
RATING OF MACHINERY BILL.
Petitions in favour;—From Leicester; Keighley;—and, Ivybridge; to lie upon the Table.
REGISTRATION OF FIRMS BILL.
Petition from Leicester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
Petitions against establishment;—From Kingussie;—Grantown; — Galashiels;— Glasgow;—Strathpeffer;—and,Dingwall; to lie upon the Table.
SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
Petitions in favour;—From Walkden; —Ashton-on-Ribble;—Preston;—Wigan; —Anti-Sunday Travelling Union;—and, Manchester; to lie upon the Table.
SAVINGS BANKS.
Petition from Inverness, for inquiry by a Select Committee; to lie upon the Table.
TEMPERANCE REFORM (THREEFOLD OPTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Petition from Irvine, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
VACCINATION ACTS, 1867 TO 1898.
Petition from Keighley, for alteration of law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Copy presented,— of Statistical Tables for the year 1898 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 2nd May, 1899, declaring that Thomas Benson, Chief Mate, Revenue cruiser "Vigilant," in the service of the Commissioners of Customs, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRELAND) PENSION FUND.
Annual Accounts presented,—of Receipts and Payments for the period to 31st December, 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE ACT, 1888.
Account presented,—of all Moneys issued from the Consolidated Fund, of Sums borrowed, and of Transactions in
472
relation to Sums so borrowed, up to 31st March, 1899, in pursuance of the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 194.]

WINES IMPORTED.
Return ordered,—"of the quantity of Wines, at the various degrees of strength, which were imported into the United Kingdom from Spain, Portugal, Madeira, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Australasia, and other countries for the year 1898 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 155, of Session l898)."—(Mr. Gold.)
QUESTIONS.

  DANGEROUS TRADES COMMITTEE.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the evidence taken in Sheffield by the Dangerous Trades Committee will be published, in order that the workmen in the file-cutting and other trades affected may be able to judge if the witnesses had sufficient knowledge of the facts to guide a Committee without practical experience in the trades concerned.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir M. WHITE RIDLEY, Lancashire, Blackpool): Much of the evidence taken by the Committee on the file-cutting and grinding trades was obtained informally by them while visiting the working places. Evidence was also given formally by many witnesses (most of it by representatives of the workmen themselves), and notes, though not verbatim reports, were taken. In accordance with my honourable friend's suggestion, I have asked the Committee to summarise the notes with a view to their publication.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will that include the informal as well as the formal evidence?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: Yes.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Will the names of the informal witnesses be given?
  SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: That is rather a, matter for the Committee.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that representatives of working men's organizations express great dissatisfaction with the findings of the Committee?
  SIR M WHITE RIDLEY: This is a question rather of the evidence taken than of the findings.

LUNACY.
MR. P O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for Wicklow, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been recently called to the statistics of insanity; whether he is aware that an increase in the actual numbers of registered insane from 55,525 to 132,831 has taken place between the the years 1862 and 1896, and an increase in the ratio of insane to population from 1·81 to 3·33 per 1,000 during the same period; and, whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the subject to ascertain if any means can be devised to arrest the spread of the disease.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY: I am aware that the numbers of the registered insane do, most unfortunately, increase. At the same time, I would refer the honourable Member to the Special Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, published in 1897, on the subject, and I cannot say that at present I see sufficient ground for directing further special investigation.

PETER BOROUGH RAILWAY STATION.
MR. MONCKTON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any and, if so, what improvements have been made in the Great Eastern Railway Company's station at Peterborough, in pursuance of their promise to the Board of Trade; and, whether, in the opinion of the Board, there is now satisfactory and sufficient security for the safety of the travelling public at that station, having regard especially to times of great pressure, such as excursions, agricultural shows, &c.,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon):
474
The General Manager of the Great Eastern Railway Company writes to me as follows:—
"I beg to state that after the Order for the works referred to in my letter of 7th December last had been given by the Board, an improvement was suggested in them which has delayed somewhat the carrying of them out; but I have the pleasure to inform you that they have been commenced, and will be proceeded with with all possible speed."
As regards the second paragraph of my honourable friend's question, I can only say that the Board of Trade regard what is being done as merely a substantial instalment of what is necessary to perfect the condition of things at this station.

LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS' PAY.
SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can explain the delay that has occurred in giving a reply to the petition of the lighthouse keepers of the United Kingdom for an increase of pay; and, whether, having regard to the fact that seven months have now elapsed since these petitions were presented, he will urge the authorities to give their decision at an early date, and so allay the dissatisfaction which now prevails in the lighthouse service of the country.
MR. RITCHIE: AS stated in my reply to the honourable and gallant Member for the Eastern Division of the County of Cork on the 1st May, I have lately received applications from the three lighthouse authorities for the sanction of the Board of Trade to increase of pay to the lighthouse keepers in their employ. No time has been lost in considering these applications, and I hope to be able to announce the decision of the Board of Trade at an early date.

UNQUALIFIED DISPENSERS.
MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council whether the Executive of the General Medical Council had stated, in their reply to the Privy Council, what grounds they had for considering that accidents due to the employment of unqualified dispensers by medical practitioners were very rare; and, if not, would he ask that body what means they had of knowing the number of accidents, fatal and otherwise, which resulted in doctors' surgeries from the employment of unqualified dispensers.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir JOHN GORST, Cambridge University): The infrequency with which such cases are reported to the Privy Council tends to confirm the opinion of the General Medical Council that they are very rare, and the Privy Council have not therefore thought it necessary to ask the General Medical Council for any further information.

KINDERGARTEN TRAINING.
MR. MORRELL: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, having regard to the expressed opinion of the Education Department in 1892, that it is desirable to give further encouragement to the employment of kindergarten methods in infant schools, he will inform the House what steps have been taken to secure adequate training in kindergarten method in the training colleges, and to make this subject an essential part of the curriculum and examination demanded of teachers, whether pupil or assistant, prior to obtaining certificate of qualification for an appointment to a public elementary infant school under inspection; and to what extent managers of public elementary infant schools have availed themselves of the opportunity of appointing as assistant teachers persons holding certificates of the National Frœbel Union under the Code of 1892.
SIR JOHN GORST: As a rule no special training is provided in the training colleges for teachers of infants' schools. In the syllabus of examination for certificates of this year kindergarten is for the first time specifically mentioned; as an optional subject. A considerable number of managers have availed themselves of the provision mentioned in the second paragraph, but no precise figures can be given.

VACCINATION.
MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the statutory authority for imposing a poll tax on all registered births in England and Wales; has he received a further communication from Mr. J. F. Haines, of Mile End, calling attention to another case of eruption after vaccination, viz., the case of the child of Mr. and Mrs.
476
Fitzer, of Louisa Street, which was vaccinated on the same day as Mr. and Mrs. Rouse's baby, and by the same public vaccinator; and has an inquiry been made; did the Public vaccinator report either the case of Mr. and Mrs. Rouse's baby, or of Mr. and Mrs. Fitzer's; is there any penalty, and what, imposed on the Public Vaccinator if he neglects reporting such cases to the Local Government Board; is he aware that the Mile End Guardians have adjourned the consideration of the Rouse case pending the report of the Local Government Board's Inspector; and will that report be forwarded to the said Board of Guardians.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (MR. H. CHAPLIN, Lines, Sleaford): As regards the first point, I do not know what is the tax to which the honourable Member has referred. I have received a communication from Mr. Haines as to the child referred to in the second paragraph, but my information, resulting from inquiries I have made, is in direct conflict with his. 1. The child was not vaccinated on the same day as Mrs. Rouse's child, but more than a month afterwards. 2. The child suffered after its vaccination from a mild attack of chicken-pox, a disease which has no reference to vaccination. 3. The mother herself expressed annoyance that persons who had called on her had wanted her "to make a fuss that the chicken-pox was due to vaccination." In reply to the fourth paragraph, there is no obligation on the part of the Public Vaccinator to report to the Local Government Board such cases as those referred to in the question; and in reply to the fifth paragraph, I have received a communication from the Guardians with regard to the case, but they do not ask for a copy of the Inspector's report, and it is not customary to forward to the Guardians copies of reports of this kind, which must often necessarily contain references to private family history.

MEAT INSPECTORS.
MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that there exists no body specially empowered to conduct examinations and issue certificates to candidates applying for apppointments as

477
meat inspector's; and whether he will arrange to establish such authorised body on the lines indicated in the Local Government Board Order of 11th March, 1899.
MR. CHAPLIN: I have no statutory authority to curry out such an arrangement as that referred to in the (Question, and, before proposing any legislation on the subject, it seems to me desirable to await the result of the communications which I have addressed to the local authorities. In addition to this, the Sanitary Institute and other bodies have, I believe, for some years past afforded opportunities for training and examination in meat inspection in connection with the certificates to Sanitary Inspectors, and I have no doubt that the recently constituted Sanitary Inspectors Examination Board will maintain similar examinations. Moreover, I understand that the Sanitary Institute are maturing a scheme for holding special examinations in meat inspection.

THE TRANSVAAL DYNAMITE CONCESSION
DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the sole right to manufacture all explosives in the Transvaal was granted by the Volksraad in 1882, two years before the London Convention; that a joint stock company was established in London in 1882 to work the concession, but failed to make it pay, and the company was liquidated in 1888; if he will explain in what way the explosives concession is a breach, of the Convention of 1884, the Convention being made after the concession; and, whether the concession is an infringement of Article 26 of the Pretoria Convention of 1881; and, if so, which of the Subsections, (a) (b) (c) or (d), is infringed by it.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN, Birmingham, W.): I am not aware of all the details mentioned, but any concession which may have been granted in 1882 no longer exists. The existing concession dates from 1893; it infringes Sub-section (c) of Article 14 of the London Convention, which is identical with Sub-section (c) of Article 26 of the Pretoria Convention of 1881.

DOCKYARD APPRENTICES.
SIR FOBTESCUE FLANKERY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, will he explain why permission has been given for dockyard fitter apprentices to be allowed to sit at the forthcoming examination for direct appointment as probationary assistant engineers in the Royal Navy, seeing that the practice of entering such candidates was condemned in paragraph 9 of the report of Admiral Cooper-Key's Committee; if the fitter apprentice candidates previously mentioned are in addition to those already annually elected for training at the Keyham Engineering College; and, if so, has this permission been granted in consequence of a dearth of candidates for direct entry into the engineering branch of the Navy; if the fitter apprentice candidates previously mentioned have attended the regular day engineering course at a recognised college for technical education for one year as prescribed by paragraph 3 of the Regulations for all candidates for direct appointment as probationary assistant engineers in the Royal Navy; and whether the parents of those candidates for engineer studentships and direct entry assistant engineers who have to bear the cost of their sons' training for the position of probationary assistant engineer have been informed that it is the intention of the Admiralty to allow dockyard fitter apprentices to compete.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN, St. George's, Hanover-square): An examination of the questions asked by the honourable Gentleman shows that they have been put under a misapprehension of the regulations for the entry of probationary assistant engineers in the Royal Navy. The system is the same as it has been for several years past, and no fresh departure has been made with regard to the admission of dockyard apprentices, who are treated in the same manner as other candidates for direct entry into the Service. I may add that the apprentices who have received permission to compete at the forthcoming examination have qualified as laid down in the Regulations.

H.M.S. "TERRIBLE."
SIR EDWARD GOURLEY (Sunder-land): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inform the House what decision has been arrived at relative

479
to the boilers of H.M.S. "Terrible;" will he state the nature of the repairs found to be necessary; and, what firm is to do the work, and the amount of the tenders.
MR. GOSCHEN: The repair of the boilers of the "Terrible" has been taken in hand. The five elements in which tubes were fractured are being renewed throughout with solid drawn tubes and certain other tubes which were bulged are being also replaced by solid drawn tubes, and any defective fittings repaired or renewed as necessary. As the work is being done by the Dockyard in the usual manner, no tenders for repairs have been invited from private firms.

H.M.S. "GALATEA."
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether H.M.S. "Galatea" has yet undergone the usual examination in dock; and, if so, why she has not again taken up her station in the Humber, as promised on 15th March, 1898.
MR. GOSCHEN: The "Galatea" has undergone the usual refit in the Dockyard, after which she returned to her station. She is now under orders to leave for special duty in connection with the North Sea Fisheries.

MAJOR GRANT, R.E.
MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, will he explain why, during last August, Major Grant, R.E., was appointed to command the Royal Engineers at Victoria, British Columbia, and given local rank as Lieutenant Colonel, and took the position of Officer commanding the garrison, although Major Trotter, Royal Marines, over whom his command extended, is two years senior to Major Grant.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. G. WYNDHAM, Dover):While important building works necessitating heavy expenditure of public money are under construction, it is desirable that the Senior Officer should, as heretofore, belong to the Royal Engineers. In order to effect that object the local rank of Lieutenant-Colonel was conferred on Major Grant.

VOLUNTEER MUSKETRY PRACTICE.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the amended regulations for the musketry practice of the Volunteer Force will be in the hands of Members.
MR. WYNDHAM: The amended regulations for Volunteer Musketry will be issued with the June Army Orders. I will have some copies placed in the Library for the convenience of honourable Members interested.

BOMBARDMENT OF ILOILO—CLAIMS OF BRITISH TRADERS.
CAPTAIN SINCLAIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been informed that, on or about the 18th of February 1899, the town of Iloilo, situate in the Philippines, being held by the Filipino insurgents, was shelled by the United States Navy; that the town was set on fire by the bombardment, and thereby damage was caused to buildings and property of foreign residents and merchants, chiefly English, German, French, and Swiss, the estimated value of which was about one million sterling; and that the United States Government intend to compensate traders; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government are aware whether claims will be dealt with by a committee appointed by the United States Government locally, or if they should be submitted to Washington; and if Her Majesty's Government are acquainted with the probable date of settlement of such claims; and, if not, will they take steps to ascertain.
THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Her Majesty's Government are aware that a certain amount of British property was destroyed by the bombardment of Iloilo. They have, however, no information with regard to the intentions of the United States Government to compensate traders. The question of these claims is under consideration, and British interests will not be lost sight of.

PORTMAHOMACK HARBOUR.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a memorial from the Parish Council of Tarbat, Ross-shire, making application for

481
a grant in aid of the extension and improvement of Portmahomack Harbour; and, will he state whether it is proposed to make application to the Treasury with a view to accede to the request of the memorialists.
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. G. MURRAY, Buteshire): The answer to the first part of the honourable Member's question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

SCOTTISH FEMALE TEACHERS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether arrangements can be made by which female teachers under the Scotch Education Department, who retire from the service on marriage, may receive a gratuity, in accordance with the practice in the General Post Office.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: The Superannuation Act does not contemplate any such gratuity as is referred to, nor is the Government prepared to admit that the position of teachers is analogous to that of employees in the General Post Office.

SECONDARY EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if the Secretary for Scotland will state what sum has been allocated, for the six months ending 31st March last, under Clause 2, Section 4, of the Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1898, for the purposes of secondary or technical (including agricultural) education in Scotland.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: The moneys annually distributable under the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account Act, 1898, are paid into the account by half yearly instalments, payable in advance. The sum of £37,109 16s. has been paid over to the Scotch Education Department, being the total amount payable under Section 2 (4) for the current financial year.

SKYE FISHERIES.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that the sum of £15,000 per annum had been allocated to the Fishery Board for Scotland under the Local Taxation (Scotland) Act of last session, for the purpose of providing and maintaining vessels for marine superin
482
tendence, and otherwise for the enforcement of the Scottish Sea Fishery laws, will the Secretary for Scotland state whether the Board proposes to secure another cruiser so that there may be a more efficient police patrol of the fishing beds off the islands of Lewis, Skye, and Barra.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: I am informed by the Fishery Board that they propose to obtain another cruiser, and she will, when obtained, take such part of the service as may be allotted to her.

ANDERSON INSTITUTE, LERWICK.
SIR LEONARD LYELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware of the circumstances under which Mr. Young, the rector of the Anderson Institute at Lerwick, has been dismissed by the School Board from his office; and, whether, seeing that so large a portion of the salary and pension of teachers in public schools in Scotland is supplied from other than local sources, the Government will be prepared to institute some means, by legislation or otherwise, whereby an independent inquiry can he held in such cases.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: The circumstances of the case referred to are now subject of correspondence with the School Board, and it is inexpedient to make any statement regarding it at present. The appointment and dismissal of teachers are matters for which school boards are responsible to their constituents, and the Government are not at present prepared to institute legislation on the subject.

EDUCATION GRANTS EARNED IN SCOTLAND.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the grant earned throughout Scotland during the year 1898 for each of the subjects designated in the Schedule of the Evening Continuation School Code, as No. VI. (Agriculture, Horticulture, Navigation), and No. VII. (Domestic Economy, Needlework, Knitting, and Mending); and, will he state how many classes have been held in Nos. VI. and VII. respectively in each of the six Highland Crofting Counties.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: It is not possible to give the amount of grant earned for each subject under the Evening Continuation School Code, as payments are

483
made according to the number of hours of teaching in all subjects added together. In regard to the second part of the question, I must again say that it is impossible to give detailed statistics, containing many separate items, in reply to a question: but if the honourable Member will apply to the Scotch Education Department, all such information as can be furnished without serious interference with the ordinary conduct of business will be supplied to him.
MR. WEIR: Will the right honourable Gentleman take care that the information is furnished before the Scotch Estimates are discussed?
MR. A. G. MURRAY: In moderation, I can only say I believe that all possible information is given the honourable Member.

PARLIAMENTARY RATING RETURN.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, when the Return "Rates Non-payment (Scotland) (Omission from the Parliamentary Register)," ordered to be printed by the House on the 9th August last, will be in the hands of Members.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: This Return has now been completed and will be laid on the Table as soon as possible.

REGISTER OF SASINES, EDINBURGH.
MR. PIRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the recent Minute by the Secretary for Scotland regarding the office of the Register of Sasines, Edinburgh, issued as a Parliamentary Paper, was printed in England; if he can explain why the English instead of the Scottish royal coat of arms appears on it, to what the error is due, and, as attention has been drawn to a similar mistake last year, if he will take steps to avoid its recurrence; and whether, when the interests of the public service allow it, he will cause Papers relating to Scottish Departments to be printed in Scotland.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: The Minute of the Secretary for Scotland referred to is prepared in the Scottish Office, Whitehall, and it is necessary in the interests of the public service that such Papers should be printed in London. The Secretary for
484
Scotland sees no reason for any change in this procedure, either as regards royal arms, or otherwise. All Papers prepared in public departments in Scotland are printed in Scotland, and the Scottish royal coat of arms appears upon them.
MR. PIRIE: Why should Papers issued from the Scottish Office in London not bear the Scottish royal arms?
MR A. G. MURRAY: I cannot add to my answer. I understand the Scottish royal arms are put only on Papers printed in Scotland, and the English arms on those printed in England.

THE MINUTES OF THE SCOTCH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
MR. THOMAS SHAW: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the promised issue of the Minutes of the Scotch Education Department can be published in one volume, in chronological order, and so annotated as to distinguish repealed or superseded provisions from those still operative.
MR. A. G. MURRAY: The Minutes to which reference was made yesterday will be issued together, and in chronological order. Their publication in that form will make it easy to see which provisions of the earlier Minutes have been superseded by the subsequent Minutes but notes will be added indicating this as far as possible.

