said, he rose, in accordance with Notice, to move "That the Bill be read a third time on this day three months." He hoped to satisfy the House, in the few sentences which he should have to offer, that this was a reasonable Motion, considering the exceptional course which had been taken in reference to the Petitioners against the Bill. The promoters of the Bill were known as the British Gas Light Company, Limited. They supplied, in addition to two of the six towns which he had the honour to represent, the City of Norwich, a portion of the town of Hull, and several places which they supplied under separate Acts of Parliament. But, in addition to that business, they supplied several other towns for which they had no statutory powers, and for which, until this year, they had not been under any Parliamentary restrictions. They had originally supplied certain other districts; but had parted with those undertakings, under arrangements approved by Parliament. But while the various businesses of the Company were distributed over different parts of the country, the whole management was carried on at offices in London. The Bill was introduced, in the first instance, in the House of Lords, and was opposed before the Committee of that House by the Corporation of Hanley and the Local Board of the town of Tunstall, which were represented by counsel, and called witnesses, whose evidence went to show that there was an unanimous feeling on the part of the population of those two places against the Bill, and a strong feeling of dissatisfaction against the manner in which the Company conducted their Business. The Committee of the House of Lords, however, passed the Preamble of the Bill; but, spontaneously, suggested certain modifications in the clauses; but the Petitioners, desiring to reserve their case and to oppose the Preamble in the House of Commons, abstained from discussing the clauses in the Lords' Committee. Hon. Members might, therefore, imagine the dismay of his constituents on finding that, by the Rules of the House, they had no locus standi to be heard as Petitioners in opposition to the Bill. The Company merely asked for power to employ a further amount of capital in carrying out the powers already conceded to them some 20 years ago. He would not for a single moment call in question the decision of the Court of locus standi . He was quite sure that the hon. Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton) and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) correctly interpreted the precedents established by the House; but hon. Members must feel that it was a case of extreme hardship, in regard to important Corporations, which might be for the next ten years handed over, in regard to what now amounted to one of the necessaries of life, to the tender mercies of a Company whose conduct they had so much reason to complain of. The Petitioners were perfectly satisfied that they would have been able to substantiate a very strong case of grievance against the Company. He would not, however, trouble the House with any general particulars of their case. But it had been usual, in accordance with the practice of Parliament, to enforce certain restrictions upon Companies seeking additional powers, and it was the practice to compel them to place in the market any new capital, under what were called the "auction clauses." But he believed that in this case, in consequence of the extraordinarily anomalous character of the Company, they had been unable to adopt that clause which Parliament had introduced for the protection of the interests of the public. £5 per cent was, instead, to be the maximum dividend to be paid on the new capital authorized to be raised under the Bill. That might be a sufficient and an important concession in the public interests. It would be an important protection, were it not for the fact that this Company, which, as he had described, had separate Acts of Parliament for particular districts, had, notoriously, a central management in London which, by an ingenious process, enabled them to defeat the provisions of the Act of Parliament. For instance, under the Company's Act for the Staffordshire Potteries, they were permitted to pay only a maximum dividend of £10 per cent on certain original shares; they were limited to £7½ per cent upon the share capital to be created under the Act; and yet it would hardly be believed by the House that, as a matter of fact, they admitted before the Lords' Committee that they paid a uniform £10 per cent upon the whole of the capital employed in all their undertakings. At that moment, he held in his hand a Circular issued by the Company, in which they proposed to allot the new £20 shares to meet the further outlay, which further capital was restricted to a dividend of £5 per cent, at a sum of £34 per share. Nothing, he thought, could be more clear than the fact that, by a very clever manipulation, while complying, apparently, in a formal manner with the forms of the Act, and only charging upon each separate station the maximum dividend sanctioned by Parliament, they did, in some way or other, with which he need not trouble the House, contrive to pay the regular shareholders a sum in the shape of a dividend far in excess of the amount sanctioned by Parliament. But, while framing their accounts in apparent compliance with the requirements of the Act of Parliament, they declared that, in this Staffordshire Potteries district, they had not been able to earn even the maximum dividend. He believed that if the Petitioners' witnesses had been allowed to go before the Select Committee, they would have been able to show that that was largely attributable to the manipulation referred to, or to the gross mismanagement of the business of the Company. In proof of that, he might state that, in the Parliamentary borough which he had the honour to represent, gasworks had been acquired by three municipal boroughs—Burslem, Stoke, and Longton—which had purchased them at a large premium on the original share capital. They had, nevertheless, been able not only to pay the interest on their large outlay, but they had been also able annually to write off a certain portion of the capital itself, to set aside a sum for contingencies, and, in addition, they had been able, out of their surplus profits, to appropriate a very handsome sum in aid of the rates of the district. He could personally testify to the accuracy of this statement, because he happened to be the Chairman of the Gas Committee in one of these towns; and, as a matter of fact, they had this very year, out of the surplus profits, ceded to the public, in aid of the rates, an amount equivalent to 7d. per 1,000 feet. That was a case of special hardship. There was nothing in common between the proprietors of this particular Company and the districts with which they dealt; and it was only a natural thing that the Commissioners of Hanley and Tunstall, contemplating the happy circumstances of their neighbours, should desire to be placed in the same favourable position. They were willing to buy—indeed, they had offered to buy—the gasworks, and to pay to the Company, in perpetuity, the maximum dividends which they had not been able to earn, according to their own account. They had offered 25 years' purchase on the profits, or to accept the works at a price to be fixed by fair arbitration. He (Mr. Woodall) made this appeal to the House in all earnestness. The Petitioners had neglected no opportunity of submitting their case to a Committee. Under those circumstances, he hoped the House would refrain from passing a Bill which would render his constituents helpless for a long period of years. This was the only opportunity they could have of bringing their grievances under the notice of Parliament, as it was the last occasion on which the Company were likely to come to that House for additional capital. He was authorized to say that there was no real urgency in the case, and that neither the public interests nor the interests of the Company would suffer from the delay of another year. The evidence went to show that there would be no injury. There had been no increase of business of importance in the last few years. He, therefore, begged to move that the Bill be read a third time on that day three months. He thanked the House for their indulgence, and trusted that they would sustain him in this endeavour, in the interests of his constituents and of the very large population concerned, to prevent what would, undoubtedly, be a grievous wrong.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day three months."—( Mr. Woodall .)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

said, he was a Member of the Court of locus standi to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) had referred on this occasion; and, in this case, he had had the honour of acting as Chairman. He had to acknowledge the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman in giving him notice of his intention to move the rejection of the Bill, not that he understood that the hon. Gentleman in any way impugned the decisions of the Court, but that he simply desired to call attention to the way in which the decisions of that Court might, in his opinion, on some occasions, and had actually, on this occasion, operated unfairly towards Petitioners in certain cases. The House was aware of the nature of the constitution of the Court of locus standi . It was composed partly of Members of that House, and partly of the Official Referees, including the learned gentleman the Speaker's counsel. That Court, in no case, ever entered into the merits of the question. They simply decided whether, on a petition presented against a Private Bill, the Petitioners, according to the practice of the House, had any right to be heard and to go before the Committee which was ultimately to decide upon the merits of the Bill. In coming to a decision, the Court of locus standi invariably consulted the previous practice of the House, which was a practice laid down partly by Standing Orders, and partly gathered from previous decisions which were carefully reported and published by barristers practising at the Parliamentary Bar; and though, of course, the Court never considered itself bound by any hard-and-fast rule, or that they were slavishly to follow previous decisions, they generally did follow the precedents previously established, as did the Superior Courts of Westminster, except where it appeared that the decision had been arrived at in consequence of some mistake, or that it might operate harshly in a particular case. He did not think that anything of that kind would be found to exist in the present case. There had been no hardship inflicted of any kind whatever, and the rules laid down by the Court which bore upon this particular case were founded upon common sense and justice. Those rules were these—where a Water Company or a Gas Company simply came forward for legislative authority to improve their existing works, without raising additional capital, without increasing the rates on the consumers, without diminishing the quantity of gas supplied, and without deteriorating the quality of the article; where, in fact, they did nothing but improve the existing supply and enlarge their works under powers they already possessed, then the consumers had no right at all to be heard, the object of the Bill being simply for their advantage, and for the improvement of the supply. That was the case on the present occasion, and so far as he understood the argument of the hon. Member for Stoke, who moved the rejection of the Bill, there was nothing that was at all unusual in the case. There was no proposal to increase the rates, there was no deterioration of the quality or the quantity of the supply, and the Bill had solely for its object the improvement of the works of the Company under powers which they already possessed. The consequence was, that the merits of the question had not been gone into; but the Bill had been before a Committee in the other House, and had also received the careful consideration which all unopposed Bills received at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means. So much as regarded the objects of the Bill and the alleged reasons why the Petitioners were deprived of their right to be heard. But if they turned for a moment to the merits of the case, which he (Mr. Pemberton) had really for the first time heard from the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill—and they would find these reasons also stated in a memorial circulated by the Petitioners in consequence of the opposition to the Bill—he thought they would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the objections were simply, solely, and purely to past legislation. Whatever might have been the origin of the Company, whatever faults there might have been in its constitution were considerations with which the Court of locus standi could have nothing to do. It was stated—he thought the hon. Gentleman said so—that one objection to the Bill was that the affairs of the Company were managed by directors in London, who had no connection with the locality and did not understand its requirements. If that were so, it was a great fault of the Bill under which the Company was constituted; but in no way could it apply as an objection to the present scheme, which in no way affected the constitution or management of the Company, but simply imposed an obligation to devote part of the capital which already existed to the improvement of the works. The same observation might be made in respect to other objections. He dare say that the Company might be anomalously constituted. It might be so. He gave no opinion upon the matter. It might be that there was no power of checking the accounts of the Company, and it might be—indeed, he had no doubt it was so—that all the objections the hon. Gentleman had urged against the Company's Act, as it stood, did exist. But they were objections, as the House would see, to past legislation, and they could not be in any way remedied by the present scheme. He did not know whether it was the fact; but it appeared in the Memorial as one of the objections to the Bill that the Petitioners really wished to purchase the undertaking, but that, at present, they had no power to do so. It was, of course, obvious that if they wished to do so, and desired to purchase the works, the proper course would be for them to bring in a Bill. They complained of the undertaking as it existed; but it could not be said that they had any reason to complain of the Bill at present promoted by the Company, seeing that it simply proposed an improvement of their existing works. It was not unreasonable that the Company should object to the insertion in such a Bill of a clause compelling them to sell their undertaking, because the Petitioners wished to purchase it, but which the Company had not the slightest wish to part with. He could only say that the Court took the matter fully into consideration in dealing with the question of locus standi ; and he hoped he had convinced the House that, according to its undeviating practice, the Petitioners had no right to be heard before the Committee. When they came to examine the merits of the case, he thought hon. Members would see that the hon. Member for Stoke had made out no case of hardship or grievance which would justify the House in excluding it from the usual operation of the rules framed for the regulation of Private Bill legislation.

