, as Chairman of the Committee to which the Tramways Bills had been referred, wished to remind the House that the Committee was appointed under very anomalous circumstances, and had very anomalous duties to discharge. To it was referred a great number of Bills which involved the application of steam to tramways. The Committee were also called upon to settle some rules and regulations which were hereafter to govern the application of steam and other mechanical power to tramways in the event of such applications being continued. A case came before the Committee in the course of their sitting—namely, the South Dublin Tramway Company's Bill, which they regarded as a sort of crucial case, seeing that it involved the application of steam to the tramways sought to be constructed. The case was argued before the Committee for two days, and, as was only natural, great stress was laid upon the application of steam to two of the tramways in the southern district of the city of Dublin. The opponents of the Bill were a Railway Company, and they were expressly admitted to have a locus standi before the Committee; because tramways worked by steam power were a novel invention, and would place the undertaking in the light of a railway. It was, therefore, regarded as one railway competing against another; and it was upon that ground, and that ground only, that the opposing Railway Company were allowed to have a locus standi. The Railway Company appeared before the Committee in opposition to the Bill; but, on the third day of the inquiry, the promoters suddenly withdrew that part of the Bill which involved the application of steam power to the tramways proposed to be constructed. They stated that they preferred to stand only on that part of the Bill which gave them power to construct an ordinary tramway. The Instruction to the Committee was of a very special and definite kind—namely, that they were to take into consideration Bills which involved the application of steam or other mechanical power to tramways; and, inasmuch as the steam clauses were withdrawn, they thought that the whole reason of their being had ceased, so far as the Dublin Bill was concerned; and they, therefore, declined to go on with the case, inasmuch as there was involved the question of a horse tramway only. The opponents against the Bill applied for costs; but the Committee declined to grant them, inasmuch as there had been no unreasonable or vexatious conduct on the part of the promoters of the measure. He gathered now from his hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means, that some inconvenience had arisen from the fact that a great portion of the case of the promoters which involved horse tramways only came before the Committee, and some evidence was taken upon that part of the scheme under guise of the application for the use of steam power. He had only to remark upon this state of matters, that if horse tramways had been, in the first instance, applied for, the locus standi of the Dublin and Wicklow Company would never have been admitted, and the Company would not have been able to appear before the Committee. But, inasmuch as the Chairman of Ways and Means now stated that inconvenience was occasioned by so much of the ground having to be gone over again, of course, if it was the wish of the House to give the Committee fresh Instructions, the Committee would cheerfully acquiesce in any opinion the House might arrive at. They would be quite ready to hear the case entirely upon its merits; but he had thought it right to justify the action which the Committee had taken, in order that there might be no misconception in regard to the course which they had felt it their duty to pursue. As had been stated by the Chairman of Ways and Means, it was quite true that, although the case of the promoters was not concluded, it had been before the Committee for two days and a-half before that part of the Bill which authorized the use of steam power was withdrawn.

, as a Member of the Committee, was surprised to see the Notice which had been placed upon the Paper by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Committee themselves had recommended that the Bill should be committed to an ordinary Private Bill Committee in the usual way, and they did so for this reason—that the moment the steam clauses were withdrawn from the Bill, the measure appeared before them in exactly, the same position as any other Tramway Bill would have done which did not contain steam clauses at all. It was scarcely necessary to remind the House that other Committees were appointed in a very different manner; and, under the circumstances, it seemed to the Committee very strange that the Bill, when divested of its steam clauses, should not be treated in exactly the same manner as an ordinary Tramway Bill, and referred to an ordinary Private Bill Committee. There had been no difference of opinion in the Committee upon the subject; and he should have known nothing whatever of the Motion that had just been made, if it had not been that he had casually glanced over the Paper that morning. He gathered, from the Notice given by the Chairman of Committees, that his object was to refer the Bill back to the Special Committee appointed in regard to Tramways. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel), had already alluded to a very important matter which came before the Committee—namely, the locus standi of the opponents of the Bill. They had not the least objection to entertain the Bill again, providing the question of locus standi was, in the first instance, arranged by the Court of Referees, and the Committee were simply called upon to deal with the merits of the case. If it were intended to take any other course, he was afraid the Committee was not at all suited to go into the questions which were involved in the consideration of locus standi, and to settle whether certain persons were entitled to be heard against the Bill or not. The whole opposition to the Bill, so far, had been a railway opposition; and, had it not been for the steam clauses, the Railway Company, under the ordinary rules, would have had no locus standi. As those clauses had now been struck out of the Bill, that opposition was in an entirely altered position; and it was certainly strange to call upon a Committee of this nature to decide questions, which, as a general rule, were submitted to the Court of Referees. He ought to remind the House, that the Committee was a Committee consisting of nine Members, who were appointed as a hybrid Committee generally was appointed—without being bound down by the ordinary rules in regard to the Bills which were brought before them. One of these rules was that no person interested in a Bill, or whose constituents were interested in it, should be a Member of the Committee. Now, this South Dublin Bill was in a peculiar position. The opponents of the Bill were the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company, and the Corporation of Dublin also opposed, not upon the Preamble, but upon the clauses, and yet one of the Members of the Committee was the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Brooks). That hon. Gentleman was also a member of the Corporation of Dublin, and was, therefore, interested in the clauses which were likely to be submitted to the Committee. In another sense he was also interested, because both his constituents and himself had been waging a perpetual war against the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway for some time past. He was sorry that his hon. Friend was not present in the House at that moment; because he knew that his hon. Friend would feel deeply, indeed, that the measure in which he had taken such great interest should be brought before the House in his absence. Under all the circumstances, he (Mr. O'Conor) contended that it was not right to send back the South Dublin Bill to a Committee constituted as the present one was. He thought the Chairman of Ways and Means had been guilty of undue haste in putting his Notice upon the Paper; and, if the House would support him, he would move that the consideration of the question be adjourned until a future day. He thought the adjournment should be until after the Recess, and that would inflict no harm upon anyone, because no further Business could be done until the House re-assembled. In the meantime, it might be a matter for consideration whether the Committee, constituted as it was at present, was competent to entertain the questions involved by this Bill. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Amendment. It seemed to him that the only case made out for the Resolution, was this—that, in the case of a particular Bill, the power sought for of working the tramway by steam had been withdrawn; because the promoters, for reasons of their own, had expunged the clauses which would have given them steam powers. For this reason, as he understood it, the House was called upon to pass a general Resolution to compel the Committee to hear any other cases which might come before them, and to prevent the Committee from exercising the discretion fairly given to them by the House. The Resolution was somewhat oddly drawn, and he wished to know from the Chairman of Ways and Means, if there were any precedent for the language he had used in it? The Resolution said—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills, that they have power to deal with all Tramway Bills of the present Session, whether opposed or unopposed, which have been referred to them, notwithstanding that the Promoters may be desirous to withdraw from any such Bills the Clauses whereby it was proposed to authorize the use of steam or other mechanical power."