SCOTTISH GRANTS IN AID.
MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether, in estimating that a sum of £26,000 per annum would be required from the Imperial Exchequer in order to raise the Scotch fee grant from 10s to 12s. per head, the Department had taken into consideration not only the £40,000 under the Act of 1890, but also the balance of the Probate Duty under the Act of 1889 as amended by the Act of 1892, and that the average attendance for 1897 was 611,205, thus requiring only £61,120 to meet the deficiency of that year; whether the Probate Duty is an increasing quantity, and in what ratio is that fund increasing or otherwise as compared with the increase of the average schools attendance entitled to the fee grant; upon what principle it is estimated that only £5,000 and not £26,000 is required this year to keep the Scotch

485
Fee Grant up to 12s. per head; And, whether Scotland will be credited with the difference if there has been a miscalculation?
MR. A. G. MURRAY: In making the estimate of the amount required to raise the Fee Grant to twelve shillings, the Department did take into account both the £40,000 under the Act of 1890, and the possible balance under the Act of 1892; and it also took into consideration the estimated average attendance. The average attendance is an uncertain quantity, and the balance under the Act of 1892 has fluctuated between nothing for the years 1894–95 and 1896–97, and £16,202 for 1897–98. The estimate of the additional sum required is only £5,000 for the present year, owing partly to the fact that there is an unexhausted balance of £2,875 still due to the Department, but chiefly to the large balance received in 1898 under the Act of 1892. I can make no prediction with regard to the Probate Duty, and consequently cannot say what will be its possible increase compared with that of the average attendance. The Department is confident that the latter will certainly increase. I do not admit that there has been any miscalculation.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION RULES.
MR. WILLIAM MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland it his attention has been called to the recent rule of the Irish Land Commission, under which an applicant to fix a fair rent in that Court is obliged to procure a certificate of valuation of the holding for the hearing before the Court, and file same, which has become necessary by reason of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, in order to enable the Court to decide upon the incidence of taxation, thus imposing an additional cost to the suitor of 2s. 6d. in each case; whether he will make representations to the Land Commission to the effect that, as a public department, they should themselves procure this information in each case, free of expense to the parties, by a form of requisition addressed to the other public department, the Commissioners of Valuation in Ireland; and, what fund now receives the 2s. 6d. so paid for such valuation.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. G W. BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Land Commissioners consider that the applicant, to fix a fair rent, should obtain the certificate of valuation for the standard year before he prepares the originating notice, as reference to such certificate will assist him in filling up the notice correctly, and will, in many cases, prevent the occurrence of errors and difficulties in the identification of the particulars of the holding, as set forth in the certificate, with those in the originating notice. Such identification is now essential in every case, having regard to the provisions of the Local Government Act, and the Land Commissioners decline to incur the responsibility of the identification. In their opinion the applicant, to have a fair rent fixed, should, as in every other Court, supply the Commission with the information requisite for adjudicating upon his case. The Land Commission are prepared, however, to consider the question of providing that certificates on the form prescribed by the Order made by the Local Government Board pursuant to Section 54, paragraph 10, of the Local Government Act, may, when available, be received. As regards the last paragraph, the fees received for certificates form part of the appropriations in aid of the vote for the Valuation Department.

CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS FOR MONITORS.
MR. P. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the usual five years' allowance in Civil Service examinations to monitors who have served in Irish national schools.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: Age allowances in Civil Service examinations are governed by Clause 4 of the General Regulations relating to such examinations, drawn up by the Civil Service Commissioners and approved by the Treasury. Apart from the Naval and Military Services, &c., the allowances are confined to persons who entered with the certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners.

GALWAY LAND COMMISSION.
MR. SHEEHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord

487
Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Land Judge issued a request to the Land Commission to inspect the Sconlon estate at Whitegate, county Galway, in November, 1897; and whether the Land Commissioners have yet forwarded their report to the Land Judge.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The request of the Land Judge in the case of this estate was issued in November, 1898, not 1897. The estate has been inspected by two assistant Commissioners, whose report is now being settled, and will, I am informed, be forwarded to the Land Judge in the course of a few days.

PROSECTION FOR DRUNKENNESS AT MOUNTCHARLES.
MR. DILLON: On behalf of the honourable Member for S. Donegal, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a summons was issued by Constable Fallon, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, now stationed at the police station of Mountcharles, Co Donegal, against John Morhun, of Mountcharles, who has been a teetotaller for nine years, for being drunk in the public street on the 17th of March; and that the summons, when Mr. Moohun's solicitor had stated the facts to the magistrates at petty sessions, was with drawn; and, whether any notice has been taken by the authorities of the conduct of Constable Fallon.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is the fact that a summons was issued against Mr. Moohun by the constable named, for drunkenness, on the 17th March. Before any evidence was gone into, the defendant's solicitor appealed to the Bench, and said that his client had boon a teetotaller for nine years, and that he was so grieved and distressed at his being summoned that he was ill in consequence, and that if the Magistrates, owing to the facts stated, would take this into consideration it would materially aid the man's recovery. The charge of drunkenness was not denied, and the Magistrates, who were impressed with the appeal made to them on behalf of the defendant, suggested the withdrawal of the summons. This was done, and the defendant's solicitor thanked the police for their kindness. The constable seems to have acted properly in the circumstances.

IRISH LAND VALUATION.
MR. DALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain why Sub-Commissioners in Ireland have had to stand an examination in Dublin recently as to their fitness to fix fair rents between landlord and tenant before Doctor Voelcker, who is an English chemist; and, whether he can say what knowledge of land valuing in Ireland Dr. Voelcker has, or if he can state upon what rounds Dr. Voelcker was selected for this important position.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The examination referred to is conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners for the Irish Land Commissioners. The subjects are agriculture, principles of surveying, English composition, including précis, and arithmetic. Land valuation is not a subject of examination, nor was the examination in surveying conducted by the examiner named in the question, who is an agricultural chemist of eminence, and was selected by the Civil Service Commissioners to examine in agriculture.

IRISH PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will consider the necessity of introducing a Bill to remedy the existing expensive and inconvenient method of Private Bill legislation for Ireland.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It must be obvious to the honourable Member that it would be impossible to introduce and pass a Bill dealing with this subject during the present session. As to the general question, I consider that some reform in the method of Private Bill legislation for Ireland is desirable.

IRISH JUDICIAL SALARIES.
MR. HEMPHILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the amount of the sums which have been carried by the Treasury to a separate account under Section 13 of The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) (No. 2) Act, 1897, in respect of the salaries attached to the judgeships abolished or left vacant, and the net savings in the said section mentioned.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The amount so carried up to date is, £7,563 17s. 3d., to which must be added £4,000 provided at page 501 of the current Estimates. £7,500 more will be so carried in respect of the present financial year. These amounts represent the salaries of one suppressed judgeship of the High Court and the two former Bankruptcy Judges. No net savings have as yet been realised in respect of the administrative staff.

IRISH WORKHOUSE OFFICIALS.
MR. P O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether indoor workhouse officials who have not 40 years' service and who are not 60 years of ago will be dealt with under the 118th clause of the Local Government (Ireland) Act by the Local Government Board or by the County Council, when they become incapacitated and obliged to retire from office.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: The position of indoor workhouse officers who are not qualified for a superannuation allowance on the appointed day is not affected by the enactment referred to. Workhouse officials will continue, as heretofore, to be under the control of the Board of Guardians, who are the proper authority to recommend their officers for retiring allowances, subject to the Local Government Board's approval.

ST. MICHAEL'S CHURCH, SKELLIG MICHAEL.
MR. LECKY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the works which he undertook in the summer of 1897 to have carried out under proper supervision at the ancient ruin of St. Michael's Church on Skellig Michael, in the county of Kerry, have been commenced; and, whether the Superintendent of National Monuments, Ireland, has himself or by his deputy inspected this ancient church and reported on the dangerous condition in which it was placed in 1895 by the fall of its enclosing wall; and, if so, might a Copy of his Report be laid upon the Table of the House.
JUNIOR LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ANSTRUTHER, St. Andrew's Burghs, for Mr. HANBURY): Almost all the repairs promised in 1897 have been carried out. The remainder will be
490
executed during the summer. The church was inspected in 1897 by one of the surveyors of the Board of works, who deprecated any considerable interference with the ruins as unnecessary. Within the last few days one of the Board's, professional officers has been directed to make a further inspection, and if the right honourable Member will raise the question again after the recess, additional information will be afforded to him.

CELTIC ORNAMENTS COMMITTEE.
MR. P. O'BRIEN: On behalf of the honourable Member for East Clare, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to take any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on the Celtic Ornaments, recently discovered in Ireland?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): Yes, Sir; the Government are taking steps to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Celtie Ornaments.

THE PURCHASE OF THE DILLON ESTATES.
MR. SMITH-BARRY (Hunts, Huntingdon): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether it is true, as reported in The Times of to-day, that the Congested Districts Board have entered into an agreement for the purchase of the Dillon estate, in County Mayo, occupied by 4,000 tenants; and, whether the estate is situated within or without the existing agrarian agitation in Mayo.
MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is true. The Congested Districts Board have entered into an agreement to purchase the Dillon estates in counties Mayo and Roscommon. I am not aware of any agitation in connection with any part of the Dillon estates.

METROPOLITAN CHARITIES AND THE LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL.
MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, under the operation of; the London Government Bill, in the case I of parishes which may be included in a borough created under the Bill, the

491
benefits of charities now exclusively belonging to such parishes would pass over to the borough in which they may be included, or whether such charities would continue, as heretofore, to be enjoyed exclusively by the parish to which they now belong.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to my honourable friend, I have to say that no transfer of the legal status of the trust will affect the beneficiaries of the trust in any way, or, in other words, it would not injure those for whose benefit the Trust now exists.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury what will be the business for next week?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Wednesday, as the House knows, is left for private Members. The Government nights, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday, will, I suppose, be occupied by the London Government Bill. Friday will be occupied by a discussion on the Adjournment of the House and by some Votes in Supply, which, I hope, are of an uncontroversial character.

NEW WRIT.
New Writ for Lancashire (Southport Division), in the room of Sir Herbert Scarisbrick Naylor-Leyland, baronet, deceased.—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES)
MR HALSEYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufacturers:—Mr. Austin, Mr. Bartley, Captain Chaloner, Captain Donelan, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Philipps, Mr. Power, Mr. Abel Smith, and Mr. James Stuart; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Collery,
492
Mr. Gilliat, Sir Alfred Hickman, Major Jameson, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Charles Morley, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Mr. Samuel Young.
MR HALSEYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing; Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Sir Alfred Hickman; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Bartley.
Reports to lie upon the Table.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS BILL.
Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 195.]
Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No, 195.]
Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, 1st June, and to be printed. [Bill 196.]

TROUT FISHING ANNUAL CLOSE TIME (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 197.]
PARISH CHURCHES SCOTLAND BILL [Lords].
Read for the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 1st Jane, and to be printed. [Bill 198.]
NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Sir William Reynell Anson, Baronet, Doctor of Civil Law, for the University of Oxford.
SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (EXEMPTION FROM THE STANDING ORDER).
Ordered, That the proceedings of the Committee of Ways and Means, if the Committee is sitting at Twelve of the clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any time though opposed.—(Mr. Balfour.)
BILL INTRODUCED.

  TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR Leeds,Central): The principal object of the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce is to provide remedies for certain grievances under which the pavers of tithe rent-charge at present suffer, and which can only he dealt with by legislation. There are two classes of tithe rent-charge payer's in Ireland, the payers of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge and payers of lay tithe; rent-charge. Each of these have their own special grounds of complaint. Let me first take the payers of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge. The Irish Church Acts of 1869 and 1872 gave power to payers of Church tithe to redeem their liability either by a payment in cash or by means of a terminable annuity. These terminable annuities run for a period of fifty-two years. But if the interest charged in the annuity be taken (according to Mr. Gladstone's declared intention in 1869) at the rate of 3½per cent., the capital sum in respect of which, the annuities are paid would, in fact, be discharged in forty-five years instead of fifty-two years. I do not see how it is possible to defend the continuation of those annual payments for seven years after the capitalised liability has been discharged This injustice has already been remedied by the Land Act of 1896 in the case of lands sold to the tenants under the Land Purchase Acts. The scope of that Act precluded any morn general application of the remedy; but we publicly recognised at the time that the principle applied equally to the case of all ecclesiastial tithe rent-charge redeemed by terminable annuity, and the present Bill proposes to give effect to that recognition by altering the currency of the annuities to a period of forty-five years. The payers of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charges have another grievance. The Irish Church Act of 1872 definitely fixed the amount of the charge at its amount as payable on November 1st, 1871. Before that the tithe payers had power to apply periodically for a revision of the charge, as lay tithe payers have still. It is true that no objection appears to have been offered at the time by those interested in this stereotyping of the
  494
  charge. But the heavy fall in agricultural prices which subsequently took place was not then foreseen either by the legislature or by the tithe rent-charge payers; and the system introduced by Mr. Gladstone has in the end proved very prejudicial to the interests of the latter. It must be remembered that the charge is a charge upon rents, and while rents have been greatly reduced under the supervision of a State tribunal, the rent-charge can no longer be varied. While I am not prepared to place this grievance in the same category with the first mentioned, I do think a hardship has been indicted on the tithe payer to which it would be desirable to apply a remedy, if a reasonable remedy can be found. What remedy, then, do we propose 'We propose that the distinction created by the Irish Church Acts between ecclesiastical and lay tithe rent-charge should be done away with by restoring to the former the character of a variable charge, and at the same time withdrawing from the payer of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge the special right which he now possesses under those Acts of converting his liability into a terminable annuity. We further propose that the old basis of variation should be changed. The old basis was the variation in the average prices of cereals as published in the Dublin Gazette, and in place of it we propose to substitute a now basis of variation, namely, the average percentage of variation in judicial rents in each county during successive periods of fifteen years. The variation will be, automatic and general, instead of depending as formerly on individual applications to a court of law, applications which were rendered difficult by a highly technical and cumbrous method of procedure. The general effect of these changes will be an immediate relief to the tithe payer of about 20 per cent. of his payments, and a further relief at the end of the next fifteen years if a further reduction shall have taken place in the average of judicial rents. On the other hand, the right of redemption now enjoyed by payers of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge will be taken away. The relief to the tithe payer means, of course, loss to the Church Fund; but against that loss must be set the advantage the Fund will derive from the withdrawal of the right to redeem, and the consequent retention of the remaining ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge as a permanent source of income. Any attempt

  495
  to strike the balance of gain and loss must be to some extent speculative, but on the supposition that if the Bill did not pass full and immediate advantage were taken of the present right to redeem by all payers of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge, the Church Fund would probably be worse, off than if our proposals were adopted. So much for the provisions of the Bill with reference to ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge.
  MR. DILLON: Can the right honourable Gentleman give any estimate of the total capital loss involved in these changes?
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR: It is very difficult to give a precise estimate, because it would depend upon a great many circumstances which cannot be foreseen. But before the Bill passes into law I will endeavour to lay before the House such an estimate as it is possible to make. But the payers of lay tithe rent-charge also have their grievance, and a very few words will suffice to describe it and the way in which we propose to deal with it. It appears that a serious legal difficulty has lately arisen out of a decision of the Appeal Court, the effect of which is that, owing to irregularities in the method of publication of corn averages in the Dublin Gazette the tithe rent-charge payer is practically deprived of his right to have the charge varied, and variations in tithe rent-charge based on those averages are held to be invalid The defect can only be cured by legislation, and the remedy we provide in the Bill is to apply to lay tithe rent-charge the same new standard and the same automatic method of variation as that which we propose to adopt in the case of ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge. In fact, if the Bill passes the two classes of tithe rent-charge will be once again on an identical footing, just as they were before the Church of Ireland was disestablished. I have now described the principal provisions of the measure. It contains in addition one or two other amendments of the law, but these are of minor importance, and of a technical character, and it is perhaps hardly necessary that I should enter further into them at present.
  Motion made and resolution proposed —
  "That leave be given to bring in a, Bill to amend the law relating to tithe rent-charge in Ireland."—(Mr. G. W. Balfour.)
  MR. DILLONsaid that on Tuesday last the Government availed themselves, most improperly as he contended, of the ten minutes Rule to introduce an extremely important and complicated Irish measure, which appeared to be the chief Irish measure of the Government for this session, and now they asked leave to introduce another measure of a highly contentions and complicated character under the same circumstances. This extreme development of this policy led him to the conviction that it was the deliberate intention of the Government, by gross misuse of the ten minutes Rule, never contemplated when the Rule was passed, to no longer allow debates, so far as Irish Bills were concerned, on their first stage. Now, there were characteristics of the present measure which made it, in his judgment, in the most extreme degree unsuitable for the application of the ten minutes Rule. In the first place, this was surely a contentious measure; and he maintained it was not the intention of the Government that this Rule was to be applied on Government days for the introduction of a, Government Bill, but was only intended for the introduction, of small and non-contentious measures. This was a highly contentious Bill, it was a complicated Bill, and it was, in the third place, a Bill dealing with financial matters, and a Bill almost setting up a new precedent in the financial prospects of the House, because it proposed to strike off a considerable amount—they were not allowed to know what that amount would be—which was secured to the Treasury of this country for large advances. They were asked to strike off a large proportion of that sum. Now, he desired at the very outset to direct the attention of the House to the last occasion on which it was proposed to interfere with the Irish Church Fund. The year 1894 was the last occasion on which the Government of the day proposed to take any sum from the Irish Church Fund. The right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose, who was then Chief Secretary for Ireland, proposed to charge upon the Irish Church Fund a sum of £100,000 for the purpose of assisting the reinstatement of the evicted tenants of Ireland. That was a Bill proposing only to charge £100,000 of the capital sum, involving an annual charge of less than £3,000, whereas the present Bill, so far as one could follow the brief

  497
  and utterly insufficient statement of the right honourable Gentleman, would place upon the Church Fund a charge at the very least ten or fifteen times as great as that proposed to be placed upon it by the right honourable Gentleman. The Bill of 1894 was far smaller than the present Bill. Yet what was the procedure adopted? Did the then Chief Secretary have recourse to the ten minutes Rule? No, he introduced his Bill in the ordinary course, and the debate upon it consumed a whole night of Government time; and what made the contrast between the procedure on this occasion and the procedure adopted then the more striking was, that after occupying a whole night of Government time the Bill was allowed to be read a first time without a Division, whereas the First Reading of the present Bill would undoubtedly be challenged. He himself would take objection to it by dividing the House on it. Now he come to a very important passage, as bearing upon the present Bill, from a speech delivered upon that occasion by the present First Lord of the Treasury, who was then leading the Opposition. Speaking with the full sense of responsibility as having been recently Chief Secretary for Ireland, he said:
  "Following the order of the right honourable Gentleman's explanation, I now come to the amount to be taken from the Irish Chruch Fund surplus in order to meet this amount."
  That amount, remember, was only £100,000, The First Lord, continuing, said:
  "I have two observations to make upon that—first, when I was in office, and had official information on this point, I was assured that the Irish Church Fund surplus was mortgaged to the hilt, and the number of charges on it was such that if we had taken £1,500 for the Congested Districts Hoard nothing would have been left behind, and if we are to charge that sum of £100,000, and the Fund proves insufficient to meet the liabilities, it is impossible for the British taxpayer to fancy he will get off without having to meet the difficulty."
  That was the language of the right honourable Gentleman in 1894. He denounced the right honourable Member for Montrose for an attempt to place any fresh charge upon the Church Fund. Contrast the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose's proposal with the present one. The former proposal was to place £100,000 upon the Irish Church Fund. But what was the proposal now? It was
  498
  to strike off large assets of the Fund which were charged to the Treasury of this country for large advances already made, and that without having one single estimate placed before them to show if they were justified in making this singular deduction, and without any knowledge of the extent to which the deduction would go. What would have been said of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Montrose in 1894 if he had introduced the Evicted Tenants Bill, making this proposition for £1 00,000, under the ten minutes Rule? There would have been motions for the adjournment of the House, and a debate would have followed in which the right honourable Gentleman would have been subjected to all kinds of denunciation. This Bill proposed to take from the Irish Church Fund, devoted by Mr. Gladstone, when he disestablished the Irish Church, to purposes of education and public utility in Ireland—it proponed to take from that fund, if there were any assets left to it—and he believed there were in spite of the declaration of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to the contrary—those assets, and divide them between the supporters of the Government. A More scandalous and indecent proposal was never made in the House than this proposal to deal out eleemosynary aid to the supporters of the Government in Ireland. These people were said to be suffering under a grievance. Why, they got a quarter of a million of money last year, when he supposed they thought they ought to have got the whole of the Agricultural Grant for themselves. The Chief Secretary proposed in his Bill to divide the tithe payers of Ireland into two classes under the Bill. First he had the ecclesiastical tithe rent payer's and then the lay tithe sent payers, and the attempt of the right honourable Gentleman to draw any analogy between the two classes was absurd, and one calculated to mislead the House and leave it under a false impression. The grievance of the lay tithe rent payers had arisen from the neglect of the Castle and the neglect of the Government. When they come to the ecclesiastical tithe rent payers the proposals of this Bill wire the proposals of public plunder. The ecclesiastical tithe rent payers, by the Act of 1872, to which all the representatives of the land-lords were consenting parties, was passes by this House in order to revive a finan-

  499
  cial structure on which the Established Church was disestablished, and was passed in view and after full consideration of the terms given to the disestablished Church, and they parted with their right, which they manifestly did not value at the time, to have their tithe reforms and their tithe rent-charges made a perpetual charge, subject to the right of redemption alluded to by the right honourable Gentleman. That tithe rent-charge now meant two sums, one in the shape of terminable annuities amounting to about £160,000, and the other in the shape of perpetual unredeemable charges amounting to a similar sum. The right honourable Gentleman proposed to cut off from those terminable annuities seven years, which would run close upon one million sterling, to be handed over to the ecclesiastical tithe payers. He then proposed to give an automatic revision and reduction of the tithe rent-charge, amounting to, roughly, about 20 per cent., to be increased at the termination of 15 years by another 20 per cent. or so. Twenty per cent. on £160,000 would amount to something like £35,000 of the perpetual tithe rent-charges, and he offered that

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Fletcher, Sir Henry

  Aird, John

  Clarke, Sir Edward (Plymouth

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Fry, Lewis

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Giles, Charles Tyrrell

  Archdale, Edward Mervyn

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Baillie, James E. B. (Inverness)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Cotton-Jodrell, Col. Edw. T. D.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leonard H

  Gull, Sir Cameron

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell [Hunts

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Gunter, Colonel

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord George

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Cruddas, William Donaldson

  Hardy, Laurence

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

  Curzon, Viscount

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Bethell, Commander

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Hermom-Hodge, Robert Trotter

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

  Biddulph, Micliael

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hill, Sir Edward Stock (Bristol)

  Bill, Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Hoare, Ed. Brodie (Hampstead

  Blakiston-Houston, John

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Hoare, Samuel (Norwich)

  Bousor, Henry Cosmo Orme

  Doughty, George

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Bowles, Capt. H. F. (Middlesex

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Howard, Joseph

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Howell, William Tudor

  Brassey, Albert

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Butcher, John George

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Hutton, John (Yorks, N. R.)