said, he had asked the House to consider yesterday the inconvenience of a lengthened discussion upon a Private Bill on the third reading. The same thing had happened again that day, and a Private Bill now engaged the attention of the House on the third reading, to the disarrangement of the ordinary course of Business. This Bill, as well as that of yesterday, had passed through all its other stages unopposed, yet several hours were devoted to discussing them upon the final stage. The present Bill, for the reasons which had been explained by his hon. Friend the Member for East Kent (Mr. Pemberton), had become unopposed as far as the House of Commons was concerned. It was now opposed on the third reading, and it would require very exceptional circumstances indeed to justify Parliament in going out of its usual course, and throwing out a Bill on its last stage. He did not deny that there was certainly something exceptional in the case, and, perhaps, enough to justify Parliament in being a little jealous of increasing the capital of the Company, if they were, for the first time, asked to constitute a Gas Company which should not belong to the particular locality in which its operations were to be carried on. He did not think, in the mode in which the legislation of Parliament was now conducted, that the powers possessed by the Company would be given. But it was a Company which had established itself 50 years ago, when the supplying of gas was not nearly so profitable an undertaking as it was now, and when local authorities specially invited the Company to settle in their localities in order to supply gas. This British Gas Light Company was invited 27 years ago by local authorities in Staffordshire to assist them in distributing gas to the localities, and there were two Acts of Parliament conferring powers upon them; one passed in 1858, and the other in 1876. The Petitioners had nothing to complain of in regard to the rate at which they were supplied with gas. The Staffordshire Potteries section of the British Gas Company supplied their customers at the rate of 3 s . 6 d . per 1,000 feet. This Session the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board, had sent up Provisional Orders, in which 6 s . per 1,000 feet was allowed as a maximum. He had remonstrated with that maximum as Chairman of Committees, and he had endeavoured to obtain a reduction of it to 4 s . 6 d . per 1,000. But, in regard to the Staffordshire Potteries, the localities there were supplied with gas at a price which was certainly not onerous; 3 s 6 d . per 1,000 feet was the maximum. The Company now came before Parliament, having established themselves in the Staffordshire Potteries, and carrying on a fair trade, for power to raise additional capital, which they intended to devote to the improvement of their existing works. At present they had a capital of £40,000, upon which a dividend of £10 per cent was paid; £30,000 upon which £7 10 s . per cent was paid, and, in the present Bill, they asked for power to raise £50,000 more, upon which they were limited to pay £5 per cent. These conditions were not onerous, and the whole question came to this—the localities affected were now anxious to supply their own gas. That was quite natural. They wished to purchase the undertaking of the present Company; but the Company did not wish to sell. Parliament had never yet, he believed he was right in so stating, given compulsory powers to any corporation to buy a gas undertaking against the wish of the owners, although such corporation would have a perfect right to come forward and promote a Bill, in order to try the question, and see if Parliament would give compulsory powers of purchase. At the present moment, the Bill submitted to the House asked for a very natural extension of the undertaking which already existed under a Parliamentary statute; and he did not think that the House, on the third reading of the Bill, ought to be called upon to throw out the measure.

said, he was not going to take up the time of the House by discussing what took place yesterday; but he hoped the House would pause before it consented to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Wood- all), which would be the means of inflicting a great and undeserved hardship upon the Company which was promoting the Bill. The constituents of the hon. Member who were opposing the Bill sought to play the part of Ahab, and the hon. Member asked the House of Commons to assume the part of Jezebel. He (Colonel Makins) had no connection whatever with the Company who were promoting the Bill; but he hoped the House would do nothing to defeat the Bill. The Company were carrying on their business under the sanction of an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member for Stoke said that his constituents complained of many things. He accused the Company of doing things they ought not to do, and of leaving undone things that they ought to do. But if any just ground of complaint existed, why not proceed against the Company, and get the penalties which the Act imposed for any breach of the provisions of the Act? In point of fact, the Company had gone through every stage of inquiry in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons, and had now reached the very last stage of their Bill. They had already incurred all the expense of promoting the Bill through Parliament, and it was unreasonable to spring upon it at the last moment this very unlooked-for opposition. He was quite sure that nothing in the shape of such a Motion had ever before been presented to the House. There was absolutely no precedent for such action as that which was now being taken for throwing out such a Bill upon the third reading.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 70; Noes 29: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 83.)

Main Question put, and agreed to (Queen's Consent signified).

Bill read the third time, and passed , without Amendment.

, in rising to move, as an Amendment—

"That considering the declarations of Her Majesty's Government, it is essential that regard should be had to the necessities of the Indian Exchequer before the British financial arrangements for the year are completed;"

said, that additional gravity and importance were given to this subject by the very serious announcement that had just been made by the Secretary of State for India. It seemed to open up a prospect of great additional expense. He had no desire to appear in a character hostile to the Government; he felt that the means had somehow or other to be provided; and if there was any man who could so manipulate our finances that two and two should make six, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was the man. In the present state of this matter some operation of that kind was required. He wished some explanation with regard to the obligations into which the Government had entered in regard to India. He did not appear as the advocate of an excessive amount of help to India. On the contrary, he was unable to support the present Postmaster General when, on a former occasion, he proposed a very large measure of help. But things were much changed since then. The Motion he had submitted rested solely and entirely on the declaration of the Government. The Government had promised to give to India real and substantial aid. What was that substantial aid to be? What was the ascertained and acknowledged cost of this war up to the end of the financial year? The war would not cost less than £15,000,000, and, with the £4,000,000 for strategical railways, that would bring the amount up to £19,000,000 as the ascertained cost up to the end of the present financial year. For his own part, he was very apprehensive that complications and expense would arise from the situation at Candahar, and his anticipation had been fulfilled by the lamentable occurrence announced by the noble Lord. They now knew that complications of a very sad character had occurred in the neighbourhood of Candahar, and they were likely to lead to increased expenditure. He feared that the expenditure would not ultimately be less than £25,000,000; but, his Motion only referred to the expenditure up to the end of the financial year. It was admitted that this amounted to £19,000,000, and that we must contribute a substantial portion. What fund had they out of which they could meet that? During the past few days they had had a revised Budget Statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they found the anticipated surplus was no more than £434,000; and he wished to know how they were to meet the obligations of some millions of pounds out of that small sum that would remain to the credit of the Government? The Government had stated that they would not announce the sum which they proposed to contribute till they knew what the expenses of the Afghan War would be; but he was afraid that that would compel India to borrow money, though it might be afterwards repaid by this country. That would be a proceeding contrary to the best principles of finance. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down that the year's Expenditure should be borne by the Revenue of the year, and he (Sir George Campbell) supported that view. The Indian Government had taken a step, he did not say towards frittering away a large portion of their Revenue, but for getting rid of a good deal of it. By setting aside the compromise which had been entered into with that House—namely, that the Cotton Duties should be remitted only when the Indian finances could afford it—the Indian Government had brought about a large loss of Revenue when the money could ill be spared. He submitted to Her Majesty's Government that it seemed to him that, whatever contribution was to be given to India out of the British Exchequer, a large part of it ought to be given within this year, and arrangements with that view should accordingly be made before the present English Budget was completed. He took it for granted that, whatever they might give, they would never again see the £2,000,000 they had advanced to India without interest. The instalment they had expected in the present year towards repaying that £2,000,000 would not be received from India. Did Her Majesty's Government propose to give India the instalment this year, or how did they intend to deal with that subject? They could not well postpone these matters indefinitely, or leave them over to some other year. The necessities of India were pressing, and it would not be right to force her to borrow when they owed her money. It was true that the Indian Government had borrowing powers; but, last year, a distinct pledge was given that those borrowing powers would not be used unless a necessity arose in relation to the exchanges. A debt of several millions was practically due to India; and to meet that debt another 2 d . ought to be added to the Income Tax. Instead of objecting to the imposition of an additional 1 d . of Income Tax, the advocates of a spirited foreign policy would, he thought, do better to support a large increase of that tax. In conclusion, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would offer the House some explanation on that subject before their financial arrangements were concluded; and he, therefore, begged to move the Amendment which he had put on the Paper.