apologized to the House for not having brought the question more fully before it in the first instance. The hon. Member opposite was, however, labouring under a very erroneous impression. He (Mr. Raikes) had not brought this question forward as a matter of surprise; but he had been in communication with the Chairman of the Committee and other hon. Members who were interested in the subject, and it was not until he had ascertained their views upon the subject, that he had ventured to put the Notice on the Paper. The Motion itself might be open to the criticism which the hon. Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) had passed upon it with regard to its wording; but, at the same time, he thought its real purport was sufficiently clear. The proposal was that the Committee should be instructed and have power to deal with all—mechanical power—Tramway Bills, opposed or unopposed, that might be referred to them; and it was to guard against the costs which would be incurred in cases where, after an inquiry had been held and the case in support of a measure had been before the Committee by the examination of a number of witnesses, the special clauses of the Bill were withdrawn. It certainly would somewhat resemble a farce to require a case, such as the one before them, to be gone into again by the parties. The Committee had already heard all, or nearly all, the evidence that it was necessary for them to hear, and were in a position to decide what their judgment ought to be. He put it as a matter of convenience. The House must feel sensible of the great inconvenience to which the promoters and opponents of an Irish Bill would be put if they were required to come to London again to make out their case. It would certainly be regarded as a great hardship to require all the witnesses who had been already examined to be brought forward again and the evidence commenced afresh. He thought the most convenient course would be to acquiesce in the proposal which he had considered it his duty to make. He quite admitted the anomalous position occupied by the Committee over which his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel) had consented to preside. The House must be very much indebted to him and to the Committee for having undertaken a duty which was a very embarrassing one; because they had not only to settle particular Bills, but to discuss and settle a general principle; and, in settling that general principle, the functions conferred upon them were unquestionably all of a very unusual and very large character. He (Mr. Raikes) now proposed that the House should ask the Committee to construe their powers in the most liberal sense, and he had been anxious to secure that object by moving this as a special Instruction to the Committee. Another point had been referred to, and that was with regard to the position of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) who was a Member of the Committee. He was glad to see the hon. Member was now in his place. He must say that the hon. Member was justified in joining the Committee, in the first instance, notwithstanding that the interests of his constituents were affected by this one particular Bill; because the application of mechanical power to tramways was so general an interest, that it was important to have a Member upon the Committee representing Ireland, and representing, also, a large constituency in Ireland. The hon. Member would probably remain upon the Committee; but he (Mr. Raikes) felt quite sure that the hon. Member would do nothing whatever to prejudice the rights of any of the parties concerned. The name of the hon. Member had been placed upon the Committee by the House, and not by the Committee of Selection; and he hoped the House, after this explanation had been given, would be content to acquiesce in the Motion submitted to them, and which his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee had accepted, allowing this Instruction to be given to the Committee, so that they might be enabled to conclude their investigation.

asked the Chairman of Ways and Means, if it were intended that the Committee were to consider the question of locus standi or not?

replied, certainly. The Reference was drawn in such terms as to exempt this particular Committee from being in any way bound by the ordinary rules regarding locus standi, and they were perfectly free to admit the locus standi of parties who would not have been able to appear before an ordinary Private Bill Committee. But it would be for the Committee themselves to consider whether they would hear the parties further, if they were of opinion that their locus standi had ceased to exist in reality.

said, after the explanation which had been made by the Chairman of Ways and Means, he would remain upon the Committee with the leave of his Colleagues; but he was quite prepared to give an undertaking that he would take no part in the consideration of any local Bill that might affect his constituents. He owned that it was his intention, if the Bill were referred back to the Committee, to retire from that Committee; but, if he believed he could be of any service to the Committee, he was quite ready to adopt the suggestion of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and to remain upon the Committee, abstaining from taking any action where local questions arose.

hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. O'Conor) would be satisfied with the explanation which had been made, and would not press his Amendment for the adjournment of the discussion.

said, he had no wish to press his Motion, and would, therefore, with the leave of the House, withdraw it.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering present and future eventualities in the North Pacific, and the extension of coast line and territory by Russia in that part of the world since the Crimean War, the Government propose to recommend that the harbour of Esquimalt be fortified and made a Naval and Military Station?

The only answer I can give the hon. Member is, that the attention of Her Majesty's Government is directed to the importance of the harbour of Esquimalt. I do not think I ought to say anything further at present.

asked the Postmaster General, What progress has been made towards inviting Tenders for Contracts to carry the Mails on the termination of that now being performed by the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company; when the advertisements may be expected; and, whether endeavour will be made to secure the more rapid transit asked by the Bombay community?

, in reply, said, that the whole question of the arrangements to be made for the conveyance of the Indian and other mails on the termination of the contract of the Peninsular and Oriental Company was now tinder the consideration of the Treasury.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Cuban insurgents, in their negotiations with the Spanish Government, made terms for the negroes as well as for themselves; whether Her Majesty's Government have made or intend to make any representations to Spain, now that the pacification of Cuba has been effected, with a view of accelerating the progress of emancipation in the Island; whether the scheme for importing Chinese labourers, referred to by Consul General Cowper, is likely to be carried out; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will call the attention of the British Minister in China to the fact, so that official information as to the nature of the emigration may be reported to the Foreign Office?

We understand, that under Article 3 of the capitulation, "slaves and coolies at present serving in the insurgent ranks are to be set at liberty." According to the last account which has reached the Government, the pacification of Cuba had not been proclaimed officially. As soon as the pacification of the Island has been effected, Her Majesty's Government will not fail to press this matter upon the consideration of the Spanish Government, reminding them of the promises they have made on the subject. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to say whether it is likely that the scheme for importing Chinese labourers will be carried out. The suggestion of the hon. Baronet, that the attention of the British Minister in China should be turned to the subject, was anticipated some time ago.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to alleged depredations by French fishermen engaged in the mackerel fishery at Kinsale, who are accused of picking up and appropriating nets which do not belong to them; and, whether, for the protection of the large amount of property employed in the Kinsale fishery, he will apply to the Admiralty for a Gunboat and Revenue Cruiser to be stationed at Kinsale during the months from March to June inclusive, with orders to prevent the continuance of such unlawful proceedings?

Sir, one of Her Majesty's cruisers was ordered to Kinsale at the beginning of March, and it has been in the neighbourhood since the 23rd ultimo.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What decision Her Majesty's Government have come to with reference to the progress of the County Government Bill after Easter; and, whether it will take precedence of other Government Bills now before the House?

, in reply, said, the first Business after Easter would be Supply. It would be necessary to get some Votes in Supply. But, with that exception, there was no Bill to which he should give precedence over the County Government Bill. It was the one which Government would desire to promote and press forward as rapidly as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether the Water Supply of London should continue to be in the hands of private Companies; and, if not, to what public body it should be entrusted, and on what terms the rights of the existing private Companies should be acquired?

I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Hackney. The present Metropolis Water Act was submitted to a careful inquiry by a Select Committee not many years since, and the subject, in connection with the extinction of fires in the Metropolis, passed under notice of another Select Committee last year. Under these circumstances, and in the absence of any case brought forward to justify such a proceeding, the Government, as at present advised, are not prepared to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether the water supply of London should continue to be in the hands of private Companies. With regard to the second part of the Question, to what public body it should be intrusted, and on what terms the rights of the existing private Companies should be acquired, he had to say that there were ample materials at the disposal of the Government to form an opinion when the time arrived for proposing legislation upon it.

asked the Financial Secretary of State for War, If he will be so good as to state what the beneficial appointments are for which quartermasters of the Army, on the expiration of their military service, are eligible?

In answer to the hon. Member for Ennis, I have to say that Army Quartermasters are eligible to be appointed to Quartermasterships in the Militia; 145 of these home appointments have been created, and Quartermasters of the Line will be chiefly appointed to fill them.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can be so good as to inform the House who is paying for the military operations now going on in South Africa?

, in reply, said, it had been arranged that the Governor of the Colony should issue his warrant monthly for the Colonial military expenditure. In point of fact, that admitted formally the liability of the Colony; but there was no doubt that the matter would have to be arranged with the Colony. As a matter of fact, the advances would be made good out of the Imperial fund.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If any decision has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government as to the exploration of a route between Rangoon and Western China, in order to promote trade between India and China, particulars of which have been furnished to the India Office by various Chambers of Commerce?

My noble Friend, now the Vice President of the Council (Lord George Hamilton) answered a similar Question last year. Since that time, the circumstances have not materially changed, and the same reasons exist as existed then for deferring the completion of the survey of this particular route.

asked what course Her Majesty's Government intended to take with regard to the Valuation Bill?