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Glasgow

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man.)

  Jenkins, Sir John Jones

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Finch, George H.

  Johnston, William (Belfast)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

  Firbank, Joseph Thomas

  Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

  Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Kimber, Henry

  Chainberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Bir.

  Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

  Knowles, Lees

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.

  Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

  compensation for right of redemption, which everyone of the tithe rent-charge payers had a right to exercise, but declined to exercise. They had an equal right of redemption, and only half of them have exercised that right. Therefore, they proposed in one way to give them £30,000 a year, and then they also proposed to take away the right which they had enjoyed for 25 years past. He proposed to conclude by moving the adjournment of the House, because he believed the introduction of this Bill was a gross abuse.
  MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Gentleman cannot, under the Standing Order, move the adjournment.
  MR. DILLON: Then it is within your discretion to put the Question of adjournment.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes, under Standing, Order 16.
  The House divided on the question: "that leave be given to bring in the Bill."—Ayes 205; Noes 113. (Division List No. 141.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Murray, R Hn. A.Graham (Bute

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. Wm. Edw. H.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Spencer, Ernest

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Myers, William Henry

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Leighton, Stanley

  Newark, Viscount

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Llewellyn, Evan H. (Somerset

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Liverpool

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

  Strauss, Arthur

  Lorne, Marquess of

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lowe, Francis William

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. James (Kent)

  Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G.(Oxf'd Univ

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Pease, Herbrt. Pike (Darlington

  Thorburn, Walter

  Lucas-Shad well, William

  Pender, Sir James

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Macartney, W. G. Ellison

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Pilkmgton, Richard

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Maclver. David (Liverpool)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Ward, Hon. Robert A. (Crewe

  M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Webster, Sir R. E. (Isle of Wight

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinb'gh, W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  M'Killop, James

  Priestley, Sir W. Overend (Edin.

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Malcolm, Ian

  Purvis, Robert

  Whitmore, Chas. Algernon

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rankin, Sir James

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm.

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Wilson, John (Falkirk)

  Middlemore, J. Throgmorton

  Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Milbank, Sir Powlett Chas. Jn.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Milner, Sir Frederick George

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Wyndham, George

  Milton, Viscount

  Round, James

  Wyvill, Marmaduke D'Arey

  Monk, Charles James

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

  Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Younger, William

  More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)

  Rutherford, John

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

  Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptf'd)

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Mount, William George

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Savory, Sir Joseph

  NOES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbt.John

  Pease, Alfred E. (Cleveland)

  Asher, Alexander

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Gold, Charles

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.

  Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Gurdon, Sir William Brampton

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Austin. M. (Limerick, W.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Reid, Sir Robert Threshie

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-

  Richardson, J. (Durham, S. E.)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hedderwick, Thomas Charles H

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Billson, Alfred

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Chas. H.

  Roberts, John H (Denbigh)

  Blake Edward

  Holland, Win. H. York, W.R.)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Bryce, Rt. Hn. James

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Burns, John

  Joicey, Sir James

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Burt, Thomas

  Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Souttar, Robinson

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kay-Shnttleworth, Rt. Hon.

  Spicer, Albert

  Caldwell, James

  Kitson, Sir James [Sir U.

  Steadman, William Charles

  Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow

  Lambert, George

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cameron, Robert (Durham)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumber.)

  Strachey, Edward

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leng, Sir John

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

  Lloyd-George, David

  Tennant, Harold John

  Causton. Richard Knight

  Lyell, Sir Leonard

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Channing Francis Allston

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

  Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Thomas, David Alfd. (Merthyr

  Colville, John

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Trevelyan, Charles Phillips

  Crombie, John William

  M'Leod, John

  Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

  Daly, James

  Maden, John Henry

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon Sir Charles

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Duckworth, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dunn, Sir William

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Williams, John Carvell (Notts)

  Farguharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow,W.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Fenwick, Charles

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wilson, John (Govan)

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  O'Kelly, James

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Palmer, Sir Charles M. (Durham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dillon and Mr. Davitt.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Palmer, George Wm. (Reading

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Paulton, James Mellor

  MR. DILLONsaid ho desired to ask the Chief Secretary what course he proposed to adopt with regard to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There can be no further Debate at this stage.
  MR. DILLONsaid he simply wished the Chief Secretary to give an undertaking not to take this Bill until after Whitsuntide, and give the Irish Members fair and proper notice when the measure was to be brought on, instead of putting it down without notice.
  MR. G. W. BALFOURsaid the Government had no desire to rush the Bill unduly, and the Second Reading would not be taken before Whitsuntide.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (IRELAND) BILL.
"To amend the relating to Tithe Rent-charge in Ireland," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

FINANCE BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. BARTLEYsaid that it seemed to him quite obvious that some steps must be taken to meet the difficulty with regard to the permanent annual charge for the National Debt, for ho thought that it had been put off already too long. The market for Consols was narrower now than it had ever been before, and there was no doubt whatever that the circumstances were daily making the position of affairs more complicated. It was true that they might slide on in the way they were doing for another year or two. It was possible that this might last during the office of the present Government, and the present tenure of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But to let a difficulty of this sort slide did not seem to him an ideal system of managing finance, and it was no solution of this
504
great problem. It was a rattier remarkable thing that the more the country benefited by growing prosperity and wealth, the greater became this grave difficulty. At the rate they were now going on it was quite clear that persons now living might live to see the day when Consols would disappear in the market, and some arrangement must be made to meet this great difficulty. He would in a very few words draw the attention of the Committee to the circumstances under which the present position had arisen. During the first half of this century they inherited by the great war this great debt, and although constant efforts had been made to reduce it, the total of the debt remained about the same during the first 30 or 40 years of this century. In the year 1836 the debt stood at £853,000,000, and 25 years afterwards, in 1861, it stood at £828,000,000, so that during that long period of 25 years, what with fresh borrowing and paying interest on the debt, the total remained practically stationary. There was no doubt that during the first 60 years of the century the debt was almost looked upon as a permanent thing. It was looked upon as an enormous debt which would always be there, and was never likely to be altered in its circumstances or position. In the year 1861 two very great changes were commenced, which had an enormous effect, and which had led really and truly to the present position of affairs. Both those steps were right steps, and they were the first real effort to reduce the debt. This was largely owing to the efforts of the late Mr. Gladstone, whose example was also followed by the late Sir Stafford Northcote. But in addition to that, in 1861 the Post Office Savings Bank was established, and this had an immense effect upon the position of the debt. During the 40 years that had elapsed since 1860 the debt had been reduced by £200,000,000, for that was the amount of the debt which had been paid off. But in addition to that the Post Office Savings Bank, which began in a very modest and mild manner with a small sum, like all healthy institutions, gradually developed into a great success, and the effect had been that during the 38 years since it was first established, the net amount paid into the Post Office Savings Bank alone had been no less than £123,000,000. All that money had for

505
all practical purpose been used to buy Consols. It was true that some small sums had been used in other ways, but not to any large extent. Therefore, in the 38 years that hail elapsed since these two movements began, no less a sum than £328,000,000 had been withdrawn from the Consol market, so that whereas in 1861 there was at least £750,000,000 of the debt available for any purpose in the market, there was now only £328,000,000, or less than one-half. In 1861, when the Post Office Savings Bank was established, Three per cent. Consols stood on an average at 91¾. But now the 2¾ per cent., which were to be reduced in a very short time to 2½, stood at about 110. The rise in the price of Consols had, of course, been concurrent with the enormous change of Consols in the market. When Consols were under par there was no possible difficulty in carrying out the regulations under which the debt it was reduced, and the Savings Hank money was used for investment. Any number of million at that time could have been bought, and wore bought, at a price which enabled the institutions to go on satisfactorily, and which was profitable to the country. But when Consols had become so very much above par as they were at present, and when they saw the enormously decreasing supply, the position of the Consul market as it affected the Sinking Fund, the Savings Bank, and the other allied funds was altogether changed. Three main points at once cropped up. First of all, there was at the present time an absolute loss upon the Post Office Savings Bank in revenue, ie., at their present price. Consols barely paid their depositors' interest; secondly, they provided at this price absolutely nothing for the Sinking Fund; and, thirdly, the constant purchase of Consols in the limited market was continually forcing up the price against ourselves. They knew perfectly well that there was really no margin of profit for the carrying on of business, and there was no provision at all for what had become a very serious matter, the Sinking Fund. Such being the case, he would like to ask, what was the position under the present Budget? There would be £5,800,000 from the Sinking Fund, in addition to which the right honourable Gentleman would receive about £9,000,000 from the Post Office Savings Bank; roughly speaking, he would receive
506
£15,000,000 in cash, and what was he going to do with it? Of course, he might use a, portion of it in temporary loans, but the fact remained that, owing to the colossal size of the sum, he would have to buy Consols with it during the year—that to say, if he purchased £15,000,000 worth of Consols out of the remaining £350,000,000, he would have to buy one twenty-fourth of the whole of the remaining debt in the hands of the public, next year one twenty-third, the following year one twenty-second, and so on. It was obvious, therefore, that in the next five years he would have to buy no less than 75¼ millions worth of all the Consols remaining in the hands of the public, including the bankers. If he did this, he must raise the price of Consols even higher than it was at present. As a matter of fact, for every million of Consols purchased, there would eventually be a loss of £250,000 to the State. Upon 9 or 10 millions the loss would be no less than £2,500,000. Should the price of Consols rise to 120— it had already been above 113—the loss upon every million purchased would be £150,000. If the Stock Exchange, or tins persons who held Consols, knew that nothing but Consols could be purchased, it was clear that those who held them would attempt in every way to raise the price if they were forced to sell. If Consols went very much higher than 120 or 130 it would be cheaper even to put the money into a box, where it would receive no interest. That being the case, it seemed to him obvious that some stop must be put to the present state of affairs. No doubt some honourable Gentlemen thought that one means of doing so would be to make a change in the Post Office rules to reduce the interest and maximum. But that would not be a complete solution, because although they might reduce the amount of the Post Office Savings Bank deposits to say one-half, they had got nearly six millions coming into the Sinking Fund, and there would still remain 10 millions a year to apply to the purchase of Consols; although that would lessen the evils of the present system, the evil would continue. There was only one possible solution of the problem, and that was to use the money in some other way which would relieve the Consol market and yet be a safe and proper investment. Honourable Members opposite would probably object, but,

507
having this enormous amount of cash coming in, something must be done with it. Nothing could be much worse than the dangers and complications involved in the present arrangement. Therefore, as they must have something of an alternative character, he ventured to put down, the clause standing in his name on the Paper for consideration. He suggested that the whole of the Financial Fund and the Post Office money should be paid into a separate fund, to be called the Accumulating Sinking Fund, the whole amounting to about 15 millions a year. He proposed that none of this money should be used to buy Consols unless Consols should drop to par, which, of course, they would tend to do towards 1893, and they would drop much more under the system of buying the stock in the manner he now proposed. This would take some time, and in the meantime he proposed that the money should be used for three purposes. First of all, he proposed that the money should be lent to India; secondly, to our Crows Colonies; and thirdly, to local authorities. The amount of money lent to India was 4 or 5 millions a year; the amount lent to the Crown Colonies was smaller; but the amount lent to local authorities had been growing very much of late, and was, roughly speaking, about 10 millions. The conditions he attached to the loans were that, first of all, they should be sanctioned by the Secretary of State for India, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or in the case of local loans by the Local Government Board. The second condition, to which he attached great importance, was that each loan should be taken absolutely and entirely out of this Fund. There were immense objections to the State subscribing to a loan which was on the market, because it guaranteed to a great extent the security of the loan and it gave a fictitious value to it on the Stock Exchange. The mode of operation would be comparatively simple. It would be very similar to that in connection with the local funds now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for India, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or the Local Government Board would settle the terms of each loan. There would be no occasion to have a definite rule as to detail, but the circumstances would be considered in each case and facilities given as the authorities controlling the loan thought fit. At present
508
the rate at which India borrowed was, roughly speaking, 2¾ per cent. The Crown Colonies had to pay a somewhat higher rate; the rate of the London County Council was 2⅙¼per cent., and the various local authorities paid over 3 per cent. He proposed that the loans should be made at a somewhat less rate of interest than they could be negotiated in the market. He had no doubt some would say that there were great objections to the State lending to India, the Crown Colonies and the local authorities. He acknowledged that there were objections, but they were not nearly so great as the objections to the present system. It seemed to him that, inasmuch as under it the people would get the benefit of a lower rate of interest and the State would save the money now lost in buying Consols, there would be a double blessing. It might be said that the proposed system would interfere with the finances of the City. That might to a certain extent be true, but after all, those 15 millions, which represented a very largo sum when applied to one particular investment, were but a fraction of the amount of money saved in investing in new capital every year in this country. From the accounts published he found that every year about 150 millions of now capital were created, so that not more than one-tenth of the sum would be affected. Another objection raised was that the cheapening of loans to the local authorities might tend to promote extravagance. Although he did not deem it advisable that municipalities should be allowed to embark in too many schemes, still, there were so many works which the spirit of the times required a locality to undertake for the improvement of its district—parks, waterworks, gasworks, electric light works, and so on—that it seemed reasonable, when we had this enormous amount of money which they did not know how to invest, that it should be applied to such purposes. The last objection raised to the scheme was that if there was to be a run on the Savings Bank it would be practically impossible for the loans to be turned into cash. That was quite true; bat he ventured to assert that if there I was a tremendous run on the Savings Bank now—if 20, 30 or 40 millions were withdrawn, and Consols had to be sold to meet the demand—Consols would be practically as unmarketable as the local loans.

509
There were one or two advantages of his system. It would stop the dangerous inflation of the price of Consols and bring them down to their natural price, and it would save the State the enormous loss which accrued through the purchase of Consols under the present system. He fully agreed that this would not solve the problem of what would happen some day when Consols were scarcer and when we hold in the Post Office two or three or four hundred millions; the day would come when that great problem would have to be faced, but this would tend to clear the ground for it. It would tend to make the Money Market, the condition of Consols, and the Sinking Fund safer, and he therefore ventured to submit that the matter was worthy of the consideration of a great Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought it would be wise, politic, and statesmanlike to end the century with some real and businesslike scheme for solving this great financial question. He begged to move the new clause standing in his name.
New Clause—
"The Treasury shall open a special account, to he called the Accumulating Sinking Fund, into which all moneys received from the repayment of the terminable annuities created under Section 14 of this Act shall he paid, and also any balance that may from time to time remain from the permanent, annual charge for the National Debt as provided in Section 13 of this Act.
"The Treasury shall also pay into the Accumulating Sinking Fund all or any portion of the moneys received from the post Office and Trustee Savings Banks not required for current uses of the Savings Banks.
"From the Accumulating Sinking Fund the Treasury may purchase consolidated stock in the open market in such quantities as the Treasury may approve, provided the price so paid is at or below the price of par, and may tend on terminable annuities or for fixed periods to India, to the Crown colonies and to local authorities such sums and at such rates of interest, as the Treasury may from time to time approve. Provided that—

"(a) Each such loan has been approved either by the Secretary of State, for India, the Colonial Secretary, or the Local Government Board; and

"(b) The whole of each such loan shall lie taken by the Accumulating Sinking Fund, the terms of the loan being such that no part of each such loan is or ever can be held by any other person or authority other than the Accumulating Sinking Fund without the written authority of the Treasury."—(Mr. G. C. T. Bartley.)

brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and question proposed—
"That the clause be read a second time."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH, Bristol, W.): I am not at all disposed to blame my honourable friend for having brought this subject before the Committee. It is a subject of great importance, and one to which I know he has given very great attention. Certainly his remarks more than corroborate what I ventured to lay before Parliament as to the extreme difficulties surrounding the investment of Savings Banks deposits owing to the high price of Consols. But, Sir, I trust the Committee will not lie disposed to enter upon any lengthy debate upon the Sinking Fund, and for two reasons. In the first place, I think it must be clear to all of us, including my honourable friend, that it would be impossible to deal with this great question within the limits of his clause, which I do not like to criticise, because I believe lie has only placed it on the Paper in order to call attention to the matter. My honourable friend's object appears to be to abolish the terminable annuities set up by this Bill, and no longer to continue the purchase of Consols with the repayments of capital made from time to time, but to invest those repayments in loans to India, the Crown colonies, and to local authorities. In fact, my honourable friend's proposal is that instead of paying off our own debt, we should pay other people's debt, and in that way build up a fund which we should hold until Consols come to par, and we are able to redeem Consols with that fund. But, Sir, we may not be able to realise the sum so built up. I have already I stated that the Indian Government, to my knowledge, would not be willing to borrow money in this way from us with the obligation of paying us at a fixed time. Therefore, Sir, I must say that so far as I am at present advised, I do not think the proposal of my honourable friend is at all feasible with regard to the Sinking Fund. I think it would be much better to go on with our present system of cancelling Consols through terminable annuities, and not to attempt to deal with the Sinking Fund in the manner my honourable friend proposes. My honourable friend then turns to the Savings Bank deposits, and suggests that in future they should be invested in loans to local

511
authorities, the Crown colonies, and India. I would venture to point out to the Committee that, as a matter of fact, at the present time we do invest those deposits in loans to local authorities through the Local Loans Fund, which is guaranteed by the Consolidated Fund. Only two years ago Parliament agreed to a reduction in the rate of interest charged on such loans, so that they are now made on terms which have proved very much more attractive to local authorities than before. I am now examining the terms on which these loans are made with a view to see if we cannot make them still more attractive. I confess I see no reason, except, perhaps, on the ground of some local interest which may be better imagined than described, why towns like Liverpool or other great towns in the country should prefer to go into the money market for loans. I think the Committee will see, as far as the use of Savings Bank deposits in loans to local authorities is concerned, it may be done, and is being done, through the machinery I have described just as well as it would be through the machinery proposed by my honourable friend. He also proposed that Savings Bank deposits should be lent to the Crown colonies. Well, I have a Bill before the House which I hope will become law this year, by which, through machinery similar to that of the Local Loans Fund, loans may be made to the Crown colonies under proper safeguards. India has the power to borrow on her own account. But I see no reason why the same process should not be extended to India. It is a perfectly fair subject for consideration whether, in the case of India, the National Debt Commissioners may not be authorised to lend direct to India. But I would venture to point out to my honourable friend that I have already undertaken that certain inquiries should be made, and I would suggest that this is the way, and the only way, in which this question can be usefully approached. Although I daresay competent opinion upon it may be very valuable, further discussion now would lead to no practical result, because nobody—not even my honourable friend—desires that this clause should be adopted in an Act of Parliament.
Question put and negatived.
MR. HUBBARDsaid the substance of the Amendment he
512
rose to propose was submitted for consideration on the introduction of the Death Duties in 1894, and had already received a very strong measure of support from all sides of the House. It appealed to the first principles of justice, and he commended it to the consideration of the Government. A good deal of the legislation of the present day was directed towards inducing the working classes to save, largely against their will, and he could not but think it would be equally advantageous to facilitate saving in the case of the income-tax paying class, more especially when that saving went directly into the pockets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seemed to him desirable to do anything that would diminish the unpopularity of a tax. It could not be doubted that the Estate Duty was felt as a hardship in many cases, and that the severity of the incidence was very often met by processes very well known to Members of the House. In two recent cases very large properties had escaped Estate Duty altogether. The chief grievance lay in the fact that it was impossible for a man to make provision for the Estate Duty without the sum being aggregated with his estate. This was altogether an unfair state of things, and it was especially hard when the effect of a man's prevision was only to raise his estate into the next class, and cause the whole to be assessed at a higher rate of duty. He thought the Government would do well to take it into consideration and see whether they could not do something to redress what he believed was an admitted injustice. The principle of the clause had been accepted by very high authorities. In the Debate of 1894 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer supported it in the warmest terms, and though the then Chancellor of the Exchequer resisted the proposal, he intimated his readiness to consider any scheme by which a sum set apart for Death Duties should be inalienable. Having, therefore, accepted the principle, what was the objection to carry it out? It could only be the official one—loss to the revenue. He did not think the question ought to be considered from that standpoint. The greater the loss the greater evidently was the hardship, and the greater the need for remedy. He believed, however, the loss could not represent a very large sum, because probably not more than twenty per cent, of the ordinary taxpayers would