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "considering the declarations of Her Majesty's Government, it is essential that regard should be had to the necessities of the Indian Exchequer before the British financial arrangements for the year are completed,"—( Sir George Campbell ,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

said, he could not help regretting that his hon. Friend had thought it necessary on that occasion to mix up the two great questions of Indian Finance and British Finance, which ought to be kept distinct. The discussion which his hon. Friend sought to raise was inopportune at this moment, but would be more appropriate a week or two hence, when they would probably have the Indian Budget before them. It had been said that he was bound by the principle he had laid down that the Expenditure of the year should be met out of the Revenue of the year; but he denied that he had ever committed himself to any such broad and novel principle as that. Whether Indian Expenditure should be regulated by precisely the same rules as those which governed the Imperial Expenditure was a new question, and was one which, at the proper time, might deserve to be considered upon its merits. He wished, however, that it should be fully understood that he only used these words in order that he should not appear to be committed on the doctrine which the hon. Member had laid down. The upshot of the hon. Baronet's proposal was that 2 d more ought to be added to the Income Tax. But even if the Government thought it right—which they did not—to propose additional taxation to Parliament, they could not do so before they were able to give some definite Estimate for the charges for the War in Afghanistan, and as to the amount which they might feel it to be their duty to propose that the Imperial Exchequer should contribute towards those charges If ever there was a question on which Parliament would be entitled to say it declined to proceed by instalments until it knew how far it would have to go, it was this. The principle was so novel and important that it would become Parliament to exercise the greatest jealousy and circumspection. They did not think it prudent or politic to demand from Parliament to lay fresh taxes on the country before they were able to give them something like a definite Estimate both of the charges of the War, and of the contribution which it would be the duty of this country to make towards these charges. He did not wish it to be thought he undervalued the importance of the topics on which the hon. Member touched, if he then offered no observations upon them. An early opportunity would arrive for their discussion, when the hon. Member would be in a position to urge his views. One of the purposes of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill was to provide the Government with a real, although a moderate, surplus; and he hoped, therefore, the hon. Member would not obstruct a Bill which moved in the direction which he advocated because it did not go further. One man might lead a horse to the water, but 20 men could not make it drink. The hon. Member might stop the Bill; but he could not make the Government put on additional taxation, when they did not think it right or just to do it. Even if they did, he did not think the House would be of that opinion.

said, he only wished to interpose for a moment. No one could have heard the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India without the deepest regret. The first idea of all must be to give every possible support and assistance to the Government in the very difficult position in which they were placed by the news which they had recently received. At the same time, it was not surprising that this Motion had been made by the hon. Member, because, since December, 1878, when the total cost of the War was only a little over £1,000,000, proposals to charge the whole amount to the Imperial Exchequer were always supported by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, the first proposal to the effect having been, he believed, seconded by the Prime Minister. During the first Session of the present year, not only were proposals of that kind made, but it was actually attempted to induce the then Government to make a statement as to the amount, if any, of the contribution they intended to make out of the Imperial Funds to the Indian Exchequer, before the financial arrangements of the year were concluded. The late Government acceded to that proposal, and accepted the suggestion as a reasonable one that, before the financial arrangements for the year were finally settled, the House should have an opportunity of discussing the whole question referring to the amount of the contribution towards the Indian Exchequer. What had happened during the present Parliament? The Prime Minister had brought in a Budget, in which he distinctly told the House that he did take into consideration the position of the Indian Exchequer, and made it one of the grounds for imposing additional taxation that he had to take into account the contribution which he might have to make towards the expenses of the Afghan War. But now he had no proposal to make upon the subject. He would venture to point out that if the Government continued for too long a period to maintain the attitude they had at present adopted there might be some danger in making indefinite promises. In making such promises, there was the risk of weakening the security we had for economical administration in India, because people were generally more careful with regard to small details when they knew that they would have to pay the expenses out of their own pockets. The present position of the Government was this—there was an excess of Expenditure to a considerable amount; but only part of it fell into the present financial year. The noble Lord had told the House that there was no immediate financial pressure in India, and that the Government did not desire to make any definite announcement of their intentions until they had made themselves fully acquainted with the facts; but that they were about to make a solid and substantial contribution from the Imperial Exchequer. In these circumstances, hon. Members near him reserved their opinion both in spirit and in detail as to the proposal which the Government might hereafter make; and, therefore, he hoped that the House would not press the Government any further in the matter, but would at once proceed with the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Main Question put, and agreed to .

Bill considered .

said, that he had one or two new clauses to move, and, though it would not be regular to do so at this stage if any hon. Member objected, yet he hoped to be allowed to proceed with them. The first of these clauses provided that beer might be brewed by private brewers upon different conditions to those affecting public brewers in regard to penalties and regulations. The clause would allow private brewing in premises under the value of £10, and which premises were not the parties' own, but lent gratuitously for the occasion. He moved the insertion of this clause in the Bill.

New Clause (Beer to be brewed for domestic use,)—( Mr. Gladstone ,)— brought up , and read a first time.

On Question, "That the Clause be read a second time?"

said, he did not wish the consideration of the Bill to be postponed; but he wished to call the attention of the House to the fact that this clause would allow a farmer to brew beer for his labourers without paying duty, and would revive the old truck system, inasmuch as a farmer would pay part of the men's wages in beer.

explained that the duty would have to be paid on beer made for that purpose.

said, in that case, his objection to the clause vanished.

wished to explain that this clause was inconsistent with his former declarations; but his justification was a simple one. He had to take a choice of evils, and as he found that the practice of brewing for labourers existed in some parts, he could not cut it up by the roots, therefore, he allowed it to continue. He had not extended the exemption to tradesmen and manufacturers, because it was not their general custom to brew for their employês . He did not think that either public or private brewers would be in any way affected by the clause.

was surprised that any exception should be taken to a proposal in relief of the private brewers, who were suffering under great disadvantages. He considered the public brewers had nothing to complain of in this exemption.

thought the private brewer ought to be allowed 6 per cent for waste, the same as the public brewers.

said, the private brewer would not be allowed 6 per cent for waste, because his case was not the same as the public brewer. There would be no testing of the private brewer's beer, and the 6 per cent for waste would be out of place. The private brewer would be charged by the presumptive charge on the materials, and that would be less stringently applied.

understood that under this clause one farm labourer could brew his beer in another labourer's copper without being liable to duty, provided the value of the premises where the brewing took place was under £10.

wished to call attention to the amount of the penalty contained in the clause. The penalty was fixed at £10, which, he thought, was not sufficiently heavy to deter private brewers from incurring it. He thought that should be increased from £10 to £100.

thought the private brewers ought to have an allowance of 10 per cent—4 per cent off the presumptive charge, and 6 per cent for waste.

said, he could not accept that suggestion, because the private brewer could not have his liquor tested.

was also of opinion that the penalty of £10 was not sufficient to prevent fraud.

protested against a system which encouraged a farmer to supply his men with beer. What was to be done where the men were teetotallers?

reminded the hon. Member that this was a Revenue Bill and not a Liquor Bill. In some parts of the country it was the custom for farmers to supply their labourers with beer, and the Government did not desire to interfere with the long-established custom.

thought they had too much discussion about revenue. He thought it was a great mistake to legislate in favour of an evil practice. They had had Commissions and Committees which had over and over again reported against the truck system, and now the Government were going to legislate in favour of it so far as beer was concerned.

Question put, and agreed to .

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."—( Mr. Gladstone .)

moved to substitute £100 for the £10 penalty in the clause, in case of any contravention of the Bill by private brewers.

ruled that such an Amendment was inadmissible.

said, it would be absurd to provide that a farmer who transgressed one of the regulations in the clause should be liable to a penalty of £100.

Question put, and agreed to .

On Motion of Mr. GLADSTONE, New Clause (Saving rights under certain charters,)— brought up , and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 3 (Repeal of excise duties on malt, &c.)

moved, in page 2, line 22, to leave out from "The Duty" to "beer" in line 25. He wished to know why the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to abolish the duty on sugar used for brewing? Why should they not leave well alone, for the Kingdom gained by this duty on sugar? The only persons who would be benefited by its being taken off would be the foreign sugar manufacturers.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 22, to leave out from the words "The Duty," to the word "beer," in line 25, both inclusive.—( Colonel Barne .)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

said, that the Bill was based on the principle of converting the tax on the materials into a duty on the finished article. It would be an anomaly, if sugar were the only material used that was not exempt from taxation. If he accepted the Amendment, sugar would be taxed twice.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Clause agreed to .

Clause 17 (Power to distrain for duties in arrear).

moved, in page 8, line 11, to leave out "him," and insert "a magistrate." This would provide that the Excise collectors' warrants should first be signed by a magistrate.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 11, to leave out the word "him," in order to insert the words "a magistrate."—( Colonel Barne .)

Question proposed, "That the word 'him' stand part of the Bill."

said, he could not accept the Amendment. The subject referred to the magistrate would be one that he could not possibly decide without technical knowledge. Moreover, the power given by the Bill was exactly the same as was given by the distillery regulations.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 33 (A brewing paper to be delivered to brewers other than brewers for sale for the purpose of entries therein).

Amendment proposed,

In page 12, line 38, to leave out the words "for sale" and insert the words "other than a brewer for sale, if chargeable to the duty on beer under this Act."—( Mr. Gladstone. )

Question, "That the words 'for sale,' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived .

Question proposed, "That

the words 'other than a brewer for sale, if chargeable to the duty on beer under this Act,' be there inserted."

moved an Amendment providing for returns of the materials used in private brewing. He urged that it was desirable to know whether the amount of those materials was great or small. In the former case it would not be fair to continue the exemption; in the latter, the public brewers had no case against the private brewer. The fact was the trade contended that the Government were charging too high a duty on the public brewers. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman to take some account of the materials used by private brewers, so that if they used much, the public brewers would be able to come to the Government and ask for an amendment of the Bill upon that point.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "sale," to the end of the proposed Amendment.—( Mr. Watney. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

hoped he would be able to satisfy the hon. Member, who had been most fair in dealing with this Bill, that it was not desirable to adopt his Amendment. The great bulk of private brewing was done in very small houses in the rural districts, it being a rural rather than an urban practice. The hon. Member would bear in mind that the exemption applied only to beer brewed for domestic use; otherwise, whatever might be the value of the house, the Revenue Department would call on the people suspected to make a return of the materials used. It was not probable that private brewing would be much increased by the operation of the Act, and it would obviously be troublesome for agricultural labourers to have to make returns.

expressed his belief that the arrangements in regard to private brewing would open an avenue to a great deal of surreptitious brewing.

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Words inserted .

Clause, as amended, agreed to .

Clause 34 (Provisions as to charge and payment of duty).

said, this Bill was drawn on a rather sharp and tyrannical line, and would give immense power to the Excise officers. A brewer who did not at once pay the charge made by the officers rendered himself liable to an execution against his goods. He therefore moved an Amendment to the clause, giving a brewer the right of appealing to Quarter Sessions before an execution was issued against him.

Amendment proposed,

In page 13, line 13, after the word "appoint," to insert the words "Where the person charged with Duty shall consider himself unduly charged or overcharged, such person may appeal to quarter sessions; the decision of such Court shall be final; the costs of such appeal shall be defrayed by the loser of the case."—( Colonel Barne .)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, he thought the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman could not properly be made in this place. No doubt, a trader ought to have a remedy in case of overcharge; but the provisions on the subject, instead of applying to this particular clause, ought to overrun the whole Excise law. In point of fact, they did overrun the whole Excise law. He believed there was an appeal to the Justices; but the provision with regard to this was in the Excise General Regulation Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

moved to insert the word "rateable" after "annual" in the 3rd sub-section of the clause, so that the basis of licensed houses might be defined. Unless the word "rateable" were inserted, the valuation of a house would be left entirely to the excisemen.

Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 14, after the word "annual," to insert the word "rateable."—( Mr. Storer. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'rateable' be there inserted."

was unable to accept the Amendment, as it would introduce a principle which was quite novel as far as Imperial taxation was concerned. The words in the clause were sufficiently clear, and the same rule would apply as in all other cases of Imperial taxation.

said, the question had been discussed over and over again, and several divisions taken upon it.

said, the Government in the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill had taken the rataeble value as a basis.

pointed out that the whole question of valuation would have to be seriously considered by the Government next year. Meanwhile it would, perhaps, be better to leave the words in their present ambiguous form.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 14; Noes 166: Majority 152.—(Div. List, No.84.)

Clause 43 (Duties on licences for the retailing of beer and wine).

, in moving in page 16 the insertion of a sub-section, providing that—

"The holder of a licence to retail beer and wine to be consumed on the premises shall not be required to take out any further or other Excise licence to enable him to sell beer or wine by retail,"

said, his object was to obtain from the Chancellor of the Exchequer an explicit declaration that it would be no longer necessary for a person licensed to retail beer and wine to take out a refreshment house licence.

Amendment proposed,

In page 16, line 10, after the word "year," to insert the words "The holder of a licence to retail beer and wine to be consumed on the premises shall not be required to take out any further or other Excise licence to enable him to sell beer or wine by retail."—( Mr. Arthur Arnold. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, there would be no obligation to take out such a licence.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Clause agreed to .

Clause 44 (Alteration of duties on licences to retailers of spirits).

moved, in page 16, line 21, after "occupied," to insert "not being farm premises."

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 21, after the word "occupied," to insert the words "not being farm premises."—( Lord Burghley. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, there were no words in the Bill to include farm premises in the valuation, and it would lead to some difficulty if the words proposed were inserted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved to amend the scale by omitting the line "£50 and under £100, £25," and inserting "£50 and under £75, £22 10 s ., and £75 and under £100, £25." His object was to diminish the great gap which the clause made between £50 and £100.

Amendment proposed,

and insert—

—( Mr. Maurice Brooks. )

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

thought the hon. Member for Dublin, before submitting his proposition to the House, ought to have been prepared to state what loss would ensue to the Revenue from its adoption.

submitted that the onus of calculating the loss to the Revenue did not rest upon his hon. Friend, whose object was to remedy what he deemed to be an injustice. He should support the Amendment, as he regarded the rise from £50 to £100 too high a jump.

hoped the Prime Minister would see his way to such modification of the scale as was proposed.

agreed that the jump was too high, but not the price of the licence. He would fix the licence for houses over £50 and under £75 at £25, and houses between £75 and £100 at £30.

said, there were two matters to be considered in dealing with the Motion—first, the amount of Revenue to be sacrificed, and secondly, the equitable arrangement of the scale. The amount of Revenue to be sacrificed would be very considerable. It was calculated that the number of houses rated at from £50 to £100 was 16,700, and that of these 12,000 were rated at from £50 to £75. The loss to the Revenue would, therefore, amount to something like £30,000 per annum, and having already sacrificed £36,000 in respect to the lower class of houses, he could not now afford to give up such a large sum. It did not seem to him that the scale as it stood was inequitable, seeing that it was constructed on the principle of making the steps the longer the higher they went. He hoped the House would adhere to the scale as it was given in the clause.

thought that if the principle of the Amendment were accepted, there should be some modification of the whole scale to cover the loss of Revenue resulting from it. He would suggest that licences under £75 should pay on a smaller scale than those above £75.

supported the views of the hon. Member for Burnley.

said, he objected to any alterations being made in the direction proposed by the Amendment. Under the scale as contained in the Bill a poor man occupying a house under £10 paid £4 10 s ., which was 9 s . in the pound on his rental. Again, a person occupying a house at £20 and under £25 paid £11, which was also 9 s . in the pound on the rental; but as the scale advanced considerably less was paid, for he found that from £300 to £400 the amount was £40, which was only 2

reminded the House that no public-house was rated at the present time above £50 a-year. He agreed that it would be fair to raise the rating of the higher class of houses to a certain extent. But as the highest scale that was paid at present was £16 10

Question put, and agreed to.

moved, in page 16, after sub-section 2, to insert the following sub-section:—

"Any person applying for a six days' and early closing licence for the sale of spirits as an auxiliary only to his business as a restaurateur or eating-house keeper, and not keeping an open drinking bar, shall be entitled to his licence at a sum not exceeding thirty pounds, no such reduction to he made unless the Licensing Justices shall have certified by endorsement on their certificate that the nature of the business carried on by the applicant justifies the reduced scale of charge."

said, that the question raised in the Amendment was not free from difficulties; but as it contained an equitable principle, he felt disposed to encounter the difficulties which he foresaw would arise, and to agree to the proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Words inserted accordingly.

moved to insert, in page 17, after line 8, the following subsection:—

(4) "The managers and owners of all clubs, whether proprietary or otherwise, selling spirits, wines, and beer on the premises shall take out licences in accordance with the scale of duties specified in sub-sections (1) (2) and (3) of this Clause."

supported the Amendment.

ruled that the Amendment could only be put to the vote in Committee of the Whole House.

did not think it possible to deal with the subject of the Amendment in the present Bill; but he fully admitted that it was a matter requiring consideration. He should like the House to understand exactly the method in which he had proceeded in respect to hotels, because it formed an important branch of the subject, evidently requiring different treatment to that applied to ordinary drinking-shops. In hotels the drinking-shop trade was subordinate, and, in many cases, rather an insignificant branch, so far as the general hotel drinking was concerned. Under this Bill, an hotel of the annual value of £50 would pay £20 on a licence to retail spirits, instead of £16. The scale was adapted to drinking-houses and not to hotels; and, consequently, it had been provided that the tax upon hotels was, as a general rule, not to rise above £20. But in hotels it often happened that there was a small taproom, forming only an insignificant portion of the whole premises. It would be hard to levy an additional duty in such a case. Under the Bill an hotel which would pay £25 would, in that event, have to pay £14 additional as a public-house. There was already an increase in the duty of from £16 to £20. Of course, if the taproom formed an important element in the hotel the case would be different; but the whole matter was, perhaps, open to further inquiry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved, in page 17, line 17, after "behalf," to insert—

"Or a grocer in Scotland as defined by section two of 'The Public Houses (Scotland) Act 1853.'"

As he understood the Prime Minister was prepared to accept the Amendment, he would not trouble the House with a speech.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment, which would place Scotch grocers at an advantage over English and Irish grocers. The licence, which in England and Ireland cost £9 18 s . 5 d ., cost only £4 4 s . in Scotland.

said, the question of grocers' licences in the Three Kingdoms caused great difficulty. They were different licences, and the conditions attaching to them were exceedingly various. This, however, was not an opportunity for alteration, and he thought they could not do better than leave them as at present. He would accept the Amendment; but it would be necessary in doing so to amend a subsequent clause by extending to Scotch grocers the provision as to early closing and Sunday closing.

asked the noble Lord to point out any substantial difference between the grocers' licence in Scotland and Ireland which would justify the difference in the amount paid for the licence. Unless some explanation was forthcoming it would be necessary to divide.

said, what he proposed to do was to leave the law exactly as it was. The subject was a complicated one; but they did not feel themselves able to deal with it fully in this Bill. On a future occasion he should be very glad to endeavour to introduce a more equitable system.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

moved, in page 17, sub-section 5, line 17, after "behalf," to insert "in England or Scotland." The sub-section dealt with the Licensing Act, under which, in England, grocers obtained a licence for £10 for selling spirits in quart bottles, and he wished that the same right should be enjoyed in Scotland as well as in England.

Amendment proposed, in page 17, line 17, at the end of sub-section 5, to add the words "in England and Scotland."—( Mr. M'Laren. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

said, there were difficulties in the way of accepting the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50 (Grant of additional duties of income tax).

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment the object of which was to reduce the assessment for Income Tax of the farmer from one-half to one-quarter of his rent. At present a farmer was supposed practically to make an income equal to one-half his rent; but for some years back that had not been a just or fair calculation. The probability was that, owing to American competition, the farmer's position would become worse instead of better, and the carrying on of the business of farming was becoming more difficult than ever. An eminent valuer had given his opinion that the value of land had depreciated 30 or 40 per cent. If they maintained a system of averages it should be a fair and honest one. By the admission of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, the present average was not a fair or proper one. It was not only from the operation of the seasons, but in consequence of recent legislation, that the English farmer could not make the profit he had, perhaps, formerly made. Farming had been rendered more difficult and expensive of late years by a number of legislative Acts. Free Trade had crippled him greatly. The education rate was, in many cases, 1 towns, where the assessment was laid, not on income, but on the premises occupied. Additional taxation had also been imposed by the Highway Act, the farmer having to maintain the roads. He would be told that there was an appeal to the Income Tax Commissioners; but it was well known that, in the majority of cases, this appeal was of no use, and that the Commissioners were practically guided by the Revenue officers. The English farmers did not attempt to raise a rebellion against the landlords. They did not attempt to roast a farmer on ashes, as had been done in the neighbourhood of Galway to a farmer who had paid his rent. But, if the English farmers were peaceable and orderly, was that any reason why they should be ground to earth by unjust taxation? He had no doubt the fact was, as stated the other evening by the hon. Member for Cardigan, that the English farmer in many cases was paying the Income Tax, not out of profits, but out of capital. He, therefore, complained of unjust and excessive taxation. His proposal was—and he thought it was only a fair and a just proposal—that agricultural tenants should be assessed for Income Tax at one-fourth, instead of one-half, of their rent. He concluded by moving, in page 19, line 27, to leave out "halfpenny" and insert "farthing."

Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 27, to leave out the word "halfpenny" and insert the word "farthing."—( Mr. Storer. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'halfpenny' stand part of the Bill."

said, that they could not, in this incidental manner, re-arrange the well-understood proportion of the Income Tax paid by the occupier. If ever the change was made, it would require careful consideration and calculation.