, in reply, said, that the Valuation Bill had been brought in at the same time with the other two Bills, and clauses had been prepared to adapt it to the provisions of the County Government Bill. He did not think there was any hurry to print those clauses until greater progress had been made with the County Government Bill. Those clauses, however, were quite ready.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether any steps are being taken to remedy the inconvenience felt in Westmeath from the delay in filling the office of second coroner for that county?

, in reply, said, that he believed the Government had no power in the matter; but he had not yet received the information for which he had asked.

gave Notice that he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there was any truth in the report, published in "The Standard" of to-day, that the Russians were preparing for the election, at Philippopolis of a Prince of Bulgaria?

I have heard nothing of the kind.

It is a Notice for to-morrow.

I beg pardon.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he could inform the House when the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill may be expected to come down to that House from the House of Lords, and whether the Government would be able to give it precedence over other Government Business as soon as it does so?

, in reply, said, he understood that the Bill stood for Committee in the House of Lords on the 16th of May, and it would probably come down to this House soon afterwards. The Government would proceed with it as speedily as possible consistently with the other Business which would have to be transacted. The Bill, having been introduced in the House of Lords, and fully considered there, it would not be necessary to proceed with it in preference to Bills which had to be elaborated in that House before being sent to the House of Lords.

asked, Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could arrange for the evidence taken by the House of Lords' Committee on the Bill to be furnished to Members by the time the Bill came down?

had no doubt it could be done, and would ascertain what was the proper course to take.

reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—

I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.

I feel assured that I can always rely with confidence upon your hearty support of all measures which I may consider necessary for the preservation of the honour of My Crown, and for the security of My Empire.

said, one of the grounds on which this Resolution had been proposed was that a local body ought not to be mixed up with Imperial purposes; but the police had been already employed for purposes similar to that referred to by the hon. and learned Member. They had been employed in reference to what were called hawker's licences, and also in reference to chimney-sweeps' licences, gun licences, &c. They had been employed as Inspectors of weights and measures, and for other purposes of that kind. If the collection of the dog tax entirely rested on its application to Imperial purposes, there might be something in what the hon. and learned Member had said; but, for the last year or two, it had been brought to the knowledge of the Government that the localities requested a further and better collection of the tax. In the last Office he had the honour to fill, so many complaints came before him, that the matter was eventually referred to the Inspectors of Constabulary to report on the expediency of employing the local police in the manner proposed, when those Inspectors unanimously assented to the proposal, stating that, after careful inquiry at their annual inspections, they were led to believe the proposed mode of collection would be so beneficial that no objection would be felt. The application of a part of the penalty to the police superannuation fund would not, he believed, induce them to act harshly, because the individual policeman would not be benefited by it. The complaint at present made was, that under the existing system it was impossible to ascertain whether the proper number of licences had been taken out in any district. If the tax were intrusted to the police, however, it would be properly collected, which it could not be now. The House would see that the objections urged by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport had not the weight he claimed for them, and that the alteration in the mode of collection which the Bill proposed would effect an important object.

said, he looked with great suspicion on these dog laws and gun taxes. They appeared to him to be, to a great extent, Game Laws in disguise. He quite admitted that it was very desirable that dogs should be strictly registered, and if the tax were not made too heavy there could be no objection to a greater degree of strictness being exercised in the matter of registration; but, looking to the animus which was entertained against dogs that did a little poaching on their own account, he thought it would be desirable to avoid employing the police to collect the tax.

said, the police were not the proper parties to be called in to collect this tax. Their employment in this duty would tend to their increase. There were too many at present, and they were a very heavy charge on the Civil Service Estimates. He had noticed that since the Government had undertaken part of the charge for the police, magistrates had ceased to be so careful about the number of police employed. He thought the present proposal would tend to make the police generally unpopular.

said, that, having assented to the increase of the dog tax, the Committee could not refrain from assenting to this powerful mode of insuring its collection. If there were considerable evasion when the tax was 5s., it was to be expected it would be greater still when the tax was raised. It was bad policy to impose a tax that they could not collect efficiently; and, therefore, they had no choice but to consent to allow the police to be employed in the way proposed.

said, that although the police did not actually collect the tax in Ireland, yet, no doubt, the body had great control over the matter. Of course, the way in which the tax was collected in Ireland was very different from the method imposed by the Bill before them. He believed that some modification might be effected in the arrangement proposed. The police might be instructed to look more closely after the dog licences, with the view of instituting prosecutions where necessary. In his opinion, the dog tax altogether was a highly objectionable tax, whatever way they might view it. A great deal of odium must be involved in its collection; and it appeared to him very doubtful if the advantage to be derived from its imposition would be at all equivalent to the odium which attached to the collection of it. He thought that the Government might fairly consider whether they could not adopt a suggestion similar to that which he had thrown out.

said, that the police did not collect the tax at all. They would give information to the Inland Revenue that a certain person did keep a dog, and he would have to show that he had a licence from the Inland Revenue. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had fallen into an error on that subject.

pointed out to hon. Members who had put on the Paper Notices of Amendments involving an increased charge on the people that their Amendments were irregular.

, who had given Notice of an Amendment, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "4d." and insert "6d.," said, it would serve his purpose equally well if he moved to reduce the duty on unmanufactured tobacco by 2d. in the pound; but he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would render it unnecessary to make any proposal of that kind by acceding to the exceedingly moderate suggestion which he had to make. The cigar manufacturers in this country alleged that they laboured under an immense disadvantage as compared with the German manufacturer of cigars imported into this country. He did not wish to enter in any detail into this matter; but it must, he thought, be obvious, that in several respects the English manufacturers lay under a considerable disadvantage. In the first place, they were practically shut out from purchasing a kind of tobacco that would answer their purpose remarkably well, in consequence of the degree of moisture it contained when imported, upon which they would have to pay duty. Again, they were practically excluded from exporting their cigars, and had to trust almost entirely to the market which they found in this country for the sale of them. Such, however, was not the case with the foreign manufacturers. There were many other disadvantages under which the English manufacturers lay—such, for instance, as the cost of commission, interest on money, and the various charges for clearance. Well, all these different disadvantages, under which the manufacturers of cigars in this country were labouring, operated greatly to their disadvantage, and so allowed the foreigner to send here what their own manufacturers ought to be able to supply. Further, it was alleged that the basis upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), in 1863, calculated the differential duty, was a fallacious one. At that time, it was estimated that 69 lbs. of cigars could be got out of 100 lbs. of tobacco; but, so far from that being the case, he was informed that, on an average, only something like 52 lbs. or 53 lbs. of cigars could be obtained. It had been represented to him that the effect of all these things had tended almost to drive the manufacture of some kinds of cigars out of this country; and the manufacturers considered that, when it was proposed to alter the duty, they had some ground for asking that these matters should be taken into consideration. They said that they ought to be placed on the same footing as foreign manufacturers, and that something like 8d. or 9d. more should be put upon cigars. He did not go the length of pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do anything of that kind; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the matter, and see whether the statements of the English manufacturers were not well founded. But he did say that, in altering the duty, care ought to be taken not to increase the disadvantages under which their cigar manufacturers at present lay. He would point out how it was that the increased duty of 4d. upon manufactured tobacco and cigars would increase the disadvantages under which their traders lay. The duty upon unmanufactured tobacco was 3s. 2d., and on cigars 5s., being a difference of 1s. 10d. If they now increased the duty by 4d. on unmanufactured tobacco and 4d. on cigars, the existing ratio between the two would be disturbed, and the English manufacturer of cigars would be placed at a further disadvantage of from 1¾d. to 2d. per lb. He entered into minute calculations, showing how this result was attained, and expressed a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see his way to adding at least 2d. more to the duty on cigars. He desired that the English manufacturer should be on an equality with the importer, not that he should have exceptional advantages. The Tower Hamlets had suffered considerably from the alteration of the sugar duties, and he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to prevent a similar misfortune in the case of the tobacco manufacturers. He moved, in page 2, line 5, to leave out "4d." and insert "6d."