513
avail themselves of the, proposed insurance. But he would go further, and say that he believed there would be actually no loss to the revenue, because the whole essence of his suggestion was that an extra effort should be made by the testator to set aside this sum. As far as he could see, there was no other way in which a man could provide for insurance and escape aggregation. He, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether this was not a case of injustice which might be remedied with very little trouble and no sacrifice to the revenue, and whether he could not see his way, both as an act of justice and as an assistance towards carrying out the law, to adopt the clause he had the honour to move.
New Clause—
"Upon the decease of any person who during his lifetime has expressly provided by insurance or otherwise for payment of the Estate Duty on any property passing at his death, and to that end has appropriated or set apart a sum of money so as to form an inalienable provision for payment of the said duty or any part thereof to the Commissioner of the Inland Revenue, the sum so appropriated or set apart shall not be aggregated with the rest of the estate and shall not be liable for payment of Estate Duty."—(Mr. Hubbard.)
brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That the Clause be read a second time."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: My honour-able friend is quite justified in quoting the remarks I made on the subject in 1894, and I have always but the greatest sympathy with the idea, underlying the clause with a view to the encouragement of saving. My honourable friend does not allude to a precedent he might fairly have used, the exemption of insurance premiums from income-tax. Sir, I have looked very carefully into the matter with the desire of making a proposal to the House, but such consideration as I have been able to give to it has not enabled me to make a proposal of the kind. Let me put to the Committee one of the great difficulties in this matter. Of course there must be a loss to the revenue in any scheme of this kind, from the fact that the sum set aside would, under the proposal of my honourable friend, pay no Death Duty, and would not be subject to aggregation with the rest of the property, and no doubt
514
the richest men would take most advantage of the clause if it were adopted. But the difficulty in the matter is mainly this—the impossibility of making any sum of the kind inalienable, as my honourable friend suggests. I will take the case of a man of great wealth who is, we will say, thirty or thirty-five, in the prime of life, and lives to a, great age. When he is thirty-five he may set aside a sum under this proposal for the payment of the Death Duties Long before he dies he may become insolvent. Well, are his creditors to have no claim on the sum set aside?
MR. HUBBARD: Not if it were inalienable.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: It could not be inalienable, there being nothing upon which Death Duty would have to be paid: and why should the creditors be deprived of their right to a sum set aside to meet a contingency that cannot arise? Take another case. A man may not be insolvent, but he may be very much poorer when be dies than when he set aside his sum. Is the whole sum still to be left inalienable, or merely the sum applicable to the Death Duties on the property he leaves behind him? Take another case. A man may be very fond of his heir, but that heir may die and some distant relative may succeed to the property about whom the owner cares nothing and may desire to make other use of the money than to benefit the successor with whom he has no sympathy. I have mentioned these cases, because they are some of the difficulties in the application of the principle for which my honourable friend contends. After all, I submit to the Committee that it would be perfectly possible for a man if he trusts his heir to do what my honourable friend desires, namely, relieve him of the Death Duties without any alteration in the law at all. Of course the presumption is that he will trust his heir; if he did not trust his heir he would not desire to relieve him of the Death Duties. It is perfectly possible for him now, if he chooses, to make over to his heir a certain sum of money for the payment of the Death Duties which would not be liable to duty or to aggregation. I am quite convinced that if my honourable friend were to consult an astute lawyer he would devise means to carry this out. Although,

515
as I have said, I have great sympathy with the idea, I cannot possibly accept the clause now, because it would involve a considerable loss of revenue and I do not at present see my way to overcome the objections that arise.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member who proposes the Amendment has very truly said that in 1894 I, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed a desire to meet this case so far as it could be met, and everybody must desire, in reference to this tax, to make it as little oppressive as possible. When the suggestion was made in 1894 I stated, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer now states, that it was impossible to deal with insurance alone, for that is only one method by which a man may make this provision. I also said that if it were possible to deal with the matter on the footing of inalienable savings I should be extremely glad. An honest attempt was made to find some method of dealing with the question on that basis, and there was a proposal like to the one made by the honourable Member. I went into the matter with very able assistance, and found all the difficulties which have been alluded to by the honourable Member as to securing these alienable funds. The fact is people are not fond of tying up property in this inalienable manner. There are many instances where it cannot be done, and where it is not likely to be done. Therefore, I can only confirm what the right honourable Gentleman has said. Every effort was made to meet what is certainly a plausible claim, but we at that time were unable to find a method of solving the difficulty. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not been more successful since that time, and undoubtedly to deal with the matter in the manner now proposed would involve great loss of revenue.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that on examining the pith of the Amendment he was forced to side with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the opinion which he had expressed that evening in preference to the view set forth by him in 1894. He would see that there were immense practical difficulties in the way of the adoption of the Amendment. He sympathised with his honourable friend who had brought it
516
forward, but he respectfully suggested to him that it was not one which could meet the existing difficulty.
MR. HOAREsupported the Amendment, which involved a question in which he took very great interest. It seemed to him very hard that if a man by his thrift endeavoured to provide for the payment of his Death Duties he should be fined for so doing, for that was exactly what it came to. If an estate was worth a little under £50,000, and he made provision for his Death Duties, his estate would be fined nearly £400; in the next scale, nearly £600; in the next, over £1,000; and in the next, upwards of £15,000. Having always endeavoured to encourage thrift, he thought that the House ought in this ease to try in every way to further the cause. The injustice complained of required a remedy, and he was glad that his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was prepared to consider it. He knew that there were great difficulties, but he hoped that the right honourable Gentleman's ability and experience would enable him to overcome them.
MR. SPICERsaid he had intense sympathy with the principle of the Amendment, and he was extremely glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to look into the matter again. He seemed to him to argue the question almost entirely from the standpoint of those families who made their property over to their eldest sons. He thought the present system came with far greater hardship upon those classes of society where the property was usually divided equally amongst the different members of the family, and he could not think that the difficulties which had been referred to both by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer could not be dealt with by some of the able advisers that there were at the Treasury. He quite admitted some of the difficulties, but it seemed to him that the proposal gave them a legitimate way of providing for Death Duties, and was a contrast to the illegitimate of evading the Death Duties which, if they were rightly informed, were now being made use of by some of the great families of the land—an action which, he ventured to say, had created a feeling of very deep resentment.

517
These great families maintained their position very largely because they had administered their estates on the principle of noblesse oblige; but if once it came to be realised by the mass of the people that those classes were trying to evade their fair responsibilities to the State, it would create a feeling of bitterness which would not end there. He, for one, looked forward with real concern upon those who had carried out these practices, because he believed they were acting distinctly against their own interests and general welfare. The plan proposed seemed to suggest a legitimate way of trying to meet the difficulties, and he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find, with the able assistance he had at the Treasury, some method by which those who wished to make provision in the way proposed might do so without loss to the State, and, at the same time, to the advantage of those who came after them.
SIR R. T. REIDremarked that neither in the debate of 1894 nor during the present debate had any honourable Member suggested a method by which provision for meeting the Death Duties could be made inalienable. There must be a fund which the testator could not alienate, and which his creditors could not alienate, and which at his death must be exclusively applied for the purpose of paying off the Duty. There was, indeed, no way of doing it unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself opened an insurance office, and received premiums against the payment of the duties. The consequence of that would be that if a man died leaving nothing, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be entitled to keep the premium. In that sense, and in that sense alone, could they make any inalienable provision. Otherwise, if the Amendment passed, it must remain a dead letter.
CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid he had consulted several experts on the question, and he found that the difficulties of making provision for the sum inalienable were insurmountable. The right honourable Gentleman who had just sat down had said that there was no other way available than by the Chancellor of the Exchequer opening an insurance office. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a generous
518
mood there was one simple way of doing it, namely, when the duty was assessed on the property, and before the duty was actually charged, to deduct the sum payable as duty from the corpus on which the duty itself was payable.
MR. MOULTONsaid that the case which had been mentioned of a person with an estate of £48,000, who, through saving enough to pay the Death Duties, was fined because the estate was raised to over £50,000, was an illustration of the fact that there must necessarily be some difficulty and injustice when a hard and fast line was drawn between the incidence of one rate of taxation and another. The question was whether they should allow a man by any arrangement in his lifetime to shield a portion of the property which he left to his heirs from the Death Duty.
MR. HUBBARDsaid that in view of the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look into the question, he did not propose to press the Amendment to a Division. He did not think the arguments which had been brought forward against his proposal were by any means unanswerable, and he failed to see any insuperable difficulty in making the fund inalienable. If the right honourable Gentleman went into the question with a real desire to redress what he believed was a recognised grievance, he would find a way out of the difficulty.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
MR. LLOYD MORGAN (Carmarthen, W.),on behalf of Mr. Lawson Walton (Leeds, S.), moved the insertion of the following clause:—
"The provisions contained in Section 98 of the Stamp Act of 1891 in reference to the expression 'policy of insurance against accident' shall extend to and include policies in insurance or indemnity against liability incurred by employers in consequence of claims made upon them by workmen who have sustained personal injury, when the annual premium on such policy does not exceed £1."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I will accept the proposal.
The clause was read a second time and added to the Bill.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES,in moving a I new clause repealing certain sections of

519
the Act of 1894, said he did not intend to touch upon the principle of the Finance Act of 1894, in the discussion of which they had spent some happy mouths, though he might remark that one-tenth of the estates that paid the duty paid nine-tenths of the old duty, and that under the Act one £500 might pay thirty-seven times as much as another. The effect of the Act was beginning to be seen. It had disappointed everybody, and nobody more than his right honourable friend the Member for West Monmouth, since the Act had not produced anything like the sum anticipated. Allusion had been made to evasions by highly-placed persons. It was a case of "diamond cut diamond"; but, after all, he did not call them evasions, but avoidances of the Act, which the Act allowed. But that portion of the Act which had always seemed to him to be particularly small, foolish, unnecessary, and indefensible was the Settlement Estate Duty. It was unnecessary for him to read the clause he proposed. It touched nothing else in the Act but this duty, and did not infringe the principle. The Settlement Estate Duty produced but an infinitesimal part of the total Estate Duty. The total Estate Duty for the year amounted to £15,600,000, and the Settlement Estate Duty produced only £330,000, or one-forty-sixth of the total Estate Duty. Moreover, according to the Report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for 1894–95, the Settlement Estate Duty gave rise to a great number of difficult questions productive of greater complication than any other provision of the Finance Act of 1894, and remarkable testimony was given on the part of those whose duty it was to carry the Act into effect. It was largely because of these difficulties and complications that he proposed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should relieve himself of the burden of collecting the tax, more especially as it produced relatively so small an amount. He was afraid the Settlement Duty was imposed primarily on account of the animosity of the right honourable Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, who made a set against settled property. If they looked into the Act, however, they would find that settled property, instead of being at a disadvantage, was, compared with other property, at a very great advantage. He had heard remarks about knocking the bottom out of the Act. There were,
520
however, cases where there was bottom in the Act, and where the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Law Officers had endeavoured to put a false bottom in. In proof of this there was the Beach case. This matter was of great importance. The total amount involved in settled property was 41 millions out of 274millions, or nearly one-sixteenth. The whole of the Estate Duty was 12 millions, while the duty on settled property was two millions. In consequence of the decisions which had been given as a true interpretation of the Act, they would find that all of the Estate Duty of two millions was imperilled besides the Settlement Duty of £300,000. The Settlement Duty was supposed to guard the revenue and afford compensation, but the cases proved that it was no guard, while the compensation was inadequate. He ventured to implore the Chancellor of the Exchequer—though he did not suppose the right honourable Gentleman would agree to it—to abolish Settlement Duty.
New clause—
"The following Sections of the Finance Act, 1894—namely Section 5, Sub-Section 1, paragraphs A and B; and Sub-section 4; Section 10, Sub-section 3; Section 17; and section 21, Subsection 4, so far as they enact or relate to Settlement Estate Duty, are hereby repealed."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That the clause be read a second time."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid that he would not follow his honourable friend all through his argument, but it seemed to him that if all his proposals were carried there would be very little of the Act of 1894 left. But the honourable Gentleman's proposals answered themselves. Settlement Estate Duty was imposed as a compensation for the advantages which settled property enjoyed of paying once only during the settlement. It was only a duty of 1 per cent., and considering the great advantages which settled estate enjoyed, it was right and just that that should be paid.
SIR R. T. REIDwas not going to say anything more about Estate Duty after what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, however, wanted to say a word on a matter cognate to it. The right

521
hon. Gentleman hail made some observations in regard to the advantageous position occupied by settled property under the Act as it stood. There was no doubt that since the decision of the House of Lords, settled property enjoyed an unduly favoured position. He was one of those who did not agree with the opinion which had been adopted by the House of Lords. It was a very serious thing, not only for the revenue, but also for the cause of just administration. If the decision of the House of Lords remained, and if nothing was done by Statute to alter in some degree the effect of their interpretation of the Act, it would be possible, by a succession of settlements made within a few days or hours of death, for large masses of property in this country to escape the Death Duty altogether—he meant from generation to generation. It was not his business to enter into the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the principle of the Act. He knew some thought this a harsh tax. But this was clear, that no Act could go on being administered, and could claim to be a just Act, which was so interpreted that they could have great masses of property constantly escaping the tax, while all other property, mostly of poor people, was subjected to the tax. He could not help expressing the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see whether something could not be done for the purpose of strengthening the liability of settled property to pay a full share of taxation.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that in drawing up this provision it had been stated he had been actuated by hostility to settled property. He had never had any hostility to settled property as such. What he had always contended was, that settled property should be dealt with fairly, on the same footing as other property. Up to the passing of the Act in 1894 it had escaped from all liability to which other property was subjected. If they had a community sensitive that a particular form of property—and that property generally the possession of rich people—was dealt with on a different footing from other property, they would have that feeling of dissatisfaction that arose from unequal and unfair taxation. The intention of the additional Settlement Duty was a compensation for a very great concession that was made to settled
522
property. He had no hesitation in saying that it was an experiment in compensation, and it was an extremely useful one. He had now come to the conclusion that the compensation was not half high enough, and that any change that was to be made should be in the direction of bringing settled property into line with the rest of the property in the country. He had no doubt that, by the decision referred to, settled property was conspicuously exempt from the burdens on other property, and that in a few years it would have to be done away with. The 1 per cent, duty did not in the least compensate for the exemption which settled property enjoyed with other property.
CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid, in regard to the new clause proposed by the honourable Member for Lynn Regis, he could hardly follow his curious argument, that because settled property was better off than other property, it ought to he relieved further. However, the right honourable and learned Gentleman opposite had apparently lost his head in regard to this case. He assumed quite unwarrantably that because the decision of the House of Lords had gone against him on the Beach Case it would also be against him on all other points. He hoped there would be cases where the right honourable Gentleman would be more fortunate. If the decision given by the House of Lords implied that settled property could be handed over in extremis, he would support the Chancellor of the Exchequer in an amendment of the law. He absolutely concurred in the opinion expressed by the light honourable Gentleman opposite, that both settled property and other property should be treated equally, but he did not agree with the statement of the right honourable Gentleman that the decision in the Beach case, so far as it went, placed settled property in a different position from unsettled property.
SIR R. T. REIDdiffered from the honourable Gentleman, and he would tell in a sentence why. Under the decision in the Beach case, one of two things might happen. Duty might be escaped by alienation at any moment before death, or at all events, if that were a point which had not been decided, there could be evasion of the payment of

523
duty if the residue of the life interest was sold at its then value, say by a man who was only going to live a week.
CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid that was a legal point which the right honourable and learned Gentleman was better able to deal with than he was. He took his stand on the broad ground that under the decision of the Beach case, settled property which had been transferred to the next in settlement more than 12 months before death was clear of Estate Duty. They were not entitled to anticipate any other decision until it occurred. Would the right honourable and learned Gentleman tell him that free unsettled property could not escape duty by being transferred 12 months before death?
SIR. R. T. REIDsaid he was loth to interrupt. It was perfectly true that free property could be alienated with safety more than 12 months before death. The difference consisted in this, that in order to escape the Death Duty on free property it was necessary to alienate the whole corpus, the whole interest in the property, but in order to escape the Death Duty in the case of settled property it was only necessary to dispose of the remaining part of the life interest, which was a very in significant portion of the entire value.
CAPTAIN PRETYMANsaid he was again sorry to disagree with the right honourable and learned Gentleman on a legal point, but he must again say that the decision in the Beach case did not go so far as that. He held that so far as the Beach decision was concerned the two classes of property were on the same footing. At any rate, if they were not they ought to be. He could not see his way to support his honourable friend's Amendment, but at the same time, as the law now stood he could not think how honourable Gentlemen opposite could maintain that settled property was placed at a greater disadvantage than free property.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not propose to press the Amendment, but if his honourable and gallant friend once opened the door to a revision of the law affecting settled property he would be called upon by honourable Gentlemen opposite to support an increase in the valuation of real property as charged with duty for 17 and 18 years, which the
524
Inland Revenue now got when it was sold, to 30, 40, or 50 years' purchase, which the owner of property often got in a settlement. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESnext proposed a new clause for the purpose of removing the present limitation to the aggregation of property. He said that under Section 4 of the Finance Act of 1894, any property in which the deceased never had an interest could not be aggregated. The same section provided that if by any disposition not made by the deceased property passed to another person that should not be aggregated. But, if it passed to the wife, husband, lineal ancestor, or to a descendant, it was aggregated, and Estate Duty charged upon it. This was unjust to the widow and the orphan, who wore unjustly taxed as compared to the stranger. It was that exemption to the exception which he wished to remove by means of his Amendment. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to accept it.
New Clause—
"Section four of The Finance Act, 1894, shall be read and have effect as if after the words 'never had an interest or which' the word 'passes' were inserted; as if after the words 'not made by the deceased' the words 'passes immediately on the death of the deceased to some person other than the wife or husband or a lineal ancestor or a lineal descendant of the deceased' were omitted; and as if all the words after the words 'shall not be aggregated with any other property' to the end of the section were omitted."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
brought, up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That the Clause be read a second time."
SIR. M. HICKS-BEACHdid not think that such a proposal could possibly be accepted. To his mind it would go much too far, much farther than his honourable friend desired.
Question put, and negatived.
LORD ALWYNE COMPTON (Beds, Biggleswade)said he had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with Section 4 of the Finance Act of 1894, restricting the exemptions thereby given to non-

525
lineals from the principle of aggregation, and extending certain exemptions to persons taking benefits under separate dispositions. He was perfectly clear as to the injustice caused by these exemptions, but it appeared some doubt had arisen as to what the tendency, or full effect of the words in his proposed Amendment would be. That being so, and in view of the great perplexity of the question, he would postpone the matter until the Report Stage.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid he would be obliged if the noble Lord did so. The proposal on the Paper opened up a most complicated question.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that the next three clauses, of which he moved the insertion at this part of the Bill, must be dealt with as one; and he felt so strongly on the matter that if he could only get a teller, he should go to a Division. The effect of these three clauses would be to abolish the presumption that was made by the Finance Act of 1894, that everything a man did within twelve months of his death was done in defraud of the Act.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid that that was not done under the Act of 1894; it was done by a former Act—that of 1881.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that by the Act of 1881 the presumption was applied to personal property during throe months before death; lay the Act of 1889 it was extended to personal property within twelve months of death; by the Act of 1894 the presumption of twelve months was extended to all property whatever, and the right honourable Gentleman could not say this was not done by the Act of 1894. He (the honourable Member for Lynn Regis) must at once admit that the error of persons conceiving this idea of diverting the estate was not due to the right hon. Member for West Monmouth. It was line to the First Lord of the Admiralty, whom he had always considered to be a better sailor than a financier. Originally it was due to Mr. Gladstone, but it was carried out by the sailor-financier. The effect was to assume that every gift made
526
by a person within twelve months of his death was fraudulent, and intended to evade the duty. That might be so, and in such an instance he should not only charge the duty, but, in addition, impose a heavy penalty. But they must show that there was an attempt to evade the Act, when in many cases there was no such intention, and that the gift was made bona fide, and with no idea of impending death. Observe the humour of the thing. Every shilling a man put into the plate at church, every remission he made to a tenant of rent, every little present he made to his wife, say, of a brooch or a ring, every gift of any kind to anybody, was not a gift completed, but was only a gift, minus the duty, until twelve months had elapsed. He could give extraordinary instances of the hardships of this reading of the law. But he would take one connected with this nefarious assumption in favour of the State. If a person left £29,000 of his own, and £20,000 passed on his death, under his father's settlement, and if he made a gift of £5,000 within the year, the total of these sums, £54,000, was aggregated, and the rate of duty was charged at 5 per cent, instead of 3, 4, or 4½ per cent., so that the children paid more on the £20,000 they got because of the £5,000 they did not get. The executor was bound to include in the account every gift made within twelve months—every shilling in the church collection plate, every token of affection, every ring, but he was not bound to pay duty. The liability was put on the donee. The executor was absolutely prohibited from paying the duty except by the request of the donee. If, therefore, the donee had gone abroad, or had spent the gift, the duty was not recoverable from him, and the executor was not liable—in fact, no one was liable. The Act, in fact, was full of injustices, absurdities, complications, and departures from the principle of the Act itself. The only right and just method was to make no presumption either way. He would further point out that the amount of duty was not very large. The amount of inter vivos donations in 1897–8 was £933,000, with a duty of about £45,000, collected in order to maintain the entirely false assumption that everything a man did within twelve months before his death was to evade the Act. He begged to move the addition of the first of his proposed clauses.