Question put, and agreed to.

, in rising to propose the omission of the clause, said, that the effect of his Motion, if carried, would be to reduce the estimated Revenue by £1,400,000, inasmuch as it negatived the imposition of an additional 1 d . on the Income Tax. In the face of the grave news just received from Afghanistan, he felt some reluctance in proposing his Motion; and if the Government would give him to understand that his doing so would embarrass them in any way, and that there was a possibility, in the event of its being carried, that this reduction of income would prevent them taking the proper and necessary steps to retrieve the disaster in Afghanistan, he would not do so. But he understood, from what had been said on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), that, in the view of the Government, it would not be appropriate to discuss the amount to be paid by this country to India in respect of the Afghan expenditure upon a Customs and Inland Revenue Bill applicable to this country only. Still, if he received any intimation whatever from the Government that the prosecution of this Motion would be in any way inconvenient to them on the ground of its bearing on Indian finance, he would at once withdraw it.

As to the prosecution of the Motion, I must leave that to the noble Lord. The success of the Motion would, undoubtedly, be highly inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government, not only on general grounds, as entirely disposing, and more than disposing, of the estimated surplus income which the House granted, but in part on the special ground that it might be necessary to make a call upon that surplus for the purpose of giving aid to the Indian Exchequer.

said, that perhaps he had better proceed; but he would be short in his arguments, as he knew the Government were anxious to get the Bill through. The reason for imposing additional Income Tax was not to assist the Indian Exchequer, but it was to replace a certain assumed deficiency; and he would place before the House his reasons for believing that this deficiency was most improbable. He had formerly, on the Motion "that the Speaker do leave the Chair," stated the reasons why he and a good many others believed that the Prime Minister had over-estimated his Expenditure and under-estimated his income. The Prime Minister courteously but firmly disposed of his objections, and pointed out that he alone was responsible for the Estimates of the year, and, in accepting the Estimates of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, he declined to take any more favourable view of the Revenue than was taken in March last. He also stated that he could not accept any reduction in the estimated Expenditure so as to enable him to meet the proposed remission without making special provision for it. If the Prime Minister said he could not alter the figures, the significance of the statement must be admitted. It was to be regretted, for the sake of the British taxpayer, that the right hon. Gentleman could not take a more favourable view of the Revenue and Expenditure; but he rejoiced at the conclusion to be deduced as to the late Government. One charge which was made against the late Government was that they were, when in Office, the main obstacle to the revival of trade. ["Hear, hear!"] That appeared to he the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen still. He wished, however, to point out that that great obstacle had now been removed; and yet, so far from the trade of the country reviving, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not rely upon an additional farthing of Revenue. They were attacked also for indulging in wanton and extravagant expenditure, which was estimated to amount for the current year to £83,000,000, yet, so far from its being unnecessary and wanton, the Prime Minister, who had control of the Expenditure for 11 out of 12 months of the present year, was unable to save £200,000 out of it in order to meet a small Supplemental Estimate. If at the end of the financial year the Prime Minister's Estimates proved to be accurate, it was possible his financial reputation would be enhanced; if, on the other hand, his views proved to be right, the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if, instead of hearing eulogies on his financial genius, he was charged with miscalculations by which he had realized a large surplus. As to the second point, that the Government ought not to risk a deficiency, any Chancellor of the Exchequer might, from circumstances beyond his control, be forced to incur one, and the Estimates of the present Prime Minister in 1852, and of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1876, were disturbed by the Eastern Question. Whatever ideas he (Lord George Hamilton) might entertain as to how charges might be met was entirely derived from the conduct of finance by the right hon. Gentleman's Government in 1868. Although, as a general rule, it was prudent to meet the Expenditure of the year out of the Revenue of the year, there were sometimes exceptions, as was shown in 1870, when exceptional expenditure had to be incurred owing to the military re-organization of Lord Cardwell, by which barracks had to be erected as depots in different parts of the country; it was unproductive expenditure, and it might be argued that it was part of the permanent military expenditure of the country; yet he believed the whole sum required was obtained by Terminable Annuities. In 1873, which was a time of exceptional prosperity, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe) had to meet the exceptional expenditure which resulted from the Alabama arbitration. He was then in possession of a surplus of £4,700,000. What did he do? Pay the Alabama Claims out of it? Not a bit. He kept back the greater portion of it to remit taxation. He simply took £1,600,000 towards the Alabama Claims, and the remainder was, if necessary, to be raised by Bonds or Exchequer Bills. The result of the operations of the right hon. Gentleman to which he was referring was a deficiency of nearly £1,400,000. Every single point in this course of Mr. Lowe he held to be in favour of the proposal which he made. The deficiency for which this Bill was to provide was not bequeathed to the right hon. Gentleman, but had been created by the Bill under discussion, notwithstanding the fact that the ground on which the Bill was brought in had gone. The question of the Treaty with France in regard to wines, which was the pretext for creating a deficiency to meet which additional taxation was imposed, had gone, but the taxation remained; and, having looked into the question with great care, he did not believe there was a single precedent in support of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the middle of a financial year, creating a deficiency unless it was to meet some exceptional emergency or to meet some charge over which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no control. What had been the current of the discussion on the present Bill in Committee? The almost unanimous opinion of the brewers, and those best acquainted with their trade, was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would receive a much larger sum than he anticipated from the commutation of the Malt Tax into a Beer Tax; and, therefore, it was essentially an operation which benefited the Exchequer. Notwithstanding this, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that the taxpayers should, in order that they might pay more for their beer in future years, pay an extra 1 d . of Income Tax this year. This seemed to him to be a proposition so unprecedented as not to require any further argument. He would suggest, further, that it would be well for the Exchequer to pay the maltster on his stock of malt in the same way that the maltster had hitherto paid the Exchequer. The custom was for the maltster not in any case to pay his duties in less than six weeks after the completion of the malting process; if he could get bonds, to take three months to pay, and then to pay interest on the amounts due after three months. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the practical suggestion which had been made in that direction; and if it was practicable, and was adopted, the extra 1 d . of Income Tax would be quite unnecessary. The sad news from India brought it vividly home to the minds of the House that a large and substantial contribution would ultimately have to be made to that country if the views of the Prime Minister prevailed. The Prime Minister asked for an extra 1 d . in the pound of Income Tax on the ground of the accuracy of his figures, and all he could say was that if the figures were accurate no substantial relief could be given to India out of the product of the addition proposed to be made. If any such relief was to be given several additional pennies would have to be imposed; and he therefore thought that, in the present condition of trade, it would be well if some arrangement could be made by means of which the imposition of the extra 1 d . could be delayed for a year at least. The revival of trade had not been by any means as sound and continuous as many persons hoped or expected. A great many of our national industries were passing through a crisis in their existence. If they responded to the demand which was made upon them, a vista of increased national prosperity might be looked for; if they did not, then their decay and gradual extinction was only a matter of time. He could not, therefore, admit that it was the proper course, in such a condition of trade, to create a deficiency in order to impose a twofold fresh load of taxation. The hope of the country lay in its recuperative power; and what course could be adopted which was more likely to choke that recuperative power than to impose fresh taxation? The Bill would, in the present year, impose an additional taxation of between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 sterling, and he questioned the wisdom of this course. Every year ought to bear its own burdens. The sum to which he had alluded as that which would have to be paid to the maltsters was one that would not recur; but the profit on the commutation of the tax would go on from year to year, and, therefore, he thought the tax so commuted ought to bear the cost of commutation. The right hon. Gentleman would derive £500,000 from the alteration in the Probate Duties, the Income Tax would produce £1,800,000, the Beer Tax £350,000, and there was an addition to be derived from the extra payments that would result from the alterations in the licence duties. The additions which had been gradually imposed upon the country during the present year would, in his opinion, give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a surplus of £3,000,000 next year. He thought it was unsound financial policy either to obtain a surplus in one year by arranging for a deficiency in the next, or putting the converse, to create a deficiency in one year in order to have a surplus 12 months later. He, therefore, hoped the House would support his Motion, because he thought he had shown that the tax was unnecessary, that it was an imposition both politically and financially impolitic, and one, furthermore, entirely without precedent. The noble Lord concluded by moving the omission of the clause.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 50.—( Lord George Hamilton. )

Question proposed, "That Clause 50 stand part of the Bill."

said, he had failed to gather from the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) whether he intended to challenge the opinion of the House upon his Amendment. He hoped the noble Lord would have the courage of his opinions, as the question he had raised would be well understood by the country to be a direct attack upon the Budget, part of which was the repeal of the Malt Tax. The addition of 1 d . to the Income Tax was intimately connected with the repeal of the Malt Duty. He asked the noble Lord to challenge the opinion of the House as to whether or not Her Majesty's Government were to be supported in their proposed addition to the Income Tax. If Her Majesty's Government were defeated by the noble Lord, of course the Budget would be defeated. He (Mr. Rylands) did not like an addition to the Income Tax any more than the noble Lord. All of them would like not to have any addition to the Income Tax; but he was prepared to accept the Budget as a whole, and, as part of the Budget scheme, he cheerfully supported the proposed addition to the Income Tax. The noble Lord was the apostle of deficiency, and seemed to think that it was better to have a deficiency in the Budget than a surplus. The noble Lord was in this respect an apt disciple of the leading mind upon the Opposition Bench, and in his speech he had paid a high compliment to his right hon. Leader by advocating a policy which, if followed up, would land Her Majesty's Government and the country in a financial Slough of Despond. He had always considered the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) to be the very Micawber of a Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he was always expecting, with his wonderful sanguine disposition and hopefulness of character, that "something would turn up" to the advantage of the finances of the country. Unfortunately, something did not turn up, and, consequently, the right hon. Gentleman was landed in difficulties in regard to his Budget Estimates which, no doubt, he had conscientiously framed. They were told that as they had had a change of Government they ought at once to have a great revival of trade. But the policy of the late Government seriously embarrassed the commercial operations of the country. He was sorry to say that the predictions which were made when they were speaking in the autumn in the country had been verified. They said then that the policy of the Government would not end with the life of the Government, but that it would be fruitful of disaster. All of them were horrified by the intelligence which had reached them from India, and which was one of the results of that policy, ["No," and Cheers .] It was the result of the policy of the late Government. ["Question!"] This was the question. They were now considering the financial proposals of the year, and they could not shut their eyes to the fact that the policy of the late Government had involved them in this serious difficulty. Upon any day they might be horrified by intelligence from three parts of the globe which might put a great strain upon Her Majesty's present Advisers, and a great strain upon the financial resources of the country. It was altogether futile for the late Government to offer the noble Lord as their spokesman, and say—"Now that we have got a change of Government we have got rid of the influence of the policy of the late Government." He, for one, had always in the last Parliament protested against the policy of the late Government in not making proper provision for the financial arrangements of the year. His complaint was that they were constantly kept in the dark, and led into financial positions which were not creditable to the country. They had now the possibility of again coming into the days of surpluses instead of deficiencies; and if it so happened that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had brought forward a Budget the effect of which was to leave a surplus upon the financial year, he should be very glad indeed to see that surplus. He told hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they gave the present Chancellor of the Exchequer a surplus it would be the means in his hands of giving the country the great benefit of his financial administration. In former days, when they had a Government headed by the right hon. Gentleman, they were able to see how a constantly recurring surplus income could be made use of for the benefit of the country at large. [An hon. MEMBER: With good harvests.] He had the greatest confidence in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, notwithstanding the cries and sneers of the other side of the House, they knew very well that the financial authority of the right hon. Gentleman was not equalled in the Kingdom. They were, further, sure that his calculations, in the main, would be proved by the results to be correct. He again challenged the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex to put to the test of a vote the doctrines which he had advocated.