I assume this is an Amendment, formally moved for the sake of raising discussion on a question of considerable importance. I promised to look into this matter again. I have done so; and I have been led to the conclusion that the proposal I have made is a right one, and that there is no occasion to disturb it. The basis on which I have proceeded is the same as that on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) proceeded in the year 1863. At that time the right hon. Gentleman gave very careful attention to this subject, and brought his proposal forward—not as a part of his Budget, but as a separate proposal for the re-arrangement of the tobacco duties. The re-arrangement of these duties was the subject of prolonged discussion in the House, and also of careful inquiries made by the Government of the day in different parts of the country. The result was, that a certain difference was established between the rate of charge on the unmanufactured tobacco and that on cigars. My right hon. Friend arrived at the conclusions, which he embodied in the law, by a calculation of this character. He took into consideration the different classes of cigars. He ascertained that, in some cases, so many pounds of cigars might be made out of 100 lbs. of leaf tobacco, while, in other cases, a very different quantity could be made. He took into view the extreme cases on both sides, and came to the conclusion that the difference he proposed to establish in the rate of duty would cover the most unfavourable case. Of course, in the cases where a larger quantity of cigars could be made out of the same quantity of leaf than that which the rate was established to cover, an advantage was obtained; or, if you like to call it so, a slightly protective duty was thus levied in favour of the British manufacturer. Even in the case of the smallest number which could be produced from the 100 lbs. of leaf, there was a slight advantage to the British producer. The foundation of the calculation was this. The right hon. Gentleman took a certain quantity of tobacco, as being capable of being made into cigars. Of the residue, he estimated how much was stalk which could be converted into snuff, and he deducted the marketable value of that snuff. He also took into account a quantity of moisture and inorganic matter, and he arrived, I think, at the conclusion that the inorganic matter was about 18 per cent of the whole. Now, I believe, upon the whole, his calculations have been found to be just. There has been really no complaint made during the 15 years or more that have elapsed since that time; and, in fact, the position of the manufacturers has been improved, because the value of the stalk which is converted into snuff is higher now than it was at the time when my right hon. Friend made his calculations. It was then 2s. 4d., and it is now taken at 2s. 8d. The increased duty, of course, will make it still more. Now, we come to the alteration which it is proposed to make by the present Bill. The points you have to look to seem to be these three. There is, perhaps, an increase of duty on the inorganic matter found in the leaf. The proposed 4d. per lb. is charged on that excess of unremunerative matter, which is calculated as 2 per cent of the whole weight, upon which the duty is paid; but which cannot, as alleged, be reckoned in the drawback. Therefore, the difference which the proposed increase of duty will make is 2 per cent, or one-fiftieth of 4d. on every 100 lbs. of tobacco. Then, the duty on the leaf, as compared with the duty on the cigar, is increased by one-fifth of a penny. That comes to 1s. 8d. per 100 lbs. Thirdly, there is the increase on the interest lost on the larger outlay, which the manufacturer incurs by having to pay duty, and being out of his money for a certain time. This, it is calculated, comes to 1s. 9d. per 100 lbs. Therefore, upon 100 lbs., you have three disadvantages by the increased duty—a loss of 1s. 9d. increased interest, a loss of 1s. 8d. for the one-fifth of a penny duty, and one-twelfth of a penny the increased disadvantage in respect of the inorganic matter. This makes a total addition of 3s. 5d. and one-twelfth of a penny on 100 lbs., or about two-fifths of a penny per 1b. Therefore, the effect of the increase of the cigar duty by 2d. would be, on the most favourable calculation, to deprive the manufacturer of that fractional amount of protection; but even this will be made up in another way. Then, taking into account that the value of the stalks is taken at 2s. 4d., but is really now 2s. 8d., or, with the additional duty, 3s.—we see that the position of the manufacturer is this much better than the right hon. Member for Greenwich intended, in 1863, that it should be. Under these circumstances, I do not think we should disturb the calculation. It was made to cover the extreme case, and I believe the extreme case is met by the duty as it now stands. If you do anything more than is necessary to meet it, you will be giving considerable protection to those below the extreme case. The cigar manufacturers, undoubtedly, point out that there has been a considerable increase in the importation of foreign cigars since the alteration in 1863; but the alteration was expressly made to allow these cigars to come in. Before that date, they were excluded by what was practically a prohibitive duty, on all but the highest and most valuable qualities. A considerable number of cigars, therefore, come into the country now that would not have come in before; but I have no reason to think home manufacturers are unfairly treated. The importation of unmanufactured tobacco has also increased since 1863. Under all the circumstances, I think it would be undesirable to make the alteration that I am asked to make.

said, there should be no doubt in the mind of the home manufacturer as to the position he held, and that position ought to be as good as that of the foreigner who sent cigars into the country. The increase in the duties ought to be proportionate.

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would continue to give his attention to this subject, notwithstanding the speech he had just made. The question was one of great importance. It was a question of the survival or the extinction of a manufacture. The persons engaged in the cigar manufacture had two distinct complaints. First, they said the existing state of things was not fair; secondly, they said that the change contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make matters worse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer produced a number of plausible figures—no doubt, supplied by the Taxing Department of the country—which appeared to show that the English manufacturer was on an equal footing with the foreign manufacturer. But, in a case like this, it must be clear to the Committee that there were numerous conditions of manufacture which could not be made matter of calculation. The German manufacturer commenced operations on a comparatively worthless material; but the English manufacturer's raw material was made, by taxation, of an artificially high value, and if, in dealing with this valuable material, there was any waste or loss through accident, the loss of the manufacturer was serious. He was astonished to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the stalks had now become more valuable than in 1863. He was told that this was not the case, and the reason given why it was not the case seemed plausible. In 1863, the stalk was manufactured into snuff; but, since 1863, the manufacture of cigars had increased, and that of snuff diminished. Therefore, it was said, there were now more stalks to be made into snuff, and less demand for the snuff when it was made. The Committee would be astonished to hear how the drawback was paid on the refuse—"offal," he thought, it was technically called. The manufacturer had to grind what he did not use in his manufacture into powder, and before he could realize the drawback, he had to export the powder, which he (Mr. Gorst), was told was perfectly worthless. A large quantity of this powder was now lying at Jersey and Bremen, and was perfectly unsaleable. Now, while it was unsaleable at Jersey it, of course, became worth 3s. 6d. a-lb., if it could be re-imported into England, and this was an obvious temptation to smugglers. It was hardly credible that the manufacturer should not be allowed to destroy this powder, instead of having to export it. The whole question between Members of the House who agreed with him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, whether the difference in the rates of duty imposed on manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco was a constant difference? The Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed an expression to escape him, which seemed to confirm the view that it was a ratio rather than a constant difference. He stated that a certain ratio was fixed in 1873, although he immediately corrected himself, and said a certain difference was maintained. All he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do was to stick to the ratio—to keep the ratio the same, while altering the duty. There was no difference of opinion as to the desirability of placing the home and foreign manufacturer on an equal footing, and it was a matter of calculation how that equality was to be maintained. If there were two views of that question of calculation, the English manufacturer and the English workman should be heard on the subject as well as the taxing authorities.