527
New Clause—
"Section two, Sub-section (3), of The Finance Act, 1894, is hereby amended as follows: The description of property in Sub-section (3) shall be construed as if the words 'more than twelve months before his death' were omitted therefrom."
brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and Question proposed—
"That the clause be now read a second time."
The other two proposed clauses referred to were as follows:—
"Section two, sub-section (1), paragraph (c), of The Finance Act, 1894, is hereby amended as follows: the description of property marked (c) shall be construed as if the words in section eleven, sub-section (1), of The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, 'be read as if the word 'twelve' were substituted for the word 'three' therein, and the said description of property shall' were omitted therefrom."
"Section thirty-eight, sub-section (2), paragraph (a), of The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1881, is hereby amended as follows: the description of property marked (a) shall be construed as if all the words in paragraph (a) after the words 'one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one' were omitted therefrom."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid that his reply to his honourable friend was that as he, year after year, raised this question, and repeated proposals of the

AY.

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

TELLERS FOR THE AY—Mr.Gibson Bowles and Mr. Alexander Cross.

NOES.

Aird, John

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Curzon, Viscount

Allan, William (Gateshead)

Caldwell, James

Dalkeith, Earl of

Allen, W. (Newe. under Lyme)

Cameron, Sir Charles (Glasgow)

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Daly, James

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Donkin, Richard Sim

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Doogan, P. C.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r

Dorington, Sir John Edward

Balfour,Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Doughty, George

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Charrington, Spencer

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Banbury, Frederick George

Clare, Octavius Leigh

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Barnes, Frederick Gorell

Clough, Walter Owen

Doxford, William Theodore

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Duckworth, James

Beach Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Bethell, Commander

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Dunn, Sir William

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Colville, John

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bigwood, James

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edwd.

Blakiston-Houston, John

Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Bond, Edward

Cooke, C. W. Radcliffe (Heref'd)

Field, Admiral (Eastbourne)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Cranborne, Viscount

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Brassey, Albert

Cruddas, William Donaldson

Fisher, William Hayes

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Butcher, John George

Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

Flower, Ernest

same kind, he could do nothing but repeat what he had already said against the proposals. His honourable friend admitted that there might be such a thing as fraudulent attempts to evade the Acts, but he said that we ought to discover that by some kind of divination. He did not believe that we would ever discover anything in that way. He did not believe that it would be possible to inflict the penalty suggested. Three months was the period suggested, but that was found to be too short, and twelve months was accepted with practical unanimity as the period within which donations might not be made. He believed that if three months were accepted the door would be opened to fraud, and to the evasion of the Act in other ways.
MR. BUTCHERbelieved that under the clause as it stood every shilling given during the year preceding death would be brought into account. If they accepted his honourable friend's Amendment the door would be opened to a very large number of cases of evasion, and the amount of duty thus fraudulently evaded would be very large indeed.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Aye, 1; Noes, 164. (Division List No. 142.)

Garfit, William

Lucas-Shadwell, William

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

Macaleese, Daniel

Rutherford, John

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Macartney, W. G. Ellison

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Macdona, John Cumming

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edin.W.)

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Goschen, Rt Hn G J (St. George's

M'Killop, James

Souttar, Robinson

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

M'Laren, Charles Benjamin

Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

Gourley, Sir Edward Temperley

Middlemore, Jhn. Throgmorton

Strauss, Arthur

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

Montagu, Sir S. (Whitechapel)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Gull, Sir Cameron

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Haldane, Richard Burdon

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford

Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)

Thorburn, Walter

Harwood, George

Mount, William George

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Grahm. (Bute

Valentia, Viscount

Hazell, Walter

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Wallace, Robert (Edinburgh)

Hermon-Hodge, Robert Trotter

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Wallace, Robert (Perth)

Hill, Arthur (Down, W.)

Myers, William Henry

Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of Wight

Holland, Hon. Lionel R. (Bow)

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Wedderburn, Sir William

Holland, Wm. H. (York.W. R.)

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Weir, James Galloway

Horniman, Frederick John

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Edw.

O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

Williams, John Carvell (Notts.

Johnston, William (Belfast)

O'Malley, William

Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Philipps, John Wynford

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. William

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Keswick, William

Pilkington, Richard

Wilson, Jos, H. (Middlesbrough

Kimber, Henry

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Knowles, Lees

Pretyman, Ernest George

Wyndham, George

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Purvis, Robert

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

Leng, Sir John

Rickett, J. Compton

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Long, Rt. Hn. Wltr. (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chs. Thomson

Lowe, Francis William

Royds, Clement Molyneux

MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was afraid it now fell upon him to move one Amendment after another. His next Amendment was to restrict the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1866, which had been superseded by subsequent arrangements made by Parliament. Instead of the gross revenues being paid into the Bank of England a great part of them went to local taxation. It seemed to him an extraordinary thing that such an abuse should have cropped up in so short a time. £9,000,000 was put to this purpose. The appropriations in aid he did not propose to deal with, but that part of the Exchequer represented by the Estate Duties was about £2,500,000 this year. He did not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would express his readiness to accept the clause, but he did trust that the right honourable Gentleman would say that he would take the matter into consideration and bring to an end a method which only made confusion worse confounded.
New Clause—
"The Commissioners of Customs, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and the Post-master General shall, after the commencement of this Act, notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary, after deduction of the payments
530
for drawbacks, bounties of the nature of drawbacks, repayments, and discounts, cause the gross revenues of their respective departments to be paid at such times and under such regulations as the Treasury may from time to time prescribe, to accounts to be intituled 'The Account of Her Majesty's Exchequer,' at the Bank of England and at the Bank of Ireland respectively, and all other public moneys payable to the Exchequer shall be paid to the same accounts, and accounts of all such payments shall be rendered to the Comptroller and Auditor-General daily, in such form as the Treasury may prescribe; provided always, that this enactment shall not be construed to prevent the collectors and receivers of the said gross revenues and moneys from cashing, as heretofore, under the authority of any Act or regulation, orders issued for Naval, Military, Revenue, Civil, or other Services, repayable to the Revenue Departments out of the Consolidated Fund or out of moneys provided by Parliament. And provided also that the Treasury may transfer from the said Account of Her Majesty's Exchequer to the Local Taxation Account such sums, under such conditions and at such times as are prescribed by any existing enactment to be paid to the said Local Taxation Account."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Clause be now read a second time."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid that even if the views of the honourable Member for Lynn Regis were right, he

531
did not think, whatever his intention was, that the clause proposed would have the desired effect. He thought that it was premature, and could not accept it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ALWYNE COMPTONsaid the clause which stood in his name was practically identical with a clause which he had moved last year, dealing with an injury which everybody recognised. He did not now propose to move it because the right honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had informed him that he had looked into the matter, and though he admitted that there was a hardship, the right honourable Gentleman did not consider that the suggestion which he (Lord A. Compton) had made met the difficulty. He had been encouraged to proceed, the right honourable Gentleman having pointed out that where property passed through many hands in a short space of time a condition of things might arise in which there would be no property at all. He was hopeful, the evil and hardship having been acknowledged, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some explanation and that, if he was not satisfied with the clause as put upon the Paper, he would give some indication upon which a clause might be based another year.
The following is the clause referred to:—
"Where Estate Duty shall have become payable on any death by or on behalf of any person in respect of property to which he shall have become entitled on such death, and such person shall die within the space of eight and a-half years from the date of the death on which the duty shall have become payable, such duty (in this section referred to as 'the first charge of duty') shall for the purposes of this section be taken to have become payable by such instalments as are mentioned in section 6, sub-section 8 of The Finance Act, 1894, and if the Estate Duty payable in respect of any property passing on the death of such person (in this section referred to as 'the second charge of duty') shall be a sum equal to or less than the total amount of the instalments then to become due, or which by virtue of this section are to be taken as then to become due, of the first charge of duty (hereinafter referred to as the 'future instalments'), the second charge of duty shall lie wholly remitted; but if the amount of such second charge of duty shall exceed the amount of the future instalments, then the amount, which but for this section would have become payable in respect of such second charge of duty, shall be reduced by the amount of the future instalments."—(Lord A. Compton.)
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHexpressed his thanks to the noble Lord for the way in which he had brought the matter forward, but said the difficulties of his position had precluded him from dealing with the subject. The duties were practically settled upon a system of averages, and any case where hardship was likely to arise would occur after a long tenure, after which there would probably be a series of quick successions. He regretted his inability to deal with the subject at the present time, but there was extreme difficulty in ear-marking the property as the same property which had paid duty before. He had thoroughly investigated the matter, and in a great many cases into which he had enquired, the alterations of various kinds which had been made in the property had rendered it absolutely impossible for anyone to say the property was the same as that which had already paid duty. It could not well be left to the officers of the Inland Revenue to decide whether it was the same property or not. He mentioned these matters for the consideration of his noble friend, with whom he would be glad to communicate.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONexpressed great satisfaction at the fact that no hope had been held out with regard to the Amendment. He remembered that the proposal was carefully considered in 1894, and it was then found impossible that any proposal could be arrived at which would do justice to everybody. The effect of the clause would be to reduce the Death Duties, from duties falling in at death, to periodical duties, and that appeared to him to be a vital objection. He also considered the clause impracticable. He thought the noble Lord had exaggerated the position when he said that the Death Duties could destroy property. With regard to the remote legatee he should be considered a fortunate person rather than one to whom injustice had been done, because the chances of his coming into the property at all were very remote.
VISCOUNT CRANBOENEthought that what had to be considered was the welfare of the person who lived on his estates. Nothing, in his opinion, could be worse for the land than the absenteeism that ensued under these circumstances. He had hoped that the right honourable Gentleman would have

533
recognised the substantial justice of the appeal which had been made, and would have given the Committee some hope that he would himself grapple with the question. When the Finance Act was passed, it was attacked on more than one of its details, and more especially upon this detail, and all the right honourable Gentleman had said was that it was not his duty to point out how the hardship should be remedied, but he admitted that the hardship existed. The whole system of Death Duties was extremely difficult to work, and in its initiation was unjust. The revenue which was raised upon these capital values ought to be raised by a very different method.
CAPTAIN PRETYMANthought the main question was how to deal with a hardship when it arose. The Committee had been told that this duty was based on a system of averages, but he thought that where a hardship was made manifest it was entitled to be dealt with on its merits.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid the object of the clause he now proposed to move was to give some small relief to the owners of tithe and tithe-rent charges. The reason for its being moved was that it was the only declaration upon which relief could be obtained for a particular class which suffered great injustice under the Bill. The terrible state of things which existed in regard to this had been brought before the House on a number of occasions, but this was a matter of taxation which did come under the Finance Bill. He submitted that the clergy ought to be relieved in the matter of Land Tax. The Government had given assurances that something would be done in the present Session, but the Session was growing old and nothing had been done, though he still had hopes. The Report of the Royal Commission which investigated the matter had shown the position in which the tithe rent owners stood, and showed that they were grossly overtaxed. They could not go on for ever without raising their voices that justice should be done, and he hoped, and felt quite sure, that the matter would not now be long delayed.
New Clause—
"An assessment of the Land Tax made after the passing of this Act for a Land Tax parish in
534
any year during the continuance of the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, shall not assess or charge any tithes, tithe rent-charge, or modus payable to any person having the cure of souls within the parish at more than one-half of the annual value at which such tithes, tithe rent-charge, or modus would be assessed or charged if this Act had not been passed: and any amount of Land Tax not collected by reason of this section shall be remitted from the unredeemed quota of the Land Tax for that year."—(Viscount Cranborne.)
brought up and read the first time.
Motion made and question proposed—
"That the Clause be now read a second time."
SIR M. HICKS-BEACHdrew attention to the fact that all those clergy whose incomes did not exceed £160 a year were relieved from Land Tax altogether, whilst those whose incomes did not exceed £400 per annum were relieved to the extent of half the tax. In regard to the particular grievance to which it was desired to call the attention of the Committee, he would only say that a measure dealing with the subject was actually in course of preparation; and, although it would not be in his charge, as it related to a rating matter, he hoped that at no distant date it would be laid before the House.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)desired to express the opinion that any attempt to convert the Budget into a Clergy Relief Bill was a matter that should be resisted to the utmost. He thought that the clergy were ill-advised to allow this question to be raised in their name, while at the same time they were making public appeals for aid.
Motion by leave withdrawn.
SIR SAMUEL MONTAGUin moving the insertion of a new clause, said the object of the first portion of it was to place our traders on an equality with competitors in France and Belgium, where the stamp duty was precisely the same as he wished to see it fixed. In Germany there was no such stamp duty, and in Holland it only amounted to 1d. for any amount. He could not ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to knock off the tax altogether, but he was confident that city men who traded in bills would be quite content if they were placed on an equality with

535
their competitors in France and Belgium. Twenty or forty years ago the business done by means of these foreign bills was very much greater, They were drawn mainly from India, China, and America against produce.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (interrupting): I am quite willing to accept the Clause which the honourable Baronet has on the Paper.
New Clause—
"(1) The duty payable under the Stamp Act, 1891, on bills of exchange drawn and expressed to be payable out of the United Kingdom, when actually paid or endorsed or in any manner negotiated in the United Kingdom, shall, where the amount of the money for winch the Bill in drawn exceeds £50, be reduced so as to be—(a) where the amount exceeds £50 and does not exceed £100, 6d.; and (b) where the amount exceeds £100, 6d. for every £100, and also for any fractional part of £100 of that amount. (2) The stamp duty chargeable under the Stamp Act, 1891, on bills of exchange expressed to be payable at a period not exceeding three days after date or sight shall be 1d., in lieu of the duty now chargeable thereon; and accordingly the first heading, Bill of Exchange, in the schedule to that Act, shall be read as if the words 'or within three days after date or sight' were contained therein, after the word 'presentation.'"—(Sir Samuel Montagu.)
brought up and read the first and second time and agreed to.
Bill reported.
Bill, as amended, re-committed, in respect of Clauses 2 and 3, and a new Clause, for Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SPIRITS IN BOTTLE.
1. That, in addition to the Duties of Customs now payable on spirits imported into Great Britain or Ireland, there shall be charged, levied, and paid the duty following (that is to say):—
Spirits in bottle (including perfumed spirits, and liqueurs, cordials, mixtures, and other preparations in bottle entered "in such a manner as to indicate that the strength is not to be tested) the liquid gallon, One Shilling.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Resolution read a second time.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he hoped the
536
Chancellor of the Exchequer would, either that night or at some later stage of the Bill, be able to place the Committee in possession of information with regard to the probable effect of the new surtax upon bottled spirits. They already had that information with regard to bottled wines, but he would like to point out that, in regard to spirits, it was the practice of the Customs to lump together all spirits imported in casks and in bottle, as well as all perfumes coming in in the same way. No doubt there was a very considerable quantity of high-class spirit which came in bottle, but he imagined that but very little cheap spirit came in in the same form. He did not complain in the least of the amount of the surtax, because, after all, it only represented a very small proportion of the value of the article on which it was imposed, an article which was a high-priced luxury. Let them take, for instance, Eau de Cologne. That was a high-priced commodity, and the effect of the new duty would probably be to induce the house which sent large quantities of it to this country to establish itself and bottle the perfume in England. The same might result with regard to high-class liqueurs, Chartreuse for example. He imagined the selling price of that did not fall far short of 20s. per imperial quart, so that the surtax was comparatively small. But it would have a considerable bearing on the course of trade, and at the same time it would protect the spirit against crude imitations which were manufactured in this country. He pointed out the other night that this tax would specially hit the brandy trade of France, and would considerably interfere with the importation of high-class cognacs from the Charente district in small parcels, a district which was already hit by the increased wine duty. They had, however, no figures before them upon which they could discuss the matter now, and he therefore repeated his appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them the statistics at some later stage of the Bill.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had sought to justify the imposition of additional taxes on wine on the ground that if deprived of that source of revenue he did not know how he could make up his deficit. But the other day

537
he (Mr. Robertson) ventured to point out a source of unknown magnitude and as yet untouched. He on that occasion asked the right honourable Gentleman to be good enough to direct his officials to make an investigation with a view to ascertaining what would lie the financial effect of increasing the duties on the retailers of wine, spirits, and beer: what, in fact, would be the effect of raising the licence duties to their full annual value. The right honourable Gentleman replied that that depended on the Licensing Commission, which had taken evidence on the point, and until the Report was presented lie did not think it was for him to interfere. That answer surprised him, for having examined the reports published of the Commissioner's proceedings he had been unable to find any evidence at all bearing upon that important question. He had not put the question with reference to any temperance issues but solely on financial grounds. There had been no doubt suggestions about high licences as a mode of temperance reform, but with that he had nothing to do; all he asked was an estimate of the effect of raising licence duties to their full annual value. He would again press the Chancellor of the Exchequer to direct his officials, who were the only persons who could do so, to frame this estimate. He had intended to raise the point by an Amendment on the Finance Bill, but had good reason to suppose that that would be out of order, as it involved an increase of duty. His proposal briefly was that the increased duty should fall not on the consumer, but on the licence holder, who now paid absurdly low duties, while his mere liability to pay them constituted a valuable asset. He wanted to ascertain the real value of the asset. He might remind them that the London County Council had had to buy up a licence recently at a cost of £11,000; they were going to drop the licence and saddle the ratepayers with the expense. The utmost a retailer of spirits, &c., had to pay as licence was £60 a year; yet the licences were so valuable. Was it right to leave the duty so absurdly low? Why not make the licences pay instead of putting the burden indirectly on the consumers of the commodity? The present was not a defensible position, for many millions a year was; being presented to the holders of the monopoly.
SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The present system on which the charge for licences is made is no doubt not a good one, and very possibly in the case of the move valuable houses the duty ought to be increased. But I had good reason for the answer I gave the honourable Gentleman the other day. I am informed on good authority that evidence on this subject has been taken, and naturally the Licensing Commission may be expected to deal with it in their Report. Under these circumstances, I do not think it possible or right to institute an independent inquiry by the officers of the Inland Revenue. I may remind the honourable Member that the yield from the duty referred to does not go to the Exchequer at all, but to the relief of local taxation, and I have a shrewd suspicion that the local authorities would put in a strong claim for any increased sum likely to be derived from it. With regard to the question raised by the right honourable Member for the Forest of Dean, when I come to the discussion of the subject in Committee I will give what information I can on the points he has raised.
Resolution agreed to.