thought it was greatly to be regretted that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) never discussed any subject in that House without introducing the bitterest Party considerations. He was going to address to the House a few observations absolutely free from Party considerations. Unfortunately, he could not agree with the remarks of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex. The Budget of the right hon. Gentleman was nothing more or less than the repeal of the Malt Duty. How was that Budget looked upon by the agricultural community? It was looked upon by them as a boon. Some might place a higher estimate and some a lower estimate on that boon; but there was practical unanimity among the agricultural community that it was a boon. Could the agricultural community or their Representatives afford to refuse the boon that was offered? Both sides of the House agreed that the farming community was in difficulties. Bad harvests, foreign competition, and depression of trade had reduced the farming community to a very low ebb. He did not hesitate to say that the fortunes of British agriculture depended on the throw of the die whether we had a good harvest or a bad harvest. The repeal of the Malt Tax, to a certain extent, relieved the strain on the agricultural community. When he remembered that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House had not a word to say against a repeal of the Malt Tax, he would ask them, and he would ask his noble Friend, could they, with any consistency, accept the repeal of the Malt Tax as a measure of relief, and, in the absence of official information, refuse to consent to the only means by which that relief could be given? The Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and told them on his own responsibility as a Minister of the Crown, after mature deliberation, after careful calculations, that he could effect this measure of relief, but that he could only affect it in this particular way. Was his noble Friend prepared on his own responsibility to advise others on the Opposition side of the House to reject the method proposed? Could they do so consistently with the statement that they were anxious to assist in granting a boon to the farming interest? This proposal of the noble Lord's must be looked at from two points of view, as a Motion to embarrass the Government, and also as a Motion which the House might possibly accept. As a general rule, he would co-operate under ordinary circumstances in any Motion brought forward on the Opposition side of the House which would have the effect of embarrassing Her Majesty's Government; but he could not shut his eyes on this occasion to the possible consequences. He wanted to put this to his noble Friend:—Suppose his Motion were carried, and suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer abandoned the Budget, and with that abandoned the repeal of the Malt Tax, which had been dangled before the eyes of the farmers in a most tempting manner, what would be their position with the farmers? [ Laughter .] He did not know whether hon. Members opposite thought it was a matter for a joke or a laugh; but he could assure them that if they knew the state of the farming interest they would not think it was a matter to laugh at. What would be the position if his noble Friend's Motion were successful, of those who claimed to be the peculiar friends of the farming interest? He represented a constituency which was entirely agricultural. He could not accept such a responsibility as would be imposed upon him by supporting his noble Friend. He admitted, with everyone in the House, that the repeal of the Malt Tax was a measure of relief. There never was a moment when the agricultural community was in more desperate need of a measure of relief, and he could not support a Motion which ran the risk of losing to them that measure of relief. His noble Friend seemed to think that the results of this Budget would be a surplus in the hands of the present Government of from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000. Even if that were so, he could not agree that that was an argument against the Budget. He could not say that the existence of a surplus of that kind would be a misfortune to the country. No doubt, from a purely Party point of view, it would be difficult to see such a surplus in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the absolute philosophy and equamity which should, as rule, guide the Legislature; but he questioned the wisdom of looking at these matters of finance from a point of view purely Party. He would venture to look at them on the present occasion from a national point of view, and admit that his noble Friend was right in his calculation that next year there would be a large surplus. He had not a word to say against the maxim of the Prime Minister that the income of the year should cover the Expenditure of the year; indeed, he would go further, and say that the income of the year should always more than cover the Expenditure of the year. Far be it from him that he should say anything which could imply a criticism of the financial policy of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He ventured to think the financial policy of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, although it was assailed with peculiar malevolence by hon. Gentlemen opposite, was suited to the times; and if the finances of the country had been placed in hands less prudent than those of his right hon. Friend they might have found themselves in a far less satisfactory condition than they were in. But since the Budget of his right hon. Friend was brought forward there had been a marked development. They had an appreciable revival of trade. It might not be a permanent revival, but it was an important fact, and they must take account of it. They had also a reasonable hope of a satisfactory harvest; and they must remember, on the other hand, that they had heavy charges to meet, some which were novel and some which were deferred. It appeared to be a propitious moment to ask the people of this country to bear some additional burden, particularly when the burden was not so unendurably heavy. The House would remember the extraordinary efforts which Americans and Frenchmen had made to pay off war debts. In the golden moment of returning prosperity they ought to place their finances in a satisfactory and creditable position, and, before the political sky become again overcast, do something more towards paying off what he could not but describe as our appalling National Debt. On these grounds—special as well as general—he regretted that he could not see his way to take a course which would be infinitely agreeable to him—namely, that of supporting the Motion of his noble Friend.