said, he would be the last man to advocate protection of home industry against foreign competition; but since maintaining, on a previous discussion, that to raise the duty on manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco by the same amount would put the British manufacturer in a worse position with regard to his foreign competitors than he now occupied, he had had the opportunity of consulting people engaged in the trade. Having carefully tested the accuracy of the facts they laid before him, and having also given his careful attention to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that evening, he was bound to say he did not think the right hon. Baronet (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made out his case. Without going into complicated details, the Committee could look at the matter from the simple point of view already taken by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He would assume that, in 1863, by the scale of duties then framed, the home and foreign manufacturers were put on a position of equality. If that were so, to raise the duty on unmanufactured tobacco by 4d., and to raise it only 4d. on imported cigars, must place the home manufacturers, protanto, in an unfavourable position. It appeared to him to be beyond the possibility of dispute, that what should be done was to adjust the duties according to their ratio, and that what should not be done was to add the same amount to each duty. The duty was formerly on unmanufactured tobacco 3s. 2d., and on manufactured tobacco 5s. It would now be on unmanufactured tobacco 3s. 6d. Making here a rule-of-three sum, the Committee would see that as 3s. 2d. was to 5s., so was 3s. 6d.—not to 5s. 4d., as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to make the duty on manufactured tobacco, but to about 5s. 5¼d., or 5s. 5½d., the amount which he intended in all arithmetical accuracy to be the amount by which the duty on imported cigars ought to be raised. The difference between 5s. 4d. and 5s. 5½d. might seem small; but he was told by those engaged in the trade that the competition between the English manufacturer and the foreign manufacturer was so keen, and that the balance between them was so nicely adjusted, that even a difference in duty of 1d. or 1½d. would make a considerable difference to the trade. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer wold re-consider the subject.

wished to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had omitted from the calculation he had given the Committee an element of great importance. He spoke about the additional duty which would be paid on 2 per cent of refuse; but he omitted to take account of the moisture which added to the weight of the unmanufactured tobacco. In 1863, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) stated that he had heard of cases in which there was 24 or 25 per cent of moisture, though no case had been strictly verified. He said, however, that there would be 14 lbs. of refuse and moisture in 100 lbs. of tobacco. If it were borne in mind that the additional duty was payable on something between 14 and 25 lbs. of refuse and moisture, which disappeared in the manufacture of cigars, it would be seen that a considerable addition must be made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's calculation of the disadvantages under which the home manufacturer laboured. He believed, moreover, that the statement that the stalk was now worth 4d. per lb. more was an erroneous one.

, assuming that the home manufacturer had been fairly dealt with in the scale laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) in 1863, maintained that there was no coin in circulation so small as to represent the disadvantages under which the English manufacturer would labour if the proposals of the Government were carried into operation. He did not see why foreign cigars should not be sold for 4d. per lb. more than they now were, or why there should be a greater additional duty levied upon them. He maintained that 1s. 10d. represented as well now as it did in 1863 a sufficient difference between the duty on tobacco and that on cigars to recoup the English manufacturer for waste on the manufacture of the duty-paid article. Probably, there would be a slightly increased amount of capital involved in the tobacco manufacturing trade than formerly. That was, however, so infinitesimal, that, under all the circumstances, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not yield to the seductive proposal made him for increasing the duty on foreign cigars.

said, that the case was simply this—that a certain amount of duty was put upon a certain amount of raw and unmanufactured tobacco, out of which a certain smaller quantity of cigars could be made; and, therefore, the duty on home manufactured cigars was higher than the duty on tobacco, whether imported in a manufactured state or not. Recognizing these facts, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) made the duty on the raw material bear to that on the manufactured article the proportion of 3s. 2d. to 5s. If that was admitted to be a correct calculation, the same proportion ought to be maintained in any alteration. Therefore, in raising 3s. 2d. to 3s. 6d. a proportional increase ought to be put on the 5s., and not the same increase as was made on the 3s. 2d. If the increased duty on the manufactured article were calculated on the ratio that it bore to the raw material, the increase ought to be more than 6d. per lb.

could not admit, with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), or with the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), that the question was simply one of ratio. It was a mixed question of ratio and other considerations. If they were largely increasing the duty, there was no doubt they would have to increase the difference. But, in a small addition to the duty like this, they had to consider the proportion of the refuse that was saleable. They should further bear in mind the increase in the value of portions of the refuse. He believed that since 1863, when the scheme was settled, the price of the stalk refuse had very much increased, and this fully made up for any slight variation of duty arising from the present increase.

said, that they ought, in justice, to maintain the relative positions between the duties on raw and manufactured tobacco at what they formerly were. If that were done, the increase of the duty on the manufactured article would be something like 6d. per lb.; and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make that duty, it would satisfy all parties. He would further say that in manufacturing cigars there was a much larger amount of rubbish to be allowed for than the Chancellor of the Exchequer had calculated.

said, that the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to be this—that the proportion between the duties on the raw material and the manufactured article, established by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), was correct; but that since then the value of the stalk, for certain purposes, had increased, and, consequently, the ratio had become unduly favourable to the home manufacturer. By the alteration which he was now making, of adding 4d. per lb to each duty, he said he was bringing the ratio to what it was in 1863. If the addition to the duty were only temporary and to meet an emergency, then the right hon. Gentleman, when he took off the 4d. which he now imposed upon the raw material, ought to take off something more than 4d. from the manufactured article, in order to preserve what he declared to be the right ratio.

said, the tobacco manufacturer, besides having to allow for refuse, had also to reckon upon a certain amount of moisture and sand in the tobacco. There was one statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which, if true, completely met the argument he had brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman said that the value of the stalk had increased so much as to make up for the additional disadvantage every manufacturer was under for not getting a portion of the drawback upon the tobacco which he rejected. Upon the best information which he could obtain, he could state that the value of the stalks had not increased. Whether that was a fact or no the Committee must decide; but he was assured, upon the most positive information, that the value of the stalks had not increased. If the tax were to be increased upon the raw material, it was a question of fair play also to increase the tax in the same proportion upon the manufactured article.

observed, that the reason given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not putting a proportionally increased duty on imported cigars was a weak one. He said that the present increase of 4d. all round would go far to restore the home manufacturer to the same proportion of duty which he paid when the scheme was settled in 1863. But no one would have thought of interfering with the home manufacturer had this increase in the tobacco tax not been proposed; and, therefore, the home manufacturer ought not now to be placed in a worse position than he would otherwise have been in.

did not think it wise or politic or just to put the same amount of duty upon an expensive article like cigars, as upon commoner kinds of tobacco filled with refuse and sand.

was satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, and would not press his Amendment. With one exception, all the Gentlemen who had spoken had expressed themselves in favour of some increase being made in the duty on cigars; and he, therefore, appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to re-consider his decision on the matter.

would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-consider this point before the Report, on two grounds. First, that Members on both sides of the House, with only one exception, had expressed themselves in favour of an alteration in his proposals; and, secondly, that the House ought to have some reasons for what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do. At all events, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not ask the House to express an opinion on this point. So far as he knew, there was no possible way by which the Committee could give a decision on such a question as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had raised. By voting for the Amendment, the House would virtually vote against the Budget proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and deprive him of the Revenue; therefore, a division on this particular issue could not be taken. He was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was desirous of doing what was fair; and, as the House could not express an opinion upon it in that debate, he thought it was not too much to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer again to consider the matter, and to see whether he could not make some alteration in the manner suggested.

said, that several hon. Members had, no doubt, been in communication with those interested in the manufacture of cigars, and had received from them a good deal of information which they had naturally used in the discussion. He did not think that it was surprising that the discussion should have been against the Government on either side of the House, for it was not likely that anyone would have taken an interest on the opposite side of the question. It was the consumer who was interested in no alteration being made in a direction which would give such a protection to the British manufacturer as would exclude foreign cigars. The importers of foreign cigars had communicated with him, and had remonstrated against any increase being made in the duty on cigars in this country. The matter lay in a small compass, for the increase of duty was so small, that if it were merely adjusted on foreign manufactured tobacco, irrespective of the price of the stalks, the increase would be infinitesimal. On the other hand, if the duty were substantially raised, it would be giving a protection to the British manufacturer. With respect to what had been said with regard to the increase in the price of stalks, he was informed that stalks were now 2s. 8d. or 2s. 9d. per pound, and if the increase of 4d. were made to the duty, the price would be 3s. to 3s. 1d.