STAMP DUTIES.
2. Resolved, That in lieu of the Stamp Duties mentioned in the resolutions numbered 2 and 4, relating to Stamp Duties, agreed to by the House on the thirteenth day of April, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, there shall be charged the following Stamp Duties, namely—

(1) On all foreign and Colonial marketable securities transferable by delivery which are not at present chargeable with Stamp Duty, and which are negotiated in the United Kingdom after the first day of August, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine; and

(2) on any instrument to bearer by means of which any share or stock of any company or body of persons formed or established out of the United Kingdom is, after the first day of August, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, negotiated in the United Kingdom,

a Stamp Duty of one shilling for every ten pounds, and also for any fractional part of ten pounds, in the case of a marketable security of the money thereby secured, and in the case of any such instrument to bearer of the nominal value of the share or stock to which the instrument relates.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

STILL WINES IN BOTTLE.
3. Resolved, That, in lieu of the duties of Customs payable, under the resolution reported

539
from the Committee of Ways and Means on the fourteenth day of April, and then agreed to by the House, on still wine imported into Great Britain or Ireland in bottle there shall lie charged, levied, and paid the same duties in respect of alcoholic strength as if the wine were in cask, and an additional duty, the gallon….One shilling.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer).
Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

COLONIAL LOANS FUND KILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed—
  "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that last Session, in consequence of the objections he raised to this Bill as it then stood, the measure was withdrawn, but as far as he understood it, those grounds of objection had been removed from the present Bill, and he should no longer oppose it. The last Bill practically took the control of the matter out of the hands of the Mouse, and did not give sufficient control to the Treasury over the finances of the colonies to justify the granting of the loans. It was proposed, not that there should be a separate Bill for each loan, but that the proposals should be hidden in the annual Bill of the Public Works Loan Commissioners. But, although those blots had to a certain extent been removed, he still failed to see that there would be complete control on the part of the Treasury or Colonial Office over the colonies to which the loans would be advanced. The Colonial Secretary had told them that no money would be advanced except where full control was given to the Colonial Office, but that surely meant the abrogation of the Constitutions of the colonies borrowing. With regard to Dominica and Antigua, that had practically occurred, but there were to be loans to Barbadoes and St. Vincent to the extent of about £50,000. Would these cases come under this Bill?
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Yes.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that in that case his objection was rather greater than before, for last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the West
  540
  Indies would not come under the provisions of the Bill.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I said we did not contemplate any loans to them at the time.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Bill was introduced last year on the understanding that the West Indies would be excluded, but now it was proposed that the first two loans under it should be to colonies which could only be described as semi-bankrupt colonies. He wished to enter a caveat in regard to this matter. They had some suspicion that the main object of the Bill was to render more feasible the granting of loans for the purpose of bolstering up some of our semi-bankrupt colonies. That certainly was not the desire of the House of Commons. Further, he desired to know if the Bill would be utilised for the general consolidation of outstanding loans of Crown colonies. That was an object he would like to see attained, as many colonies had to pay high rates of interest, and the Bill would enable them to be placed on a better fiscal system. Some idea was entertained of making use of these loans for the investment of Savings Bank funds, but if there were only to be loans of £50,000 here and there that would be no assistance, seeing the large amount the Savings Bank had to invest. He now wished to ask if the House of Commons would have by a separate Bill full control over any loan proposed to any colony and if the powers would be used for the consolidation of existing Colonial loans; also would there be efficient financial control on the part of the Colonial Office and the Treasury over the different colonies to which the loans were made?
  SIR SAMUEL MONTAGUsaid he considered the Bill an exceedingly good one, bearing in mind that it recognised our responsibility towards the Crown colonies, the finances of which were absolutely under our control. He hoped that no colony of ours would fail to meet its engagements. He assumed the Bill did not apply to self-governing colonies?
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: No.
  SIR SAMUEL MONTAGU,continuing, said that for a Crown colony to be in default would be something like a crime.

  541
  He could not accept the description of his honourable friend of any colony as semi-bankrupt, for the Imperial Government could not deny its responsibility. The Bill provided for making the necessary advances to Crown colonies to rank after existing loans, and they would therefore be of the nature of a second mortgage, and existing loans would be a first mortgage and would disappear by sinking fund arrangements or other means. An offer should be made to consolidate existing loans, putting them on a sound financial basis, and converting them into Government securities, suitable for trustees, with a saving to the colonies of, £40,000 or £50,000 a year. These colonial loans would then offer a good form of investment for Savings Bank funds, a subject on which he was glad to know the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to institute an inquiry.
  MR. DILLONsaid he could not support the provisions of this Bill. He scouted the idea that a Crown colony could not be semi-bankrupt. It was well known that many of them were, and it appeared to him that the Bill was calculated to facilitate the borrowing of money by these unfortunate colonies. Clause 6 contemplated that provision should be made for the case of these colonies. Colonial catastrophes might and would arise, making payment of liabilities impossible, and a claim would then lie made on the Consolidated Fund under the clause. The House ought to be invited to consider the measure of responsibility it undertook in accepting this Bill. He supposed they would be told that it was in the interest of the spirit of imperialism that the Mother Country should take over responsibility for the liabilities of the Crown colonies, but he thought we ought at least to have some statement of the ultimate expense of the operation. He doubted if the proposal would benefit the colonies, while it was calculated to inflict a future liability on this country of the extent of which they had no definite estimate. He particularly objected to Sub-section 2 of Clause 7, and to the policy it embodied of lending the guarantee of this country to any British Protectorate or protected State. This provision was too wide, because it would include Uganda, the Soudan, East Africa, and Rhodesia. Where would they stop? Would all the West African States come
  542
  within that category? He was by no means friendly to the principle of the Bill, and he should strongly oppose some of its provisions in Committee.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I do not think the honourable Member quite appreciates the fact that no loan can be made under the provisions of this Bill. It merely provides financial machinery through which loans can be made if the House should assent to a separate Bill, which would have to be introduced, with regard to any such loan. It is impossible, therefore, that there can be a wide extension of loans throughout the Colonies and the Protectorates, such as the honourable Member supposes, without the sanction of Parliament. Replying to the honourable Members for Poplar and Whitechapel, as to the consolidation of the loans of Crown colonies, I do not think the House has always remembered the responsibility which we already bear on behalf of those colonies. It is quite true that we do not in any way guarantee their loans; they borrow on their own credit, and it is often very good. It is unfair to describe Crown colonies as bankrupt or semi-bankrupt colonies.
  MR. DILLON: I referred to some of the West Indian Colonies. I do not say it is their fault.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: The credit of some of the West Indian Colonies is good at the present time, and taking the Crown colonies generally, money might be lent to them under the system proposed by the Bill on as good security, as a rule, as can be got anywhere else. The House should bear in mind this point—if a Crown colony becomes bankrupt or semi-bankrupt, the ultimate responsibility now lies with Parliament and the country. Therefore the increased responsibility we may incur through the operation of this Bill and the Bills which might follow it authorising separate loans, is not so great as the honourable Gentleman supposes. The question of the consolidation of loans has occupied my attention, and I hope it may be effected to some extent under the provisions of the Bill. But we cannot consolidate existing loans unless those who hold them are willing to accept reasonable terms, and it is possible, judging by the price of: the loans in the market, that they may

  543
  prefer to keep their existing security until the loans are paid off. The Bill will enable the Government to utilise funds which at present they have great difficulty in utilising, and which, I believe, will be utilised through its provisions on ample security, producing great benefit to this country as well as to our colonies.
  SIR JOHN LENGsaid he believed that with the safeguards to which the right honourable Gentleman had referred, there need be no apprehension that the Government or Parliament would wantonly and recklessly squander the funds committed to their charge. With regard to Savings Bank funds he would much rather favour some means of investing them in a manner calculated to be of advantage to the colonies, than consent to hastily attempt to reduce the rate of interest on the deposits, or make any great change in the amount allowed to be deposited in any one year. It was a mistake to suppose that a large percentage of the depositors consisted of persons who might properly invest their money in other ways, for the number of deposits exceeding £100 was comparatively small. They ought to encourage depositors to invest their money in the Savings Bank, and it would be unfortunate if, when he had reached a total of £100, the depositor found the door closed to him. It was also desirable to encourage useful works in our colonies, and on the whole he thought the Government were to be commended for having brought in the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

SUPREME COURT (APPEALS) BILL [Lords].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

CLAUSE 1.
Question again proposed,
"That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

SUPPLY—REPORT [5th MAY].
Resolution reported.
Civil Services and Revenue Departments Estimates, 1899–1900.

CLASS 2.
"That a sum, not exceeding £133,098, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year-ending on the 31st day of March, 1900, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
Resolution read A second time.
MR. WEIR*MR. WEIR (ROSS and Cromarty) moved to reduce this Vote by £100. He said that on Friday night last he was prevented from doing so in Committee. Within the last three years he had called the attention of the Board of Trade to the serious overcrowding of railway carriages in large cities. He thought steps should be taken to stop this overcrowding, and the railway companies should be compelled to remedy it. Clause 7 of the railway bye-laws states, that when a carriage contains the full number of passengers no additional persons shall remain therein, and that they may be removed by any duly authorised agent of the company, and that for overcrowding, passengers are liable to a tine of 40s. for the first offence, and afterwards to a penalty of £5. Too much power is in the hands of the railway companies, and it is for this reason that he pressed the right honourable Gentleman to take some steps to compel them to provide better facilities for passengers. The railway companies should provide more carriages of the class chiefly in demand. No doubt he would be told that the platforms were not long enough. To that he would reply, "Make the platforms longer." He thought in this matter that the convenience of the public should be considered first and not the railway companies. He only wished that the President of the Board of Trade would put his foot down and show that his Department were the masters of the situation.
MR. SPEAKER: When the honourable Member speaks of the power of the Board of Trade to shorten or lengthen platforms he is not in order, because it is not the duty

545
of that Department to control such matters.
MR. WEIRproceeded to say that on page 2 of the bye-laws it was provided that any person failing to leave the carriage when requested to do so by any duly authorised person might be removed under the direction if such servant or agent. Under this new bye-law it would be competent for any servant of the company, any of those small boys so numerously employed, to request passengers to come out, and to call for assistance to eject them, and stop them at any stage of the journev. The other might lie applied at a booking-office for a ticket and he was told "This is the last train; go without your ticket." Now if this bye-law had been confirmed by the Board of Trade, it would have been quite possible for any official to have turned him out at any intermediate station. He sincerely hoped that the right honourable Gentleman would take care that these bye-laws were so modified as to suit the convenience of passengers, and that the interests of the railway companies would be studied rather less in future. It was provided in the bye-laws that every passenger in the train should be supplied with means of communication, and he should like to see that bye-law enforced, He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would give his attention to this matter, and not allow the railway companies to control the Board of Trade. With regard to private lines, the Board of Trade gave facilities to companies to join with other main lines, but took no power to control the level crossings of these private lines. He should like better arrangements made at level crossings for the protection of the public. Then there was the question of the trawlers sailing at night without lights. Now the Board of Trade had power to impose penalties on trawlers who failed to carry lights at night. He asked the right honourable Gentleman to give some attention to this matter and to see that the penalties were inflicted. If those penalties were insufficient to deter trawlers from sailing without lights, a bye-law inflicting heavier penalties should be made. There was also a matter in connection with the water supply in his own constituency at a railway station. He had previously brought the matter under the notice of the Board of Trade. The other day he had occasion to inquire again,
546
and he did so in consequence of the report of the medical officer of health for the county, who complained of the unsatisfactory state of the water supply at that station. In reply to his question, the right honourable Gentleman stated that he could not go down and inquire as to the working of the water filter at that station. The manager of the railway company had stated that the water supply was ample, but he asked the right honourable Gentleman not to accept the statement of the officer of the railway company, but to accept the report of the medical officer for the county. He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would attend to this matter, for it had now been going on for three years. On page 110 of the Estimates there was a sum put down under the heading of superintendent of publications and assistant librarian. He received £800 a year, and he provided out of that an assistant librarian whose salary was not mentioned. Now, he objected to a system of sweating in any Government office. They did not know whether this assistant was brushed off with £2 or £3 a week, for it was not stated. On page 112 there were items connected with the Patent Office. Now that Office produced a revenue of £230,000 a year, and the expenses amounted to £63,000 a year, which left a balance of £167,000 of clear profit. He contended that the Patent Office ought not to be a profit-making concern, but that every encouragement should be given to the inventor. The struggles of poor inventors were many and great. Many of them struggled hard, lived in the humblest abode, and often spent their last shilling in the development of an idea which they believed would lead on to fortune. When they had developed their invention they went to the Patent Office, and had to pay very large fees and take a considerable amount of risk. In regard to the registration of patents, he I advocated the adoption of the system now working in America, which worked very satisfactorily indeed. He knew that reductions were made some years ago, but they had not been satisfactory to the inventor.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out '£133,098,' in order to insert '£132,998.'"—(Mr. Weir.)
instead thereof.
Question proposed—
"That '£133,098'stand part of the resolution."
MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSONsaid that on Friday night last he took up the time of the House discussing many questions affecting the shipping interest, but the right honourable Gentleman gave him very unsatisfactory answers on several points, although on the majority of the matters which were brought to his notice the answers were not altogether unsatisfactory. There was one case to which he wanted to call the special attention of the right honourable Gentleman, and it was with regard to the steamer, the "Tuscan Prince." He had asked the right honourable Gentleman whether this steamer had carried passengers in the shape of pilgrims from Jaffa, and whether this steamer had a Board of Trade certificate, and was licensed to carry passengers. The reply he received was that she carried no passengers, had no certificate to carry passengers, and carried no surgeon. He did not know what inquiry the right honourable Gentleman had made, or whether he had communicated directly with the owners of the vessel. He, however, had received a letter from one of the men who was serving on the ship, a copy of which lie had forwarded to the right honourable Gentleman. That letter, stating the full facts, was signed by a seaman who was on board the "Tuscan Prince," and he wanted to know how it was that this steamer was allowed without any licence whatever to carry 100 pilgrim passengers, huddled together on the foredeck of that vessel, and apparently, in addition to the passengers, she also carried a deck cargo of sheep. That was a very serious state of affairs if it was possible for shipowners to run their vessels and carry passengers without being properly inspected and manned, and when a question was put to the right honourable Gentleman by him with regard to the matter, he got the reply, "I am informed that the 'Tuscan Prince' carried no passengers." He did not think that it was quite the correct thing that, after a complaint was made to the Board of Trade with regard to a breaeh of the regulations, they should simply communicate with the owners, who denied that the state of things was as represented, and then no further inquiry was
548
made. The Board of Trade had ample opportunities of inquiring whether the statements of this sailor were correct, and if they found them to be accurate he trusted that there would be no further delay on the part of the Board of Trade in putting the law in force and punishing the offenders. He should not be at all surprised at cholera being imported into this country by steamers carrying those pilgrims from infected places, when they were put on board British steamers in this mean manner, huddled together on the foredeck of the vessel, without any proper protection, and without any surgeon. If this was the way in which the Board of Trade managed its business, it was not very creditable to them, and they had no right to come to this House and ask honourable Members to vote money in order to mismanage the business in that manner. He had had some controversy with the right honourable Gentleman with regard to the articles that were to be supplied to seamen, and he had objected to the continuous discharges system. The right honourable Gentleman had declared that this system was the best, and he had appointed a Departmental Committee. In the first place, he objected to a Departmental Committee inquiring into such an important subject, which concerned the interests of shipowners, captains, and seamen. If a committee was to be appointed, then let it be a committee of this House, and let all the shipping interests be properly represented. The right honourable Gentleman had taken a most unusual course. He declared emphatically in favour of continuous discharges, and said that in his opinion that system, with a character, was the best to adopt, and then he appointed a Committee of his own officials to inquire into the subject. Now, he had the greatest possible respect for the permanent officials of the Board of Trade, but the remarkable thing was that the President of the Board of Trade has declared himself in favour of a certain system, and he was now asking his officials to inquire and report to him upon that very subject. He asked the right honourable Gentleman in all fairness did he really think his own officials would report against his own desire and against his expressed wish and opinion? He did not think they would, for his opinion was that they would not dare to do anything of the kind, and in all probability they would report in favour of the system

549
which the right honourable Gentleman had evidently been convinced was the right system by certain shipowners, and he was disregarding entirely the views of the seamen. The right honourable Gentleman replied the other night, "We will ! have the continuous discharges, but if they do not like to have them they can have the ordinary single discharge when they are paid off at the end of every voyage." Now, was it any use whatever to appoint a Committee to inquire into such an important question when the Committee had already made up its mind to recommend a continuous discharge for seamen which they could have if they liked, and if they did not like it they could have the old form? The result would be, that as long as a man had got a "V.G.," or a good character, he would stand by the continuous discharge, but as soon as he had the misfortune to get with a captain with whom he could not agree, and he got a report for bad conduct, he would throw his continuous discharge on one side and take up the single discharge, which he could buy for 3d., 4d., or 1s. He wanted to remind the right honourable Gentleman that he was not making any provision as to the time that a seaman must serve before he was entitled to be rated as an able seaman or fireman, and that was, after all, the most important point for which they were contending. They wanted men to be qualified seamen, and, if the shipowners chose, they could have an examination of competency, and make every seaman pass that examination. No man could be a qualified able seaman unless he had had three years' service on board a ship. At the present time, when ships were so badly manned, it was all the more important that they should have good men. Under this system any kind of men would be allowed to continue to go to sea. He knew that shipowners suffered some inconvenience through men failing to join their ships after having signed their articles. Now if a man gave in his continuous discharge and missed his vessel, he could send up to the Registrar-General and get another copy for 6d. or 1s., and he could ship the next day in another vessel. What they wanted was a parchment certificate, and when a man signed on he should hand that certificate in to the captain, and if he failed to join the vessel it should be returned to the Board of Trade, and when he wanted to join another ship he
550
would have to apply to the Board of Trade for his parchment, and then they could suspend his certificate for one, two, or three months as a punishment. With regard to foreigners, he had never objected to them being on board British ships, but did the right honourable Gentleman propose to give licences to foreigners who could not speak a word of English? The crew of the "Afghan Prince" was made up of men belonging to twelve different nationalities, and that was a nice state of affairs to have on board a ship. Surely they were not going to carry interpreters for them all, and they would not get a boatswain who understood twelve languages at £4 10s. a month. He thought that if a foreigner was allowed on board an English ship he ought to understand our language so as not to endanger the lives of the people on the vessel. Why should this question be referred to a Departmental Committee instead of to a Committee of this House? The House very often appointed Committees on far less important subjects, and there was a strong feeling in the House in favour of an inquiry into this question. The right honourable Gentleman had said that no continuous discharge would be of any use whatever unless the character and conduct of the man was inserted in it. He would accept that if the right honourable Gentleman would go a little further and say that wherever a seaman had been given a bad discharge, and felt himself aggrieved about it, he should have the right to appeal to some independent authority to have his case tried on its merits. It was for that reason, and many others, that he hoped the right honourable Gentleman would consider the matter and see if he could not give them a Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the whole subject. With regard to the North Atlantic winter load-line, he was not at all satisfied with the answer given by the right honourable Gentleman, nor with the manner in which the change had been brought about, and he ventured to say that some day there would be more noise made about it. The shipowners asked for this, and the seamen and officers never asked for it at all. The right honourable Gentleman granted the shipowners this Committee, but he took good care to exclude from it those very persons whose interest it was most of all to be there. It had been said that the matter was such a

551
highly technical one, dealing with load-lines and freeboards, that the seamen would be of very little use on such a Committee. He thought that was a reflection on the seamen which the right honourable Gentleman was not justified in passing, for seamen did understand when a ship had sufficient freeboard. No Report of this Committee had been laid upon the Table of the House, and they did not know really what had been done. The evidence had never been printed, and without having had a proper opportunity of discussing this matter the alteration was to be enforced. He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would give orders for that evidence to be printed, for Parliament had a right to have that evidence. The proposal was to alter the load-line to the extent of another six inches, but it was only vessels of over 350 feet in length that were able to load to this extent, and the more freeboard the less cargo she would carry. The one anxiety of the shipowners was to carry cargo, but as far as he was concerned he said, "Hang the cargo!" if it was a question of risking the lives of the sailors, which they ought: to consider before the cargo. Ho would like to ask the right honourable Gentleman how many of this Committee were in favour of the change. He had heard that there were a considerable number of the members of the Committee who were opposed to it, and if the captains, engineers, and seamen had been represented on that Committee there would have been no change whatever. He therefore asked that the House should have an opportunity of considering the evidence, and should have a day for the discussion of this question. There was one other matter to which he desired to allude. At North Shields one of the Board of Trade officials had been charged by four seamen with receiving money for providing employment. The matter had been before the Board of Trade for some two or three weeks, and as far as he could ascertain at the present time no action had been taken. The case was considered by the local Marine Board, who were the responsible parties at North Shields, and their report had boon sent to the Board of Trade in London. He would like to ask if any further action had been taken by the Board of Trade in the matter. He apologised to the House for taking up so; much time, but really the shipping ques-
552
tion was such a big and important subject I that they could not discuss matters concerning it in a few minutes.
MR. JOHN WILSONcalled the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the state of the level crossing at Falkirk on the North British Railway, where, during the last twenty years the traffic had increased immensely, and the danger to the population was now very great indeed. The Burgh Council had taken action in the matter, and he believed they had been successful. He wished, however, to have the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade upon the matter, and he should like the right honourable Gentleman to make a recommendation to the railway company in question that greater care should be taken with regard to this level crossing.
MR. DALYdrew attention to certain grievances of his constituents arising out of the management and state of the Great Northern Railway of Ireland. He thought that there had been great neglect of duty on the part of the Board of Trade, who only found out that the line of railway was in such a state of disrepair after such accidents had happened as had happened in Monaghan. It was not after lives were lost and people had been maimed that the Board of Trade should find out the state of the railway on which such an accident had occurred. He also wished to call attention to another matter with regard to this line of railway. Great inconvenience was caused by the scarcity of trains. At one town there were only two stopping trains a day, one at 10 in the morning and another at 8 o'clock at night. That was a shocking state of things, having regard to the importance of the town, and so far as ho was able, he would keep those matters before the House until redress was obtained. Ho hoped, however, that he would obtain from the President of the Board of Trade some promise that something would shortly be done to remedy the evils he complained of.
MR. STEADMANcalled attention to the case of a lighterman who was drowned recently in the Thames in consequence of his skiff being swamped by the wash of a foreign