Sir, I am extremely glad we are to have the approval and support of the noble Lord who has just sat down upon the question which is now raised; but I must say I very much agree with that which is of far greater value, the general opinions which he has given utterance to upon the question of finance. Those opinions carry me back to the Conservatism of 40 years ago, which, in regard to finance and political economy, differs from the Conservatism of to-day. As regards the question before the House, it is right to remind the House, in the first instance, of the supplemental financial plan which it has been my duty to present. I have asked the House to provide me something over £1,700,000. A surplus of £430,000 is probably the result of what the House has provided. Since I gave these figures no change has occurred, except one, which, I am sorry to say, is not a change in favour of my plan. A plan was devised by the late Government, on which I give no opinion at the present moment of praise or blame, with reference to the acquisition of an important site at Blackfriars Bridge which brings an additional charge of £160,000 upon the present year, so that the Supplemental Estimate which I put at £200,000 would, if we have to meet that charge, rise to above £350,000. That, of course, is a deduction from the surplus which I have projected. But I now look at the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex. The noble Lord commenced by saying that he would not make his Motion if he thought it could embarrass the position of the Government with reference to a contingency which already had happened, the probable assistance of the finances of India. Upon that matter, in answer to the noble Lord, I uttered a sentence or two, the effect of which was intended to be that it would embarrass the position of the Government if this Motion was carried by the House with respect to the general finances of India, inasmuch as we should then not be in the position of having a moderate surplus, but should have to face a considerable and certain deficiency. However, the noble Lord did not in any manner accept that explanation which he had invited, and in the face of the statement from the Government that the effect of the withdrawal of the penny Income Tax would embarrass and cripple us in regard to fulfilling the expectations we had held out as to the finances of India, he persevered with his Motion. Of course, he was entitled to do so; but he did it in the face of that statement. That is a matter which will, perhaps, have to be referred to when the retrospective portions of this discussion may possibly be revived. Then the noble Lord states the basis of this Bill had been swept away, inasmuch as the Supplemental Financial Estimate was proposed principally with reference to the negotiations with France on the Wine Duties. It may be important for the noble Lord, for the purpose of his Motion, to show that the basis of this Bill is swept away, if he can show it; but, undoubtedly, he must adopt some more effectual means for that purpose, because the object of this Bill was to' add to our resources a sum of £1,750,000, and the whole amount that was required with reference to the Wine Duties was £233,000. So far as that sum was concerned, it would have been amply provided by the extra cost of licences; but the Income Tax stands upon a totally different footing; and, as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock said, with truth, that the repeal of the Malt Tax depends on the acceptance of the proposed addition to the Income Tax. It must be clearly understood that those who vote for the Motion of the noble Lord will simply vote against the repeal of the Malt Tax. About that there can be practically no doubt. I do not say that the necessary money could not be borrowed, or the payment be put off to another year, or that there might not be a resort to one of those expedients which Sir Robert Peel called "financial nostrums;" but you cannot deal with this tax and pay the cost of its repeal in the present year without accepting the proposal of the Government. The noble Lord said we had only to pay the maltster in the same way as he pays you his tax. The noble Lord was somewhat dark in his observations on this point; but what he said is not the case. The maltster pays the duty within nine weeks of the duty being charged; but we are going to pay him the drawback within six weeks of its becoming due. But suppose we took this nine weeks, it would not carry us out of the difficulty, and that spectre, which affrights and alarms the noble Lord, of a sum of £1,250,000 would be at large in the present year. The noble Lord said he had got a precedent in the case of Mr. Lowe: that Mr. Lowe did not provide for the whole of the Alabama payment. The noble Lord says it is not an inherited deficiency. That is perfectly true. We did not inherit the repeal of the Malt Tax from our Predecessors; and, consequently, as we did not inherit the benefit of the repeal of the Malt Tax, so neither did we inherit the burden. It is not an inherited charge; but it is strictly a charge belonging to the year, growing out of the operations of the year, with respect to which I endeavoured to show the House, and I think the House was satisfied, that this was a special year, in which the reasons for the repeal of the Malt Tax had risen to a greater height than they had in any previous year—that it was a year for the repeal of the Malt Tax because it was a year in which the drawback would be unusually low; and, above all, because the repeal of the Malt Tax was generally, I may say universally, regarded as a measure of relief to agriculture. Now, that is the way the charge comes on the present year. The Alabama charge was for the payment of a debt which had been incurred nine or ten years before, and the incidence of which in that particular year was absolutely accidental. What did Mr. Lowe do under these circumstances? When the payment was purely accidental, and had no connection with the policy of the existing Government, Mr. Lowe came to the House of Commons, and said—"I advise you to provide £1,600,000 towards meeting this charge." And now, for a sum much less than that, which does arise from our own voluntary operation, the noble Lord with all his courage fairly turns tail, and tells us to adopt some expedient or other for the purpose of getting rid of the charge. I will not go back to that part of the speech of the noble Lord in which he said that a marked revival in trade was exactly coincident with the accession of the present Government to Office. The noble Lord is of opinion that a period when trade is not in a state of great vigour and prosperity is an improper period for the imposition of any additional Income Tax. The noble Lord here, as I am afraid on many other points, is in most direct conflict with the grand normal example of Conservative finance given by Sir Robert Peel in 1842, when the trade of the country was in a state of extreme depression—when the country presented a spectacle of distress infinitely more widespread than that which exists now. And yet at that time, when Sir Robert Peel said—"I appeal to you, the possessors of property, and I ask you to come forward in aid of trade by giving me a seven-penny Income Tax," such was the courage of the Conservative Party of that day, that by a large majority that Income Tax was voted without hesitation. But did Sir Robert Peel think he was thereby retarding or injuring trade? On the contrary, he made his proposal on the express ground that it would promote the revival of trade. What are we doing now? It is true we are asking for an additional 1 d . on the Income Tax, and I am sorry we are obliged to do it; but how will that affect the state of trade? We have a particular trade which produces a commodity of the value of about £50,000,000 a-year, and which has hitherto been practically tied up by the law to manufacture that commodity only from two materials indicated by statute; whereas henceforth it will be free to choose whatever processes it pleases, and to follow its own business in its own way. Well, that is exactly a description of the change which Sir Robert Peel had in view in 1842. It was to remove the artificial restraints imposed by the Legislature on the mode in which industries should be pursued and conducted that he proposed the Income Tax in a time of great depression; and now it is not a matter of contest but of history that he was wise in what he did, and that by the imposition of an Income Tax—aye, of 7 d .—he powerfully promoted the revival of trade. One argument of the noble Lord in reference to India and the surplus I must notice. That argument was in two pieces or morsels, and I want to draw the attention of the House to the singular manner in which the noble Lord puts forward the two portions of his argument. He finds that for the year 1880-1 on the figures which I have given, which are as daring figures as we could venture to make them, I only show a surplus of £400,000; and he actually makes it an apology for his Motion that, although it is true it destroys this surplus altogether, yet that is of no great consequence because it is such a trumpery surplus as to be of no appreciable use in meeting the difficulties of Indian finance. That is the mode in which he proceeds for the year 1880-1. But how does he proceed for the year 1880-2? Why, upon precisely opposite lines. He says that we are going to create an enormous surplus for 1881-2. How does he make it out? He shows that £800,000 has been already imposed by the late Government in the shape of the increased probate duty; that 1 d . on the Income Tax produces £1,800,000, and he might have put it somewhat higher, that £350,000 is the estimated increment from the Malt Tax, and £300,000 on the licence duties; that, consequently, £3,250,000 altogether is added by the legislation of the present year to the receipts of the Exchequer. As to the Income Tax, I need not remind him that that is only voted for a single year, and the consequence is that that £1,800,000 must be deducted from the surplus for the year 1881–2, inasmuch as it will be a matter for the House to consider whether it will renew that tax during the next Session; and unless the House gives a new judgment in its favour the tax falls entirely to the ground. Therefore, what is now proposed for next year is not a surplus of £3,250,000, but one of £1,450,000, according to the noble Lord's figures. He says it is entirely unreasonable to do that. What! with the Indian demand staring us in the face? The noble Lord objects to the surplus of £400,000 for this year, because it is so small as to be useless, and he objects to the larger surplus for next year because it is so enormous. It would, I think, be impossible, whatever amount of ingenuity the noble Lord may show—and he always shows plenty—to piece together the different parts of a financial plan with more untempered mortar than he has done to-day in his building operations. And although he has on this matter been challenged to carry his Motion to a vote, yet I doubt whether, in the face of the circumstances which have been rather vaguely referred to in connection with Indian finance, and in the face of the fact that he is aiming a mortal stab at the measure for the repeal of the Malt Tax, he will be well advised in pressing his Motion to a division.

I think, Sir, that some of the expressions used by the Prime Minister in his answer to my noble Friend require a little more careful consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of my noble Friend's position as being in some respects vague, charged him with building up a financial scheme with untempered mortar, and also twitted him with having made some observations at the opening of his remarks on the possibility of his proposal embarrassing the Government in regard to the aid they may wish to give to India, and yet with having, in the face of what the Prime Minister said, still persisted in putting this Motion before the House. Now, I desire to call the attention of the House to the fact that these charges which the right hon. Gentleman makes against my noble Friend, and against his criticisms, upon the Budget, are charges which might be well and justly retorted upon the Prime Minister himself with respect to the Budget which he has brought forward. Can any hon. Gentleman in this House understand exactly what the position of the Government really is with regard to this assistance to India? I must confess that to my mind it is the most incomprehensible position in the world. Just look at what has passed. In the first place, the Prime Minister came down one day in the month of June, and said—"I must ask for additional arrangements with regard to finance." I suppose that nobody got up on that morning with any idea that before he went to bed at night this House would be saddled with an additional 1 d . of Income Tax. But let that pass. The Prime Minister said—"It is necessary for me to make such proposals. The position of the finances of the country is not altogether satisfactory. We had only a small surplus provided for, and it has disappeared in the Supplementary Estimates which have been presented. But that," he continued, "is a small matter, and I do not rest upon it. There are, however, one or two matters to which I wish to draw serious attention. One of them is that it is necessary to make provision for the mode of dealing with the Commercial Treaty which wt are about to negotiate with France; and I ask you to give me some aid in order to carry into effect a reduction of the Wine Duties." That was the first ground which he laid, and we were told there was a reason for proceeding rapidly because of the date at which The Treaty would expire. Well, that ground, at all events, has been removed from the causes for producing this additional Budget. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say also—"Something has to be considered with regard to the claim that may be made upon us on behalf of India." He abstained then from going into particulars; but he indicated that as one of his reasons for bringing those matters before the House. Then, having done that, the right hon. Gentleman proceeded further to state what were his views on the Malt Tax, and he made the proposal with which the House is now familiar. As to this question of assistance to India, it was was undoubtedly a most important topic as thus opened to us. But the House was told very little about it at that time. Afterwards Questions were put for the purpose of eliciting information, and we were further told—"We cannot know anything at all about it for some considerable time. Until we get the accounts for which we are waiting, and have time to consider matters which require consideration, we cannot tell you even that we shall propose anything at all." So the matter stood over. Then, on a subsequent occasion, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India told us —" Undoubtedly the Government have come to the conclusion that some aid will have to be given to India;" and we might have supposed, in connection with that, that the House would have some statement before it when it came to consider the Budget for the year. But no such statement is forthcoming. Not only was no statement volunteered by the Government; but when an hon. Member who takes a great interest in the subject—the hon. Baronet the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell)—challenged the Government today, and appealed to them whether they ought to proceed further with this measure without stating what their financial arrangements for India were, the Prime Minister put him down in the most summary way, and that, too, after the disastrous intelligence which had just been received—told him that he must not mix up Indian with English finance; that what would have to be proposed for India would stand upon its own merits; that it would be a proposal which would have to be made after very careful deliberation; and he also added that, with regard to any aid which it might be thought right to afford to India, it was not to be held that any charge which might be so incurred should be viewed as a charge for the year to be provided for out of the revenue of the year. Therefore, all that we have heard on that subject points to the fact that we are not only free to consider, but are expected to consider, this Budget on its own merits, without reference to the question of aid to India. And yet from time to time, in the course of the speech which has just been delivered, India cropped up, and was presented to us, more or less vaguely, as a reason why we should hesitate to interfere with the financial arrangements for the year. Why that is done I do not clearly understand. Are we, or are we not, framing this Budget with a view to the arrangements which are contemplated for India? If we are—if India enters into the question at all—I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not according to all his own canons of finance, which he has been so freely laying down during the last few months or more, that we should be told distinctly what it is that the Government contemplate? I was taken to task severely last year for proposing, in connection with the South African expedition, a considerable sum, and yet not being able to say at the moment when I made the proposal that I could tell the House what the ultimate demand would be. I was told that we ought to have our Estimates made, and that, in bringing forward those Estimates, we should not have allowed anything to remain uncertain. But is nothing left uncertain now? I venture to say that the course now taken is of the most inconvenient character. Let us have from the Government some distinct idea of what they are going to propose for India; let them tell us how far this Budget will be affected by those proposals; or let them put the question of India entirely out of sight. I do not ask at this moment what amount they are about to advance, but only whether they are going to make any advance this year, either in the shape of a loan or otherwise? They have had time to consider this ever since 1878; they have had two years to consider it; and since they have been in Office they have been considering it more than ever. Therefore they have no right to come and say they will not tell us what their plans are, and yet that we are not free to deal with this Budget because of possible advances to India. Then there is another uncertainty in the way these proposals are brought forward. What is the object of this new Budget, because we get two different accounts of it? Is the object to produce £1,700,000, as we are sometimes told, or is it to deal with the Malt Tax? Sometimes we are told that it is to deal with the Malt Tax, and that the increase of the Income Tax is the condition of obtaining the great advantage of altering the incidence of the Malt Tax. It is perfectly competent to my right hon. Friend to say that the increase of the Income Tax is the condition—I do not say the necessary condition, but the condition—he chooses to impose upon us for the alteration of the incidence of the Malt Tax. And he says, and my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) also says—"If you reject this addition to the Income Tax, you are refusing the boon offered to the agricultural interest." If that be so, we have a right to consider—first, whether the boon offered is worth the price; and, secondly, whether that boon could not be obtained in a manner less oppressive to the people of this country. Now, I object altogether to that phrase, "boon to be obtained," because, although the arrangement may be thought by many to be a boon, it is one that you do not get for nothing—you get it at the heavy price of imposing an additional 1 d . of Income Tax. And here, I confess, I feel some delicacy, as I am in the position of an impenitent sceptic as to the benefit conferred. We are told that we are not to make malt any longer from merely two materials, but that we shall be able to make it from Cocculus Indicus , potatoes, and other things. That may be a very good thing, and the brewers may take some kind of comfort from that, just as a dog might if, when he was hungry, you were to cut off a piece of his tail and feed him with it. But I do not dispute that the feeling does prevail among a portion of the agriculturists that they are going to get a gain; and as they are in a position to be judges on the subject, I am willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that the matter will be for their benefit. But I am not at all sure that the Revenue will gain. I know we are sacrificing a very important substance. Whether the shadow will make up for the substance is a point upon which I reserve my opinion; but, in saying these things, I am aware I am expressing rather heretical opinions, and that there are many, not only on that side, but on my own side of the House, that will disagree with me. But is it necessary to pay for the change by an addition to the Income Tax? My noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) holds very decidedly that the change will be beneficial; but, he said, "I do not see why you are called upon to pay in this way for it." Then it is said that the Government will throw up their Budget if you reject the addition to the Income Tax. If they do so, they have, no doubt, the right; but, from their point of view, it would be unreasonable, because they are not going to give up any taxation, but only to alter its incidence, and they are going to get as much out of beer under the new system. ["More!"] I take it, for the sake of argument, that you will get more. If that be so, it really does seem very hard that the people of this country, the Income Tax payers, many of them not interested at all, some of them consumers, not of beer, but of cider, as many of my constituents and others are—it is hard that they should have to pay an additional 1 d . Income Tax to carry this proposal through. Undoubtedly it is in our power to make proposals to throw the burden on the next year. [ Ironical cheers .] I knew I should get ironical cheers from hon. Gentlemen; but I wish, in the most solemn and deliberate manner, to reassert what I have often said—that I disapprove altogether of the practice of putting additions to the Income Tax at times when the country is in a position of depression, in order to carry through some arrangement which, when the country is in a better position, will enable you to take off the tax. My noble Friend said you are going to add largely to the income of this year; and then the Prime Minister gets up and says, "That is only for one year; we are going to take off the tax next year." [Mr. GLADSTONE: If Parliament should think fit.] But what is the use of these operations, disturbing the country by moving the Income Tax from one point to another in an injudicious manner? Nothing is more for the interest of this country than to obtain, as far as possible, steadiness of taxation. Hon. Gentlemen twit me with spreading charges over several years. But they should remember the arrangements by which we provide for a certain amount of reduction of the Debt, independently of casual circumstances. Therefore, in one year there is a small surplus, in another there is a larger surplus; but it must be taken into account that, whether the surplus is larger or smaller, we discharge a certain amount of the Debt regularly. You may say that our system of finance is not a good one; but I say it has merits and recommendations, is independent of uncertainties, and is, I venture to assert, the best fitted to the circumstances of this country. My noble Friend will, I hope, take the sense of the House upon his proposal. He would not have done so had it been said by the Government that they had a distinct proposal to make as regards Indian finance, and that the arrangements of this Budget were necessary to that proposal. No such statement was made; and those who heard the Prime Minister, in answer to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), will remember that he disclaimed any connection between the Indian finances and the present Budget. Therefore, my noble Friend was justified in making his proposal. He makes it without any intention of interfering with the repeal of the Malt Tax; and if the House were now to exercise an independent judgment, and decline to place an additional burden on Income Tax payers of the country, it will not, in my opinion, be at all necessary that the proposals with regard to the Malt Tax should be abandoned, and if the Government chose to abandon them, on them will rest the responsibility.