observed, the stalk referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was the dry stalk.

said, he could not undertake then to make any alteration in the proposals before the Committee, but he would consider the matter further before the next stage of the Bill was reached.

observed, that the argument of the Government was, that the adjustment in 1863 had become unjust by reason of the increased value of the stalks. The whole force of their position lay in that alleged increase, and if it were proved, the argument was sound. After the discussion that had taken place, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make further inquiries, to ascertain if the value of the stalks really had increased.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 5, line 39, after "tax," to leave out "it shall be lawful for," and, in line 40, after "purposes," to insert "shall," said, he wished to express the satisfaction which he and many others felt at the clause having been introduced into the Bill by the Government. It was right that an allowance should be made for the depreciation and repairs of machinery in the assessment of the Income Tax. But, by the Bill, such allowance was permissive only, and he thought it should be made compulsory. The object of his Amendment was to make it compulsory on the Commissioners, for general and special purposes, to allow a deduction before charging the Income Tax.

said, the alterations were not made, because he thought them unnecessary; but he had no objection to the words proposed being substituted in the Bill.

, in moving, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 1, to leave out "to," and insert "and they shall," and, in the same line, to leave out "they may think," and insert "shall be," said, its effect would be that the General and Special Commissioners should first settle the deductions for depreciation, and then, anyone who had any reason to object, would have a right to go to the Court of Exchequer, and contest the amount of the allowance. As the words stood in the Bill, the General and Special Commissioners would have a right to say what was "just and reasonable," and he feared there would be no appeal from their decision; whereas his proposition was, that a "just and reasonable" allowance should be made, and would be decided ultimately by the Court of Exchequer. The Amendment ought to be acceded to by the Government, for it was right that a "just and reasonable" amount should be allowed in respect of those deductions. The matter was left entirely in the hands of the General and Special Commissioners by the terms of the Bill. Who were the General and Special Commissioners to whom such a large discretion was intrusted? The General Commissioners were persons appointed in every town in England, and the Special Commissioners were gentlemen at Somerset House. With some experience of both classes of Commissioners, he should be inclined to take the question to the Court of Exchequer in every case in which he differed from them. Should such a discretion be invested in the Commissioners, in one town certain allowances would be made; whereas, perhaps, in the next, an entirely different set of rules would prevail. On the other hand, if Parliament declared that the deduction should be a "just and reasonable" one, an uniform rule could be readily settled. In any case, they wanted to be assessed at the full amount of their real profits, and they wished to keep their capital intact at the end of the year. For the last 33 years they had suffered under an injustice in that respect, and he was personally much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for having, at length, honestly grappled with the question of depreciation in machinery and works, and he earnestly begged him to allow the Amendment. It would go to satisfy a numerous class of iron-masters, manufacturers, and coal-owners, by assuring them that a fair allowance would be made for depreciation, leaving their capital intact.

said, this was the first time depreciation in works and machinery had been recognized. He was very glad it had, and thought it would be wise to put it on as firm a basis as possible, by affirming that such a deduction should be allowed as was "just and reasonable," instead of leaving it a question entirely for the opinion of the Commissioners. He did not go quite so far as his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick), in saying that he should not agree with anything that the Commissioners did; for he had found that they generally had a fair knowledge of depreciation in all classes of property. The amount of depreciation was a question of degree, some property depreciating very fast. The Local Commissioners, as a rule, had sufficient knowledge to enable them to deal justly with the matters coming before them. But still, he thought the substitution of the words "shall be just and reasonable," for "as they may think just and reasonable," would be advisable.

imagined that the Commissioners would be bound to make a due allowance for depreciation, whether the words used in the Bill or those proposed in the Amendment stood part of the clause. With regard to the principle of the Amendment they were discussing, he really saw no difference between it and the words of the Bill, for the Commissioners must allow what they considered just. It was a distinction without a difference, and they could admit the Amendment or leave it alone with the same result.

apprehended that the distinction between the clause proposed and the Amendment was this. According to the Government scheme, the discretion of the Commissioners would be final, and, being a discretion, no Court of Law could interfere with their decision; whereas, according to what the hon. Member for Macclesfield suggested, any aggrieved manufacturer would have a right, by reference to a Court of Law, to have the propriety of the deductions allowed by the Commissioners determined as matter of law. Until some rule or standard was fixed, they ought to be contented with the concession made by the Government, and should not imperil what they had got by asking for more. It was a great advantage for the manufacturer that the Commissioners would be obliged to allow, at any rate, what they thought fit, and the question was, whether the Commissioners could not safely be trusted with a discretion in the matter?

said, that if the General and Special Commissioners were to be allowed to exercise their judgment, without the manufacturer having any appeal, things would thus remain in a state of chaos. If the Amendment were made, any person dissatisfied could appeal to the Court of Exchequer, and have some definite rule laid down. He remembered the case of an appeal to the Commissioners, in which the question was put by them—"How much did you pass through your bankers in the course of a year?" On being told, they said—"Your returns do not show 5 per cent profit on this amount." Every mercantile man would know that profits were not to be arrived at in that way. In another case, the Commissioners Inquired into a large amount on the debit side of an account. It was explained to them that it was a loss through a Government contract, when the Commissioners replied—"that if people were foolish enough to enter into contracts with Government, and lose money on them, such a loss could not be set off." They further said that if a man were foolish enough not to insure his house and it was burnt down, the amount of loss would not be allowed him. He supported the Amendment, thinking that no more discretion than necessary should be placed in the hands of the Commissioners.

ventured to think that the clause as it now stood was much better than the Amendment proposed. Unless persons had some confidence in the discretion of the Commissioners, who generally gave a great deal of attention to the subject, the business of the country could not go on. It was better to trust to the discretion of the Commissioners than to go to a Court of Law. He was sure that in London, parties would rather abide by a decision of the Commissioners than appeal further.

said, that if books were properly kept, an allowance was made for depreciation before the profits were assessed. Now, they had a legal and effective declaration to the Commissioners that that was the proper system to pursue. The clause would be entirely unambiguous, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were, through the Inland Revenue Department, to issue Instructions to the Commissioners as to the allowances they were to make.

said, if he had understood rightly the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), they amounted to this—that the clause as it stood would have the effect of placing entirely at the discretion of the Commissioners, the deduction to be allowed on machinery and works; and if the clause were altered in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield(Mr. Chadwick), it would lead to this—that if the Commissioners did not make a sufficient allowance for depreciation, it would be open to the manufacturer to appeal to a higher Court, in order to get the Commissioners' decision over-ruled. For his own part, he had such confidence in his hon. and learned Friend's knowledge of law, that he was prepared to accept it; and he looked upon that statement of the law as the strongest possible argument in favour of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. He recognized most fully the evident disposition of the Commissioners to meet just claims on the part of the owners and occupiers, and he had the fullest confidence that they would deal in this matter in a fair and reasonable spirit. The effect of the Amendment was this—that if, through want of judgment or some other reason, a wrong decision was come to, then there was a chance of the decision being over-ruled. As he understood the Bill, it was proposed that, however mistaken the Commissioners might be, their decision must be accepted and there was no remedy. He thought that, under these circumstances, the right hon Gentleman would do well to consider favourably the proposed Amendment, and so put the clause in a shape which was likely to be satisfactory.

thought the clause should be a compulsory and not a permissive one; as it stood, it would leave the Commissioners a great many loopholes to creep out of. It was necessary to avoid driving owners of mills, &c., into the Law Courts. Personally, he preferred the expression "shall be," and he should vote for the Amendment if there should be a division.