553
vessel. If the like happened in the case of a British vessel in foreign waters, it was detained until a satisfactory settlement had taken place, but if an accident was caused by a foreign vessel trading in English waters there was no power to detain the vessel. The right honourable Gentleman had promised some legislation on that important question, and he hoped he would use his influence to obtain it. The honourable Member also called attention to the overcrowding of third-class carriages in morning and evening trains on the Metropolitan and Great Eastern Railways. When workmen were going to and from their work the trains were overcrowded to a scandalous degree. He hoped the right honourable Gentleman would exercise the power he had at his disposal to stop such overcrowding, which had become a public scandal.
MR. CHANNINGdesired to know whether the right honourable Gentleman intended to take any steps in consequence of the very serious finding of the Court of Inquiry with regard to the wreck of the "Stella," and whether any recommendations would be issued to the companies which ran the Channel Islands steamers. He also wished to know the number of inquiries held by the inspectors of the Board during the past year into fatal accidents to individual railway servants. He had repeatedly protested against the distinction made by the Board of Trade between fatalities in mines and fatalities among railway servants, and he thought that the two classes of fatality ought to be dealt with in the same way. He thought that an expert from the Board of Trade should be present at the inquiries, and should take an active part in bringing to light the cause of the fatalities in question. He also expressed a wish to know whether any steps had been taken to increase the number of inquiries by the Board of Trade into the fatalities among railway servants. He complained that the public were left in the dark as to the proceedings of the sub-inspectors, who were appointed by Mr. Mundella some years ago. Their inquiries had, it was true, led to the better lighting of goods yards and improvements in shunting, but there was no accurate information as to the inquiries they had held in relation to the accidents which had occurred. A third point which he desired to bring before the
554
House was in regard to the offer made to bring about a better mode of conciliation in industrial disputes. He regretted that that offer had not yet been carried out, and he wished to know whether there was any prospect of further action being taken during the ensuing year to bring about a better system of conciliation than existed at the present time.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): The honourable Member for Northampton has raised questions of detail which I hardly expected to be raised at this stage. I desire to supply the information asked for, but I am not provided with it; if the honourable Member will put any question on the Paper with regard to any of the matters I will do the best I can, and give the fullest information in my power. Like the honourable Gentleman, I greatly regret that the employers did not see their way to adopt some such method of endeavouring to put a stop to trade disputes as those which I originated. The employed, I am glad to say, showed a great disposition to fall in with the views I expressed, and to meet the masters in the hope of arriving at some settlement. I hope, at all events, I was right in believing that the spirit of conciliation in larger matters even than that now in question is growing, not only in this country, but in the world generally. I shall be glad to hear that capital and labour have settled on some means by which these disastrous disputes can be put a stop to. I am sorry my proposals did not succeed, but I do not regret having made them. I know that when the Board of Trade or myself endeavour to put an end to individual disputes or to set up some permanent machinery, and are not successful, those efforts are regarded as great failures, and it is said it would have been better if we had not moved in the matter. I do not share that view. I am quite prepared to bear the criticism which has been passed upon me, and I do not regret any step I have taken. The honourable Gentleman asked whether the Board of Trade was prepared with any further representations. When I receive the report with reference to railway accidents it may be my duty to make some representations to the railway companies. As to the level crossing to which the honourable Member for Falkirk has called attention, the Board of Trade

555
has no power of interference, as the crossing is one which was made before the Board had jurisdiction. It was made under parliamentary powers, over which the Board of Trade have no power, and at a time when it was little used, though now it is used very greatly. I am always willing to make representations to the railway company, but at the same time the remedy is a very costly one. I am afraid I have no power over the railway in Monaghan. The honourable Member representing that constituency was rather severe in his criticisms upon the Board of Trade for not overlooking the whole of the railways throughout the country and making them safe. It would be impossible for any Government department to undertake the inspection of the great lines of railway, and see that they were in a proper state of repair. Railway companies must take care of their own lines, but if an accident takes place the Board of Trade holds an inquiry, and the railway company is held responsible. It is a serious grievance that no train should stop at a railway station for ten hours. I have remonstrated with the railway company, and they have not responded as I expected. It is a serious grievance to the people of the town, and I think that this particular company should remember that it exists not only to pay dividends, but to serve the public, although they might not see any immediate profit in what might be necessary. The honourable Member for Stepney has alluded to a matter which was hardly in order, but with regard to that I can only repeat what I said the other day, that we must see how the law stands before we take action. He also alluded to the overcrowding, which is much to be regretted. On the Metropolitan Railway I have been in first-class compartments in which one could hardly breathe. But everyone must admit it is impossible for the companies to control all the persons who travel, and allowances must be made for those travelling at certain hours, who are willing to put up with it because they naturally wish to got home as quickly as possible. It is suggested that we ought to prosecute the railway companies for overcrowding, but I do not see why the Board of Trade should become general prosecutors. If offences against the bye-laws are committed, it is open to any passenger to take active steps, but to prosecute whenever a breach of the bye-
556
laws is committed is a thing the Board of Trade cannot undertake, as such action would tend to show that the President of the Board of Trade was master of the situation—which, as a matter of fact, he is not—and any such attempt must result in failure. Still, I will endeavour to bring the companies up to the mark in this respect. With regard to the water question which has been referred to, I cannot undertake to look after water wherever it is found. The honourable Member for Caithness was rather indignant with regard to the matter of the salary of the Superintendent of Publications, having regard to the fact that no salary is put down for the assistant librarian, and instanced it as another case of sweating. If either of these gentlemen sweats the other I have no sympathy with them, because both positions happen to be held by the same individual. The honourable Member for Middlesbrough, who had a good innings the other night, has repeated much of what he said on that occasion, and I have nothing to add to the reply then given. The objections of the honourable Gentleman to continuous discharges I cannot understand, for they must be of advantage to seamen as records of service, when they wish to obtain berths on other ships. The Board of Trade Departmental Committee has not been appointed for the purpose of deciding whether there shall or shall not be these discharges, but for the purpose of considering the conditions under which those discharges shall be given. Then the honourable Member referred to the "Tuscan Prince," and said that it was a monstrous thing that this ship should have been carrying passengers without an ordinary certificate. When the honourable Gentleman put a question to me on the subject before, we communicated with the owners of the vessel, but the reply has not been received. The honourable Gentleman has since been informed that 100 pilgrims were carried to Jaffa. But, Sir, the honourable Member is quite mistaken if he supposes that the owners require any certificate from us to carry the pilgrims. Then the honourable Member talked about those poor people lying about on deck and not having sleeping accommodation. I invite any honourable Member who has had experience of Eastern travel to say whether this class of passengers do not prefer to remain on deck, and whether it

557
is not very much healthier for thorn to do so. The honourable Member do voted a considerable portion of his speech to the question of the North Atlantic winter load-line, and objected to the constitution of the Committee because there was no seaman representative. I say again that that Committee consisted of men with technical knowledge, and it is perfectly useless to put seamen on the Committee who have no knowledge whatever of technical matters. The honourable Member seemed to think that there were only shipowners on the Committee, and he made use of an expression to the effect that they had no solicitude about the lives of seamen, and only cared to carry as much cargo as possible. I do not believe that shipowners have no solicitude for the lives of seamen. Of course shipowners wish to carry as much cargo as they can. And why not? Does the honourable Gentleman wish British ships to be quite incapable of competing with foreign ships? If you prevent the British ship from carrying cargo which it can properly and with safety carry, then I say you are putting it under a great disadvantage with its rivals, and the Committee ought to consider whether or not the existing load-line is now appropriate, having regard to the great change that has taken place as to the lives of seamen. I may tell the honourable Gentleman that every member of the Committee signed the report, with the exception of the Canadian representative, who was abroad at the time, but who, I believe, concurred. The honourable Gentleman says he has not seen the Report. The Report of the Committee was presented to the

AYES.

Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex, F.

Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, E.)

Fellowes, Hon, Ailwyn Edward

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Archdale, Edward Mervyn

Chaloner, Captain R. G. W.

Fisher, William Hayes

Arnold, Alfred

Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore'r

Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Fitz Wygram, General Sir F.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy

Charrington, Spencer

Fletcher, Sir Henry

Balearres, Lord

Clare, Octavins Leigh

Flower, Ernest

Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Forster, Henry William

Balfour, Rt. Hon Grld W. (Leeds

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Gedge, Sydney

Banbury, Frederick George

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Gibbs, Hn. Vicary (St. Albans)

Barnes, Fredk, Gofell

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Giles, Charles Tyrrell

Barton, Dunbar Plunket

Cranborne, Viscount

Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Bristol

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Goldsworthy, Major-General

Bethell, Commander

Curzon, Viscount

Gordon, Hon. John Edward

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Blakiston-Houston, John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Goschen Rt. Hn. G J (St George's

Bond, Edward

Denny, Colonel

Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

Doughty, George

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Brassey, Albert

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Carmichael, Sir T. D. Gibson-

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Gretton, John

House on the 23rd of March, 1899, and is now lying on the Table. There has been no concealment on the part of the Board of Trade, as the whole of the honourable Gentleman's speech seemed to imply. I may further add that I have consulted the Chairman of the Committee, and he has no objection to the publication of the evidence, which will be printed.
DR. CLARKsaid there was one point which the right honourable Gentleman had not referred to—viz., the proposed new bye-laws of the North Eastern Railway Company, and the right claimed there to deal with passengers without a ticket.
MR. RITCHIE: Perhaps the honourable Member will allow me to explain. Of course, as the honourable Gentleman knows, the Board of Trade does not make the rules. The rules are submitted to the Board, and they approve of them. The North Eastern Company submitted a code of rules to the Board for their approval. They were advertised and made as public as possible. Several objections were taken to some of them, representations were made to the company on the subject, and the company is taking the matter into consideration. The Department, however, has not yet received the revised rules.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 132; Noes 33.—(Division List, No 143.)

Gull, Sir Cameron

M'Calmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gunter, Colonel

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord George

Middlemore, John Throgmort'n

Rutherford, John

Helder, Augustus

Mil bank, Sir Powlett C. John

Ryder, John Herbert Dudley

Hill, Arthur (Down, West)

Milton, Viscount

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Howorth, Sir Henry Hoyle

Moore, William (Antrim, N.)

Simeon, Sir Barrington

Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

More, Rbt. Jasper (Shropshire)

Stanley, Hon Arthur(Ormskirk

Johnston, William (Belfast)

Morrell, George Herbert

Stanley, Lord (Lanes)

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Morton, Arthr. H. A. (Deptford

Strauss, Arthur

Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

Mount, William George

Sturtt, Hon. Chas. Hedley

Kenyon-Slavney, Col. William

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute

Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

Keswick, William

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Knowles, Lees

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Laurie, Lieut. - General

Myers, William Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Lawrence, Sir E. Durning-(Corn

Newdigate, Francis Alexander

Welby, Lieut. -Col. A. C. E.

Lecky, Rt Hon William Edw. H.

Nicol, Donald Ninian

Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Northcote, Hon. Sir H. Stafford

Whitmore, Charles Alger on

Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

Pilkington, Richard

Williams, Jsph. Powell (Birm.

Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

Purvis, Robert

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Long, Rt. Hon. Walter (Liverp'l)

Rankin, Sir James

Wyndham, George

Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

Rentoul, James Alexander

Young, Commander (Berks, E.)

Macdona, John Cumming

Richardson, Sir Thos. (Hartlep'l

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Rickett, J. Compton

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

NOES.

Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Goddard, Daniel Ford

Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

Billson, Alfred

Holland, Wm. H. (York, W. R.)

Robson, William Snowdon

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Horniman, Frederick John

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Caldwell, James

Jones, William (Carnarvon)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cumb'land

Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

Channing, Francis Allston

Macaleese, Daniel

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

M'Leod, John

Wedderburn, Sir William

Colville, John

Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport

Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

Daly, James

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Weir and Mr. Havelock Wilson.

Davitt, Michael

Pease, Joseph A. (Northumb.)

Doogan, P. C.

Philipps, John Wynford

Resolution agreed to.

WINES IMPORTED.
Return presented,—relative thereto [Ordered 12th May; Mr. Gold]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 196.]

ADJOURNMENT.
Motion made, and Question—
"That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Balfour.)
Put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes before Twelve of the clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS

  JONESS DIVORCE BILL. [Lords.]
  A witness ordered to attend.
  Petition of Charlotte Jane Jones, of St. Helen's, Dalkey, in the County of Dublin, that substituted service of a copy of the Bill be made upon Robert Colvill Jones and Ffolliot Jones, cousins of Robert Colvill Jones, the husband of the said Charlotte Jane Jones; and that the depositions of A. M. Harry, Jagesvari alias Bigili, and Anupa, taken on commission in India in pursuance of Orders of the Queen's Bench Matrimonial Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland dated the 16th of January, 1889, and the 29th of March, 1899, be received in evidence on the Second Reading of the Bill, or that in the alternative the examination of the said A. M. Hurry, Jagesvari alias Bigili, and Anupa, touching the allegations mentioned in the petition, be taken in India, and that a proper warrant or warrants be issued for that purpose; considered (according to order): Counsel called in: A Witness examined: Bill to be read 2 on Tuesday next: The usual orders made: Ordered, that service of a copy of the Bill, and of the Order for the Second Reading thereof, upon the said Robert Colvill Jones and Ffolliot Jones, be deemed as good service of the said Bill and Order as if the same had been personally served upon the said Robert Colville Jones, the husband of the said Charlotte Jane Jones: Ordered, that the said depositions of A. M. Harry, Jagesvari alias Bigili, and Anupa, be received in evidence on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

  TAFF VALE RAILWAY.

  LISBURN TOWN COMMISSIONERS.

  SCUNTHORPE URBAN DISTRICT GAS AND WATER.

  And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with—

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON). [Lords.]
  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LIVERPOOL). [Lords.]
  The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL. [Lords.]
The Queen's Consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
ALL SAINTS CHURCH (CARDIFF) BILL. [Lords.]
Reported with Amendments.
NUNEATON AND CHILVERS COTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
Reported with Amendments.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN RAILWAY BILL.
Reported without Amendment.
WOODHOUSE AND CONISBROUGH RAILWAY (ABANDONMENT) BILL.
Reported with an Amendment.
PORT TALBOT RAILWAY AND DOCKS BILL. [Lords.]
Reported with Amendments.
COLONIAL AND FOREIGN BANKS GUARANTEE FUND BILL. [Lords.]
Committee to meet on Monday next.
BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL. [Lords.]
Committee to meet on Monday next.
TENTERDEN RAILWAY BILL
Committee to meet on Monday next.
FURNESS RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
Committee to meet on Monday next.
STRETFORD GAS BILL. [Lords.]
Committee to meet on Monday next.
BRIGG URBAN DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Committee to meet on Monday next.
GREAT NORTHERN AND STRAND RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (PENSIONS) BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
SHOTLEY BRIDGE AND CONSETT DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
WISHAW WATER BILL. [Lords.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HAMPSTEAD CHURCH (EMMANUEL, WEST END) BILL. [Lords].
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GAINSBOROUGH URBAN DTSTRICT COUNCIL (GAS) BILL. [Lords.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
GREAT YARMOUTH WATER BILL. [Lords.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LEIGH-ON-SEA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [Lords.]
Read 3a, Amendments made, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
DUNDEE GAS, TRAMWAYS, AND EXTENSION BILL. [Lords.] Now DUNDEE GAS, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND TRAMWAYS BILL. [Lords.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HORSFORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
AYR BURGH BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
GAS LIGHT AND COKE COMPANY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
KENSINGTON AND NOTTTNG HILL ELECTRIC LIGHTING BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTH-EASTERN AND LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
SOUTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
DUBLIN IMPROVEMENT (BULL ALLEY AREA) BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
BRISTOL FLOODS PREVENTION BILL. [Lords.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
PERTH WATER, POLICE, AND GAS BILL. [Lords.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with an Amendment: The said amendment considered, and agreed to.
LOUGHBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [Lords.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL. [Lords.]
Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill.
CALEDONIAN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL. [Lords.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 6th and 24th of March last discharged; and Bill committed.
ROCHDALE CANAL BILL. [Lords.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on the 2nd of March and Friday last discharged; and Bill committed.

MARYPORT HARBOUR BILL. [Lords.]
The orders made on the 2nd instant

433
and Tuesday last, appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bill, discharged.

NORTH-EASTERN RAILWAY BILL. [Lords.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Ventry be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Wrottesley; read, and agreed to.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL. [Lords.]
To be read 2a on Monday next.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LIVERPOOL) BILL. [Lords.]
To be read 2a on Monday next.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL. [Lords.]
Read 2a (according to order).
PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
METROPOLITAN COMMON SCHEME (HARROW WEALD) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 89.)
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  General Report by the Chief Inspector of the Southern Division of Scotland, for the year 1898.

TRADE REPORTS.
I. Annual Series:
No. 2255. Russia (Odessa).
No. 2256. United States (New York).
No. 2257. United States (Galveston).
No. 2251. China (Shashih).
II. Miscellaneous Series:
No. 503. Commercial education in Italy.

PRISONS (TREATMENT OF DEBTOR PRISONERS UNDER NEW RULES).
Circular, dated 25th April, 1899, addressed to Judges of County Courts, by direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, calling attention to the changes made by the rules under Section 6 (3) of the Prison Act, 1898, with regard to the treatment of debtor prisoners.
PRISON ACT, 1898.
Circular, dated 25th April, 1899, addressed to the Chairman of each Bench of Magistrates, calling attention to the Prison Act, 1898, and the rules made under it.
NAVY (HYDROGRAPHER'S REPORT).
Report on Admiralty Surveys, for the year 1898, by the Hydrographer.
TRADE.
Annual Statement of Trade of United Kingdom with Foreign Countries and British Possessions for 1898, compared with the four preceding years.

SOUTH AMERICA (COMMERCIAL MISSION).
Reports received from Mr. T. Worthington, the Special Commissioner appointed by the Board of Trade to inquire into and report upon the conditions and prospects of British trade in certain South American countries. Sixth Report.— Uruguay.
Presented [by command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

INDIA.
I. Estimate of revenue and expenditure of the Government of India, for the year 1898–99, compared with the results of 1897–98.

II. Finance and revenue accounts of the Government of India, for the year 1897–98.

III. Home accounts of the Government of India.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
Statement of the estimated income and expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and of Travers' Foundation for 1899–1900.

SUPERANNUATION.
Treasury Minute, dated 2nd May 1899, declaring that Thomas Benson, chief mate,

435
Revenue cruiser, "Vigilant," in the service of the Commissioners of Customs, was appointed without a Civil Service certificate through inadvertance on the part of the head of his Department.

IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
Account of all moneys issued from the Consolidated Fund, of sums borrowed, and of transactions in relation to sums so borrowed, up to 31st March 1899, in pursuance of the Imperial Defence Act, 1888.

NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) PENSIONS FUND.
Annual accounts of receipts and payments for the period to 31st December, 1898.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and ordered to lie on the Table.

METROPOLITAN WATER COMPANIES BILL.
House to be in Committee on Tuesday next.
CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
A Bill to amend the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 88.)
ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES BILL.
To be read 2a on Monday next: (The Earl of Dudley).
PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
SOLICITORS BILL [Lords].
Returned from the Committee agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed. (No. 87.)
ALLOTMENTS (LONDON) BILL [Lords].