said, he did not believe that the repeal of the Malt Tax would be worth a bundle of hay to the agricultural community. The new Beer Duty would cost more to collect than the Malt Tax. Malt was measured with great ease; but the difficulty of testing beer was very considerable, and would render necessary the employment of a largely increased staff of officials. Now, if the new plan was the more expensive to the country, and if the price of beer remained the same, what reason was there for supposing that the consumption of beer would increase, and that there would be a greater demand for the articles from which it was manufactured? Treating the whole subject as a malt question, he thought that the Malt Tax might very well have been removed without the imposition of 1 d . on the Income Tax. The operation, no doubt, involved the return of a certain amount of money to the malsters, and that sum could not be recoverable during the present year by means of the Beer Duty. But the arrear was not so large as to make it necessary to resort to the Income Tax, and might have been met by the issue of Exchequer Bonds, which would have been paid off in two or three years. The right hon. Gentleman was about to impose an extra tax of 1 d .; but on certain properties it would be fully 2 d ., or even more. He might put the case of a landowner with an estate of £2,000 a-year, of which sum, there being a mortgage of £1,600, he received no more than £400. In such cases, where properties were mortgaged for three-fourths of their nominal value, it would be found that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would nearly double the tax on the surplus remaining to the owner. There was an obvious injustice to which it was desirable that attention should be drawn, the tax falling on no property more unequally than on land. In former times much had been heard of graduated taxation; but in such cases as the one he had cited the heaviest tax was levied from the smallest income. What was wanted, and what he trusted they might some day obtain from his right hon. Friend, was the great boon of a properly-adjusted Income Tax.

objected to the light and airy way in which the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of the financial situation of India. ["No, no!"] He had certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman over and over again to ask the Government what their intentions were with respect to that subject, implying that the Government who had to deal with a position not of their own making, ought to make up their minds, if they had not already done so. The demand ought to have been made in more serious terms, and on an occasion when those hon. Gentlemen, whose authority was great on Indian matters, might have been present. The position of India was so grave, that he could not pass over any statement from the Front Opposition Bench that would lead the House to suppose that our past difficulties could be surmounted without future suffering. It was not a question of a million, but of tens of millions, that would get us out of the fearful mess we were in; for our whole Indian Empire was in a state of considerable financial peril.

, rising to explain, said, that the hon. Member had absolutely and entirely misapprehended him. He never spoke lightly or airily about our position in India. He merely desired that the House should have from the Government full explanation as to whether the Budget was to be considered in connection with plans for India; and, if so, that the House should be told something of those plans. God forbid that he should speak lightly or airily in reference to the present situation in that country as revealed in that day's news!

explained that he felt bound to vote with the Government for the Budget, because it repealed the duty on malt, and would prove useful to the farmers; and he had, in 1874, formed one of a minority of 17, which had supported the repeal of this duty. He did so with the more readiness, notwithstanding his sympathy with his noble Friend's arguments in favour of the Amendment, because he was sensible of the arguments which might be adduced in favour of the financial provision for the year in anticipation of the complications in India.

did not think that the proposed change would be as beneficial to the farmers as many hon. Members imagined. Hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme as if it were a measure of relief to the agricultural interest; but he had looked in the mouth of the gift-horse of the Government, and he did not find it worth receiving. The only thing the agriculturists had to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for was the permission to use malt for their stock.

thought the finance of the country had been carried on in a peculiar manner. He certainly must support the Government on the present occasion, as they were making provi- sion, and not too much provision, for circumstances of which they could have no knowledge. The credit of this country ought to be supported in the eyes of foreign countries; and we ought not to dribble away our resources, and leave ourselves unable to meet the contingencies which might arise.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 230; Noes 94: Majority 136.—(Div. List, No. 85).

And it being a quarter of an hour beford Six of the clock, the further Consideration stood adjourned till Tomorrow .

Sir, I stated, when the House met, that before the House rose I would give any additional information that might have reached me with reference to what has taken place near Candahar. As far as I have been able to ascertain—although my information, I am afraid, is not very correct—the brigade under the command of General Burrows consisted of 2,000 or 3,000 men, and was composed partly of a part of a British infantry regiment and a battery of horse artillery. I am not able to state positively what the British regiment was, but, from a previous telegram received, I think we may safely infer that it was, part of the 66th Regiment. I am unable to tell at present what the force under General Primrose is at Candahar. When weakened, as it was, by the withdrawal of the detatchment under the command of General Burrows, it would not exceed 1,700 or 2,000 men. After General Burrows's withdrawal, however, orders were given for the reinforcement of the force at Candahar by some of the troops under General Phayre's command. That operation will now have been completed, and the force at Candahar under General Primrose will probably be in excess of the number I have stated. I have received this afternoon two further telegrams, which I will now read to the House so far as they relate to what has occurred. The first is from the Viceroy, who says—

"General Burrows has teen seriously defeated by Ayoob Khan. Primrose has vacated cantonments at Candahar and retired to citadel. We are pushing forward reinforcements already on their way as quickly as possible, and sending large additional reinforcements from India. It may be necessary to anticipate despatch of troops from England intended for this season's relief."

The second telegram is from the Governor of Bombay, and is as follows:—

"5.20 p. m., 28th July, 1880.

"Clear the line. In reply to Government of India, who ask what reinforcements we can spare, this Government have undertaken to furnish in present emergency three batteries, one British cavalry regiment, half regiment native cavalry, two European infantry, six native infantry regiments, besides a battery and two battalions in Sind, not in reserve division.… General Phayre telegraphs to-day, fragments of Burrows's force are arriving at Candahar. No details yet. Ayoob's force stronger than was supposed, 12,000, and 36 guns well served. Phayre has been conversing with Primrose, but wires are now cut beyond Chuman. Phayre and Sandeman propose to abandon Nari line, unless strong reinforcements available, and concentrate resources on Bolan. This we think wise. He adds, Europeans are now coming up Bolan well. It is most fortunate that recent reinforcements were called up."

A third telegram has this moment been placed in my hands. It is in the following terms, and is, apparently, in reply to one I addressed to the Governor of Bombay and also to the Viceroy this afternoon, asking for details of the force under the command of General Burrows:—

"Governor, Bombay, 28th July, 1880.

"Clear the line. Horse Artillery, E-B; 3rd Bombay Cavalry, 3d Sind Horse, two squadrons 2nd company Sappers, 66th Queen's, six companies 1st and 30th Native Infantry. Nothing more known. Telegraph interrupted."