said, it was a very important Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to stand to the clause as it was. He could not put anything more to the purpose or more effective; it might be a hard clause, but he thought it perfectly necessary. It was a very reasonable and fair clause.

said, that the Commissioners differed as to whether when machinery was let they ought to allow for depreciations or not. It was exceedingly hard that a tenant, holding under a long lease for 20 or 30 years, should not have the same benefit as an owner. The Amendment sought to impose it as a duty on the Commissioners to make the same allowance, and he should certainly support it. That was the difficulty arising in the district with which he was connected.

thought the hon. Member had not quite apprehended the point. It was conceded that the Commissioners were in every case to make some allowance, and that was a very great concession. The question was whether the discretion was best confided to the Commissioners or to the Courts of Law. He presumed that the Government had been baffled in the attempt to find a principle to be introduced into the Bill. The depreciations would have to be practically worked out according to some tentative system; and the Commissioners must find their way to some equitable, universal, and uniform system. He did not think it wise to refer to the Courts—the owner would not accept their decisions, and the Courts would be laying down a system of taxation. On the whole, he certainly inclined to the clause as it stood, rather than have an immense amount of litigation.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had very accurately appreciated the position of the Government in the matter. The hon. Member for Oldham had taken very great interest in the matter last year, and it was very much owing to his representations, and those of his hon. and learned Friend behind him that the matter had been considered. They did not attempt to clear the Income Tax or the Dog Tax from all anomalies; but it was possible to mitigate them. Last year, the hon. Member for Oldham had called attention to the matter, and an attempt had been made, but unsuccessfully, to meet the difficulties complained of. He had caused very particular inquiries to be made, by competent gentlemen, into the circumstances, and as to what could be done in the matter of allowances for depreciation; and, in the first place, he found that the principles adopted were extremely various. In the case of shipping property, depreciation was allowed for; and with railway-plant, and for much machinery used in private establishments, deductions were, more or less, made. In other cases there was none, because the Commissioners did not think themselves authorized by law to permit it. It still more clearly arose in the case of joint-stock companies, whose accounts were made up under the direction of auditors, who required that a certain sum should be set aside for the depreciation of machinery; yet, when the Income Tax was paid, the Commissioner was not justified in allowing that sum to be deducted. Those were anomalies which should be remedied, and he had attempted to lay down rules, it being found difficult or impossible to draw a satisfactory clause. In communication with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), the latter had entirely confirmed him in the view that it was better not to attempt to lay down cast-iron rules, but to leave it to the discretion of the Commissioners themselves, whereby far less injustice would be done than if such matters were made the subjects of appeal to Courts of Law. He could hardly conceive how the Courts could deal with many of those questions. They had given power to the Commissioners to make the allowance, and made it a direction to them that they should. He thought hon. Gentlemen would do well to rest content, and see how it worked.

felt disposed to withdraw his Amendment; but they wanted to avoid disputes in the future. They were perfectly willing to abide by a judicial decision; but it would be very difficult if conflicting decisions occurred in various districts. He denied that there was great difficulty in deciding what was a fair, proper, and reasonable scale of depreciation. For many years he had, as professional auditor, assisted to determine the depreciations of 60 large manufacturing and mining concerns. The words "shall be what is just and reasonable" would be sufficient.

said, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick) had given a very good reason why they should vote with the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the support of the law as it stood. He had said there was no difficulty in settling those questions. Did the House think that any Judge on the Bench, however learned, was capable of deciding those questions? It was an experimental clause; he hoped the hon. Member would not divide the House.

said, that as there appeared to be very little difference between hon. Members on the subject, he thought that after what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Amendment should not be pressed.

begged to withdraw the Amendment.

, on rising to move, in page 6, line 2, after "any," the insertion of the word" buildings," said, that if the Government objected to it, and would allow the substitution of the words "so as to leave the capital intact," as proposed in the following Amendment, which would be carrying out the recent decision, he would be satisfied.

thought the Amendment would carry the principle farther than he was prepared to go, and he must object to it.

said, there were many buildings which might be so described. The clause was an attempt to do justly by manufacturing persons, who had ever, since the Property Tax Act had been passed, been unjustly dealt with by not permitting them to deduct anything for depreciation. The object was to remedy that injustice; but, unfortunately, the clause of the Bill now under discussion would not carry out that intention. He was not sure what was meant by "machinery and plant." Power was given to the Commissioners to allow for depreciation upon machinery and plant, but other and valuable portions of what constituted manufactories were not brought within the operation of the clause. He thought no hon. Member who had any knowledge of business would object to a fair amount being deducted for depreciation of value in machinery and plant before the profits of a manufactory, public work, or mine, were calculated for division among the partners. He could not suppose that the intention of the law was to act unjustly, and he could assure the Committee that injustice was done by the existing state of things; because, owing to the fact that deductions were not allowed, income tax was paid upon what every manufacturer who kept his books on proper principles deducted for depreciation before dividing the profits of the year. In the case of mine owners, it not unfrequently happened that they had to pay income tax upon minerals lying beneath their lands for years before they had been brought to the surface and converted into money. He, therefore, begged to move an Amendment, in the following terms:—Page 6, line 2, leave out from "any" to the end of the clause, and insert—

"Manufactory, public work, or mine, which the trader, manufacturer, or mine owner, may consider necessary to make allowance for in making a true balance of his books, from time to time, for a division of profits."

said, that the concession would be appreciated by the manufacturing classes; but its grace would be marred somewhat if the further concession proposed by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick), with regard to buildings was not also granted.

suggested to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick), that he should withdraw his Amendment on condition that the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted the proposal of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), modified in such a way as that the Commissioners of Taxes should be satisfied as to the amount proposed to be allowed, instead of allowing traders, manufacturers, and mine owners to be the sole judges of the allowances in question. He thought no difficulty could arise in the case of sound concerns if this proposal were adopted; and, further, that in such cases, a great deal of what was inquisitorial in the incidence and levying of the tax would be avoided.

supported the clause as drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hoped its harmony would not be marred. If any alteration in it were thought necessary, it ought, in his (Mr. Whitwell's) view, to be made by means of an addition, and not by interpolation.

said, he would not press his Amendment.

hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing) would not be pressed, as it would exclude the unfortunate farmers from all benefit they would otherwise enjoy under the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

also opposed the Amendment, remarking that if every man was to be allowed to judge as to the amount of Income Tax he should pay, there would be no occasion for Commissioner; who, as far as he had experience of them, had always performed important and delicate duties in a satisfactory manner.

thought the Amendment ought not to be passed, on the ground that it would deprive of concessions some of the important industries which it was, and, he thought, with justice, intended to benefit.

said, the clause, as he had proposed it, was not drawn in consequence of any particular decision that had been arrived at, but in order to meet a difficulty which had for years been felt in regard to manufactories in which machinery was extensively used. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr-Ewing), which would go far beyond the point he was at present willing to concede. The only additional concession he was able to make was that the clause should apply to machinery rented, as well as to machinery which was the actual property of the person using it.

thought it would be well not to press the Amendment then; but that, on the Report, it should be brought up in a modified form.

said, he should be willing to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member who had just addressed the Committee.

pointed out, that if the Amendment were adopted, it would make the remission in favour of the wrong person, because it would give the remission to the person who hired, and not to the lessor of the machinery; therefore, he proposed to retain the words which were under the consideration of the Committee, and then go on to add to the clause to meet the cases where machinery was let. The words he proposed to add were—

"And where any machinery or plant is let, the lessor shall be entitled, on claim made to the Commissioners for general or special purposes, in the manner prescribed by section sixty-one of the Act of the fifth and sixth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-five, to have repaid to him such a portion of the sum which may have been assessed and charged in respect of the machinery or plant, and deducted by such lessee on payment of the rent, as shall represent the Income Tax upon such an amount as the said Commissioners may think just and reasonable for depreciation in respect of the wear and tear of such machinery or plant: Provided, That no such claim shall be allowed unless it shall be made within twelve calendar months after the expiration of the year of assessment."