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL CARRINGTON: The Bill which I move shall be read a second time is identically the same as that which I
  436
  brought in last year, and which was then thrown out by a majority of 87 to 25. I need hardly detain the House by going into the merits of the Bill again. I need only say that we have 14,000 acres of land which is fit for cultivation in the County of London, and which could be profitably cultivated. Under the present conditions, as we are unable to let anything under an acre, under the Small Holdings Act of 1892, we are at a great disadvantage. We are obliged to let an acre, which is afterwards sub-let, which is a great evil, and prevents us letting the land as we wish to do. Your Lordships are aware that the Land Acts of 1887 and 1890 do not apply to the County of London, and if the House would be good enough to give the power to do so, we could, I think, double the number of our allotments. I do not think that I am asking a great favour on behalf of the County Council when I ask that this power should be given, because I must remind the House that the County Council have been able to carry through the Blaekwall Tunnel (without the loss of a single life); have added 1,000 acres to the public parks, re-organised and re-equipped the Fire Brigade, and added to the number of the Brigade 400 men, which is an amount equal to a regiment of Life Guards; have taken over the tramways and reduced the hours, and increased the wages of the men; have cleared the sewage out of the Thames so that fish come 20 miles further up stream than they did before; and are going to make our tunnel at Rotherhithe; and will soon commence the improvement of the great street between Holborn and the Strand. All this has been done at no great expense to the ratepayers, because the rate has been reduced by one halfpenny this year. I submit, therefore, to the House, that the County Council are not asking for a duty to be imposed upon them which they cannot perform, and I ask this House to allow us to let to a solvent and industrious artisan one-tenth of an acre of land instead of restricting us to letting not less than one acre. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  Moved—
  "That the Bill be now read 2a."
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not desire to interpose between the House and

  437
  the noble Lord who represents the Local Government Board, but as I am Chairman of the Allotments Committee of the County Council, I might say I was rather surprised to hear the noble Earl hang on to this measure an enumeration of all the great deeds which the County Council have done, which have nothing to do with this Bill. The object which the noble Earl has in view is a very simple one. The County Council have no power to let less than one acre, and if they wish to let allotments of under one acre they are obliged to avail themselves of the services of a middleman. In order to achieve that end, the noble Earl brings in a Bill of five pages and sixteen clauses, and it seems to me it would have been extremely easy for the noble Earl simply to ask the House to give power to the London County Council to allot less than one acre of land. I think it is rather straining the patience of this House to bring in this Bill in order to derive such a small gain. I think the noble Earl could hardly expect to be able to pass such a long and elaborate Bill for such a simple purpose.
  LORD HARRIS: The noble Earl has deduced no further arguments on this occasion than he did last year when he attempted to pass a similar Bill. I am able to adduce a further strong argument in favour of our rejecting the Bill, but before I do so I may remind the House of the argument I put before it last year. It is entirely erroneous to suppose that the allotments are in the neighbourhood of the urban part of London. The 14,000 acres are, I imagine, in the outskirts of the County Council area, and in these outskirts it is quite possible and easy, if there is land available, and if the local authorities find there is a demand and they are determined to meet it, to arrange it. Requests have been received from Greenwich and Charlton that the powers of parish councils shall be given to them for the purposes of opening up land for allotment. The only vestries that have applied have been given those powers; and, as far as we know, in the only parishes where allotments are required they are granted under this process. It is a perfectly simple process, and there is no necessity for bringing in such a body as the County Council to deal with the matter. It is advantageous in another way. If the County Council are given these powers the costs will be
  438
  upon the ratepayers of London who have no interest in the matter whatever, instead of the ratepayers of the parishes that are concerned. Then I beg to remind this House that the powers which the noble Earl now asks for have been given to no county council of England; and yet, though the London County Council is distinct and different in many ways from the other county councils of the country, the noble Earl asks you to give a power to them which you have refused to every other county council in England. The last argument which I would venture to point out to your Lordships against your approving this measure is that the London Government Bill is now before Parliament, and under that Bill new areas are being created and new authorities are being created for their government, and it might be possible, if Parliament pleased, to confer on any of these authorities the powers suggested. If the County Council is in earnest in this matter it is quite possible for them to procure that these powers shall vest in the new local authorities by getting an Amendment proposed to that effect to the Bill now occupying attention in another place.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I fully expected that the noble Lord would oppose this measure. That opposition arises out of the incredible jealousy which exists against the County Council of London on the part of the Government. Is it, or is it not, desirable for London that there should be these facilities for getting these allotments? It could do no harm and it certainly might do some good. The noble Lord has told us that any parishes could apply to the Local Government Board for these powers, but as a matter of fact none have ever done so. The whole question is, whether or not we think it is desirable that there should be a convenient and specified mode of giving these allotments where they would be welcome. So far as I can see the noble Lord has given us no arguments of any kind or description against the Bill, and I think the opposition is the most uncalled-for and the most mischievous.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: The noble Earl has urged as a reason for objecting to this Bill that it is long and complicated and that the object which is sought to be achieved by it could be effected by

  439
  a short Bill. On that ground I can claim the noble Earl as a supporter of this Bill, and I have every right to do so, because he was the Chairman of the Allotments Committee of the County Council and as Chairman of that Committee he has given his assent to this very Bill. The Bill was recommended to the Council by a Committee of which the noble Earl was Chairman.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No, that was before I was Chairman.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: So far as I understand he has made no protest whatever against the Bill, and I contend that he is bound and wrapped up in the Bill that is now before us. Lord Harris has said that he cannot consent to this Bill because the powers it proposes to give to the London County Council are given to no others.
  LORD HARRIS: I said the powers had been given to no other county council in England and therefore should not be given to the London County Council.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: That is true, but other County Councils have powers which the London County Council has not. They have a power over the parishes which enables them, if the parish fails, to deal with the matter—to step over them and deal with it themselves. Should not the same power be given to the London County Council? If these new bodies which are going to be created are not willing to deal with this question of allotments, is it not fair that the London County Council should step in, as the other County Councils step in, and deal with the matter? Another argument I would venture to use as to why it is desirable to give these powers to the London County Council is, that there are constantly large plots of land falling into the hands of county councils which have to be dealt with from time to time. It seems to me that one of the best uses to which these pieces of land could be put would be to let them out in allotments. I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.
  On Question, resolved in the negative:— Contents, 16; Not-contents, 58.

  CONTENTS.

  Carrington, E. [Teller]

  Burghelere, L.

  Chesterfield, E. [Teller]

  Davey, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Hawkesbury, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Herries, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Reay, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Stuart of Castle Stuart,

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery)

  L. (E. Moray)

  Tweedmouth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Halsbury, E. (Lord Chancellor)

  Aldenham, L.

  Balfour, L.

  Devonshire, D. (Lord President)

  Belper, L.

  Brougham and Vaux,L.

  Cross, V. (Lord Privy Seal)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Churchill, L. [Teller]

  Marlborough, D.

  Cranworth, L.

  Northumberland, D.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Digby, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Farquhar, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Fermanagh, L. (E.Erne)

  Pembroke and Montgomer, E. Lord Steward)

  Gage, L. (V. Gage)

  Harris, L.

  James, L.

  Bradford. E.

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

  Brownlow, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ker, L. (M. Lothian)

  Dartrey, E.

  Lawrence, L.

  de Montalt, E.

  Manners of Haddon, L. (M. Granby)

  Ducie, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  Mount Stephen, L.

  Mount Edgeumbe, E.

  Mowbray, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Napier, L.

  Romney, E.

  Norton, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Rowton L.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller]

  St. Levan, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Shand, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway)

  Falkland, V.

  Knutsford, V.

  Sudley, L. (E. Arran)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun) (L.Chamberlain)

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss)

BOARD OF EDUCATION BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I propose to add certain words at the end of Clause 2. The Charitable Trusts Act of 1860 gives very large powers indeed to the Charity Commissioners in dealing with schools of less annual value than,£50. In Clause 2 and Clause 4 of this Bill they are practically without any kind of control, and they deal with these matters according to the tradition of their own office, exercising vague powers which belonged at one time

441
to the Court of Chancery. They are now unrestrained in whatever they do. They are not empowered to put any scheme before either House of Parliament, and in fact they are almost autocratic. I do not think it does not work well, but I think it is a little risky to give such powers to a political office such as the Hoard of Education must necessarily be. The Charity Commissioners deal with all such cases according to well-established precedents, and I really cannot say that I think we have a right to complain of what they have done in this matter. But I think that there will be a serious risk that there will be a great deal of interference with these small endowments under this new system. I have no doubt that there will be very great pressure for money. I can see that the Government are very anxious to make a great system of secondary education and to do it cheaply, but they will find in certain cases that they cannot do it very cheaply. Money will be required, and nothing will be more natural than to seize upon all these small endowments, oven where they are at present used for elementary education and belonging to the elementary schools. The trusts in many cases have no such division as will clearly ear-mark them for elementary education, and it will be so arranged that money will be wanted to provide cheaper education in elementary schools. To provide for the removal of the children to the secondary, and later on from the secondary to the still higher schools, a considerable sum of money will be wanted, and I think there will be great pressure; brought to take this money from the schools that now possess it and to assign it to such purposes as I suggest. A political body is not quite the same thing as the Charity Commissioners in dealing with such cases. The Charity Commissioners do act with certain definite traditions, and I do not think a political body will always feel itself bound to act in the same way. I think, further, that it will lie very frequently argued that a better provision is made for the elementary schools, because they can come upon the rates. That they may be put under the School Board and come under the rates, and will not want the money, and that that being so, there is no reason why this money cannot be seized upon and used for the purposes of secondary education. If that had been proposed twenty-five years ago, at
442
which time the first real movement was made towards looking to secondary education, there would have been much more reason than now, because at this time a great many of what I may call vested interests have grown up. In the meanwhile, we have been wasting all this time in dealing with secondary education. A good many of these small endowments are used with good effect for elementary education, and I think it would certainly be a mistake to take them away suddenly or uselessly—take them away from the purposes for which they are being used at present. I therefore propose the Amendment, and so tar as the form of it is concerned, I believe the noble Duke who has charge of the Bill does not object to it. But I cannot, feel quite sure that he will not object to having any Amendment whatever. I do not intend to divide the House upon the subject, because I feel very strongly that the need of secondary education is so great that anything that would run the risk of delaying the passing of this measure would do harm to the country. I am not prepared to take the responsibility of taking any step which might lead to such a thing as that. But I think the matter well worthy of the consideration of your Lordships and the noble Duke who has charge of this measure, and if he cannot accept my Amendment, your Lordships will see that I am not proposing anything unreasonable in the Amendment I have the honour to move. The proposal comes to this—that the small endowments could be put under the same kind of control as the larger endowments are, under the Endowed Schools Acts. I want to propose that they shall be dealt with by a scheme which shall be under the control of either House of Parliament, and if that is so we shall know where we are, and it will enable us to hold the account, and will enable the legislature of each House to see that there is something like careful consideration given to every case of this kind. I grant at once that I should have great confidence in many of the precedents of new bodies and believe that they would do the light thing, but I confess that it may possibly be that at some day we should get a wrong thing done, for which we should afterwards be extremely sorry. I therefore submit this Amendment to the House for its consideration, and I do not think it is without its importance.
Amendment moved—
"In Clause 2, page 2, at end, to insert 'and that any proposal by the Board of Education to alter the purposes of an educational endowment of less than fifty pounds a year shall be subject to the provisions with respect to schemes contained in Sections 33 to 36 and 42 and 43 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and Section 15 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1873.'"—(The Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The DUKE of DEVONSHIRE): I am very far from saying that the Amendment suggested by the most reverend Prelate is an unreasonable one, but I hope that your Lordships will allow mo to state the reasons why I cannot accept it. This Bill does not propose to deal in any way with the amendment either of the Charitable Trusts Act or the Endowed Schools Act. All it does is to substitute one administrative authority, the Board of Education, for another administrative authority, that is, the Charity Commissioners, in administering the existing law. Both the Charitable Trusts Act and the Endowed Schools Act deal with a great number of very delicate and difficult questions affecting interests both of a local and religious character, and, in our opinion, it would be a very disastrous proceeding, by any such proposal as that contained in the Amendment, to open the door to what might become in the other House of Parliament, if not m this, a very extensive review and revision of both those Act. I am aware with regard to what I say that there is a noble and learned Lord opposite who has had his attention called to this question, who would be prepared, if your Lordships adopt any such Amendment as that which has been put on the Paper by the most reverend Prelate, to call attention to other anomalies in the Charitable Trusts and Endowed Schools Acts, which it would be difficult to resist if you once went into a review of the Acts themselves. The object of the present Amendment, as the most reverend Prelate has explained, is to protect the smaller endowments, which in many cases are now applied to the purposes of elementary education, from being diverted to the purposes of secondary education, and it implies that the restrictions which the legislature has not considered it necessary to impose upon the action of the Charity Commissioners ought to be imposed upon the action of the Education Board. I have endeavoured to point out
444
on the discussion of the Second Reading of the Bill why I think the pronouncements of the most reverend Prelate are not altogether well founded, and also how the powers of the Charity Commissioners, which are to be transferred to the Education Board, are not exercised so much without restraint as the most reverend Prelate seems to suppose. I will not enter now into details, but full publicity is to be given, and a full opportunity of discussing these questions, which is the real protection to endowments of this kind. If up to this time, the Charity Commissioners have not dealt more largely than they have done with the endowments devoted to elementary education, and which, no doubt, might be more usefully applied at the present day to other purposes, it is because any diversion of the proposed on endowments is generally the object of strong local opposition. There is no reason whatever to apprehend that a board directly responsible to Parliament, such as the Education Board, will be more indifferent to such expressions of local feeling and local opinion than the Charity Commissioners have been. That is the reason for the opinion that I hold, that the proposals of the most reverend Prelate are not well founded. On the other hand, there are cases in which a diversion from the purposes for which the endowments are to be applied would be generally acceptable to the locality and the persons who are chiefly concerned, and it would be extremely inconvenient if in dealing with them the now board were to be so hampered and shackled as they would be if they had to follow the elaborate procedure laid down by the Endowed Schools Act, in cases where the scheme docs not meet with any strong local opposition. It would also be, I think, unfortunate if such schemes as these, which had been fully considered with all the advantages of local knowledge, were then to be disposed of by a chance vote of a majority of this or the other House, which cannot be so well informed. My gravest objection, however, to the introduction of such an Amendment, is that I apprehend it would have the effect of introducing into the further discussions of this Bill the religious question, which has, up to the present, been entirely excluded from the discussion. We have endeavoured, and I believe, with success, to absolutely exclude the religious question from this Bill, and the acceptance of this Amendment, which

445
is obviously moved in the interest of voluntary and denominational schools would, I fear, have the effect of introducing the religious element. I have satisfied myself that there is no ground for the apprehensions which were expressed the other day by the noble Marquess opposite and the most reverend Prelate as to the preference of the free school with the conscience clause or without. When we come to that clause I can explain it more at large, but the most reverend Prelate need have no reason to apprehend that this Bill will introduce any prejudicial difference of treatment between those schools which do and those which do not provide religious education. The religious question has up to the present time been absolutely excluded, and I think it would be a subject of great regret if by the acceptance of this Amendment, which is moved in the interests of certain denominational schools, any risk were incurred of the introduction of the religious question into the further discussions. I have no reason to think that this measure, when it has passed through this House, will meet with any serious opposition in the other House. But if it does run any danger of not becoming law this year it is on account of the possible want of sufficient time for its discussion in the other House, and I am quite certain anything which would open the door to discussions in another place upon the question of the amendment of the Charitable Trusts Act and Endowed Schools Act, and, still more, any amendment capable of introducing discussions upon religious questions, would so protract the debates as greatly to endanger the chances or the Bill passing into law during the present Session. I was, therefore, very glad to hear the most reverend Prelate say he was not prepared to divide the House upon the Amendment, because I believe that such a course would have been most prejudicial to the passing of this Bill.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
*LORD DAYEV, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
"After Clause 8 to insert the following clause—'The Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, and alter a transfer of their powers under this Act, the Board of Education, shall have the same power of making schemes with respect to elementary schools exempted from the Endowed Schools Acts by Section 8 (b)
446
of the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and Section 3 of the Endowed Schools Act, 1873, where the annual income from endowments of such schools exceeds fifty pounds but does not exceed one hundred pounds, as may be exercised by them with respect to similar schools the income whereof from endowments does not exceed fifty pounds."
said: I have an Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of remedying one of those anomalies referred to by the noble Duke. By some oversight there is no power in any body to make schemes for elementary schools with an income from endowments between,£50 and £100, and I think whenever an opportunity occurs that anomaly ought to be corrected. But after what the noble Duke has said as to the danger to the Bill in another place, and his desire not to introduce into this Bill any amendment which may result in the general review of the Charitable Trusts Act and the Endowed Schools Act, I shall not press it.
Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.

MONEY-LEND1NG BILL. [Lords.]
Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

TRAWLERS CERTIFICATES SUSPENSION BILL. [Lords.]
The Lords following were named of the Select Committee:

D. Northumberland.

E. Lauderdale.

E. Camperdown.

E. Dudley.

L. Saltoun.

L. Balfour.

L. Tweedmouth.

L. Hawkesbury.

L. Heneage.

The Committee to meet on Monday next at half-past Three of the clock, and to appoint their own Chairman.

QUESTIONS.

  WAR OFFICE—PROPOSED NEW BUILDINGS.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will cause a model of the proposed new buildings for the War Office to be made and placed in the

  447
  precincts of the House for the inspection of Members of both Houses of Parliament. I do not intend to detain the House very long. I addressed this question to Her Majesty's Government because I was not aware as to who was the proper authority, but I now find that the Lord Steward of the Household will answer on their behalf. I sincerely hope that he will be able to accede to the request I make, but I feel very doubtful as to the answer I shall receive. One reason why he may not acquiesce in the making of the model is because it will cost a considerable amount of money, and another is that plans and specifications have already been accepted. I think it is perfectly true that a model would cost a considerable amount of money, but I also think it is quite reasonable to ask such a sum as it may cost should be spent on this account, because it is a matter of great importance that the Houses of Parliament should know the purposes for which this money has been voted, and how it is being expended. With regard to the second point, I am quite convinced that ninety-nine persons out of every hundred cannot form any idea from plans and specifications. And I do not think, in this matter, that I speak without authority, because I think many of your Lordships will recall the fact that when the Admiralty buildings were to be erected, the plans and elevation were submitted and passed by both Houses of Parliament, and the Government accepted them and entered into a contract for their erection. A model was made, on the motion—I am not sure, but I think upon the motion—of the noble Earl sitting on the cross benches. That model was made and brought into the Houses of Parliament, the result being to show what a monstrosity the new Admiralty buildings would have been if they had been put up. The effect of it was that the contract was cancelled and the buildings were not erected. I regret that the same course is not pursued in the case of the present Admiralty buildings, because I think they are unworthy of the dignity of the offices which they contain. In their architecture they are weak where they should be strong, there are useless pediments which are not needed, pillars where they arc not required, and there is a sort of trimming at the top which looks as if it was made out of the bricks from a child's toy box. I am told that when the buildings are finished they will
  448
  not be large enough to contain the offices of the Admiralty. That is one result of Parliament not being consulted, and not knowing what is being done in respect of our public buildings. They cannot tell unless they see them in models with the elevation of the buildings round about them. I hope the noble Lord will not be deterred, by the fact that the plans and elevations have been shown, from granting the request which I wish to make. While it is no part of the motion of which I gave notice, I should like to appeal to those in authority on the question of the buildings to be erected in King-street. I would ask any of your Lordships to look at the Abbey from the Local Board Offices. You get now the finest view of it that has ever been had. You get it in its grand proportions, not dwarfed by the propinquity of St. Margaret's. Surely it is worth while, before it is too late, to keep open the most splendid view that you have in all London. You take in the whole group, opposite, of the Houses of Parliament. If the line which is proposed is continued you will see nothing of all this but Henry VIII. Chapel. I know that it will cost something to do, but surely it is worth while not to lose the only chance we have ever had in this, metropolis of permanently securing such a view as this. I do not know whom I ought to appeal to, but I appeal to the Government generally not to allow this splendid view to be taken away.
  THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (the Earl of PEMBROKE and MONTGOMERY): I am afraid I cannot give much comfort to my noble friend in the answer which I have to give him. The First Commissioner of Works does not see his way to granting the request with respect to the model of the building. The plans and elevations of the new buildings have been in the tea room in the House of Commons, and have been approved. In regard to the references which have been made to the present new Admiralty buildings, I might remind the noble Lord that that magnificent pile is the result of a Committee of the House of Commons. That does not encourage my right honourable friend to carry on the same procedure with regard to further public buildings.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I have no doubt whatever that it was owing

  449
  to its being a Committee of the House of Commons. I regret, and I cannot help regretting, that the answer of the noble Earl was drawn up and considered before the Government heard what I had to say upon the subject. I have already given my reasons why, in my opinion, it was desirable that a model should be made, but if the Government will not accede to my request I cannot help it.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I wish to say that, having heard the answers given to the noble Lord, I shall move a Resolution upon this subject when this House meets next Tuesday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before the House adjourns, might I ask when it is proposed that the House shall rise for the Whitsuntide recess?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My intention originally was to take the same day as the House of Commons, but as I am told that it will be impossible to send any Bills down to that House on that day, I have come to the conclusion that it is an unnecessary act of self-denial, and I think, therefore, we shall rise on the Thursday.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Until when?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope I shall not be considered indecorous if I give as the date the day after Derby Day.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The other House usually adjourns to the Derby Day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But even the sacredness of that day would not permit us to sit upon a Wednesday, which is a thing we never do.
House adjourned at half-past Five of the clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four of the clock.