said, he would agree to the Government Amendment, and withdraw his Amendment.

said, if the hon. Gentleman wished to put his Amendment—which he supposed he did not—so as to leave the capital intact, it would be more convenient to propose it before the words he had proposed to add to the clause were considered.

believed, if the words were inserted as he proposed, the Commissioners would be saved a great deal of trouble. In Knowles's case in the Court of Exchequer, the three Judges had held that when coal was taken out and consumed in the way of business, it was to be allowed in deduction from the income of that business. The whole of the remarks of the Judges went to the principle of allowing, in the case of a Company or individual, the capital to remain intact; and, therefore, the insertion of those words would convey to the minds of everyone that they were not to pay on any portion of their capital, whether it had been absolutely consumed in taking out coal from a coal mine, or absolutely consumed in the wear or tear of machinery. Therefore, the words he suggested would, he believed, save a great deal of trouble and give very much satisfaction, showing plainly that people were not to pay Income Tax upon capital, as had been the case for many years. After consideration, he thought he should be compelled to take a division on the words he proposed.

said, as the clause stood at present, in looking at the profits of a concern, so much was to be allowed for wear and tear of machinery. As to leaving the capital intact, he did not know what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chadwick) meant—whether it was the capital of the concern, or whether he meant the capital of the machinery. The clause did not in the slightest degree interfere with the decision of the Court of Exchequer as regarded mines; but here it was wanted to add words which meant allowing so much in respect of wear and tear of machinery, which would keep the capital intact, or the capital of the machinery intact. He thought the words really had no sense at all, and, instead of being clear, they would only be misunderstood.

advised the consideration of the addition proposed to the clause by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to see if that did not meet the views of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick).

said, capital intact would mean the capital in the business, but the business might not be intact for various reasons. The question was a difficult one for anyone to go into. The words of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick) might do very well on a piece of paper; but when they came to sit down, and give a decision upon them, it would be found that they involved considerations which could not be dealt with at all. He did not know how they could go into the question of capital in a business, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resist the Amendment. At the same time, he wanted to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He had proposed, he believed, a very reasonable Amendment; but he thought it only fair to the Committee to ask to have it brought up on the Report. If they saw the proposal in print, they would have an opportunity of considering what it was like; but he thought it impossible to gather all the meanings and intentions of an intricate Amendment on hearing it read. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consent to bring up his addition to the clause on Report.

advised the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick) to withdraw his Amendment. As to the addition to Clause 12, proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Mr. Hubbard) had been completely lost while it was being read, and he should be glad to see it in the Paper before it was agreed to.

hoped the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Chadwick) would not press his Amendment. With regard to the addition proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (Mr. Whitwell) had a strong wish to see it in the Paper, and for this reason—at present, a great deal of machinery was let on a term of years, subject to its value being kept up, and restored to the lessor exactly the same as it was handed over to the lessee. Therefore, it would not be at all consistent for the lessor to receive a reduction in Income Tax for depreciation of machinery, inasmuch as the lessee would have made all depreciations good, and he would very naturally expect to get this money back again at the end of the lease. Therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way clear to place his Amendment on the Paper.

withdrew his Amendment.

was sorry to have to refuse to put the Amendment on the Paper. The fact was, that the point had been considered by the Inland Revenue officials, and they thought such an Amendment as he had proposed would be advisable. They prepared it, and the object of it was, that if a man let his machinery, the person who had to pay rent for it should be entitled, on paying his rent, to deduct the income tax which he was charged, and the person to whom the rent was paid should have a portion of that income tax in respect of his machinery. That, he thought, would be a reasonable proposal to pass.

desired to see the Amendment in print.

said, in the case of a man who owned machinery, it was quite clear that the deductions for depreciation would come to him. But in the case of a lessee, who was to bear the loss by depreciation? It was not unfrequently the case that when machinery was let, the real person on whom the loss fell was the lessee, who was bound by his agreement to restore it just as he found it. Therefore, the lessor in that case sustained no loss by depreciation, because the cost of depreciation in no way fell upon him. Therefore, he thought the matter required a little consideration.

said, the Amendment would be printed in the Votes on Tuesday, and would be in the hands of hon. Members, who would be able to see how the clause stood. Then, if anyone wished to make any other Amendment on Report, it was competent for him to do so.

thought it unreasonable on the part of the right hon. Gentleman not to agree to place the Amendment on the Paper. As he had previously said, he believed the Amendment might be what was desired, but surely it was a reasonable request to ask that it might be allowed to come up on Report. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: It will come up to-morrow.] That might be so, but he thought the Committee ought to have an opportunity of discussing the matter after it had been placed on the Paper, and not on the Report.

said, the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not like a fresh Amendment, coming on before it had been placed on the Paper. In his Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted language which he thought would meet the case, and which had been approved by the Inland Revenue authorities.

said, he could not agree with the principle which was contended for, because the Government regarded this tax not as being, in this sense, imposed upon the premises, but as a tax with reference to the person who occupied the premises. The truth was, that when a shop-keeper was obliged to take a shop in an expensive part of the town for the purpose of carrying on his business, and when he occupied some of the rooms over the shop as a dwelling-house, he was not rated as if the house were his dwelling-house; but it was generally allowed that he was living there in a more expensive situation than his means would otherwise allow from the necessity of attending to his business. But, if he left his business and went elsewhere to reside, and if he made profit out of the rooms above his shop by letting them to the other persons in order that he might derive advantage from the high rents in Bond Street or Regent Street, for example, then it was fair and reasonable that the portion of the house so let should be charged with a proper proportion of the tax. An alteration had been made by this clause, which would give relief in cases where the house and the shop were let as separate tenements. If the shop were not occupied at night, it would come under this new proposal of the law.

said, he must ask his hon. and gallant Friend to give Notice of his Amendment, which, he added, might be considered on the Report of the Committee. The point raised was new to him, and he was unable, without further consideration, to say whether it would be desirable to insert the Amendment in the Bill.

said, the Inns of Court and the Universities appeared to him to stand on a different footing under this clause. He was by no means sure that, as regarded the Inns of Court, the case would not be met by the words as they at present stood, though the Universities might not be exempted.

said, he should be quite content if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider this proposal between the present time and the bringing up of the Report.

desired to know what was the object of the Amendment?

, in reply, said, that its object was to bring the law relating to taxes into harmony with the law relating to the Legacy and Succession Duties. In the case of the Legacy and Succession Duties, an appeal lay to the Court of Exchequer, and from thence to the House of Lords. No such appeal was allowed in cases relating to these taxes, and this seemed rather absurd, inasmuch as many of the questions relating to the levying of taxes were of a most important nature.

thought that the clause, as it stood, provided only for appeals to the Court of Exchequer in certain cases, and did not allow of appeals being taken from the Court of Exchequer to the House of Lords.

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had called his attention to the matter. His hon. and learned Friend said that, although, in his opinion, it would not be absolutely necessary, yet it would be desirable, in order to make the point quite clear and free from ambiguity, to add to the clause the words "and from thence to the House of Lords."

observed, that he was of a rather Conservative disposition, and was content to let things remain as they were. The income tax had been levied for 35 years on the old principle, and why should the Government now open a field for new litigation by allowing appeals to be made from one Court to another?

believed his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had already explained that, in all cases involving questions of liability to Legacy or Succession Duty, the Crown had a right to appeal from the Court of Exchequer; whereas, in tax cases, there seemed to be at present no such right. Surely it was highly desirable to make the law uniform.

then moved to add to the clause the words "and from thence to the House of Lords."